Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Harriet Harman showing us why any respectable British person hates Labour.... Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    You have no idea about this, do you, aside from what you read in the Daily Mail?
    I don't even regularly read the Daily Mail! I'm not going to pretend I know what it's like to be poor, that would be very arrogant of me as I never have been. But seriously, some of these people take the mic!

    "We" do nothing. Stop acting as if you're the one doing anything to help them. Sex education in this country is a joke, even in the best of schools. It does little to connect the realities of pregnancy and sex with what they teach you. That needs to be improved a ****load before it can be considered even a tiny bit effective. Free condoms, yay, everyone get those. It's hardly a preserve of the poor.
    There's nothing wrong with it. We had to put a condom on a dildo for goodness sake, if that's not practically teaching someone how to have safe sex, Idk what is! What's wrong with everyone getting free condoms? Should I somehow have to pay for the privellage of contraception, because I can? :rolleyes:

    It does not make perfect sense. You'll be removing one of their fundamental human rights, all because they were one of the unlucky multitude to be born into a poor family. It will also punish people for accidents. It'll lead to an increase in abortions or abandoned children, putting pressure both on the NHS and the Social Services and could possibly lead to gender selection, akin to China.
    One, human rights these days are ridiculous and namby pamby. I agree with the basic ones obviously, but that's another debate. Two, what human right?! The right to claim money off of the taxpayer? Punish people for accidents? If they're financially responsible and save money and finance for a rainy day, they'll be able to plan for any accidents. Abandoned children, I highly doubt. It might force more women to take the pill and more men to use condoms, or an increase in vasectomies. Why would it lead to gender selection? We don't have a culture that socially favours one gender over the other?

    People in council houses pay rent for those places. They are for people, on the whole, with jobs. Housing benefits do not cover everything, as I only too well know. They are useful, but not eternal. Do you really think anyone getting 65 quid a week can pay for rent on top of dentist appointments, prescriptions and all the rest you listed as needing done away with? Hell, the money they get each week for a child barely even covers food.
    Not everyone does. Some people get pregnant just to get a council house. Irresponsible much? Well if you got rid of those benefits, they'd have an incentive to find a job.

    All the articles in the Daily Mail about the excessive spongers have all dealt with Disability Allowances. The people getting those great houses, with ****loads of money for their children, have all managed to get Disability benefits.
    Disability allowance needs reforming too. They all do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TotalLifeForever)
    It was a counter-assertion. I think we are just ideologically opposed, so let's leave it at that. I am a liberal bordering on socialist, and you are a conservative.
    His question was still valid, why on earth should you give people more than the bare minimum who dont deserve it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    bull****
    I've read the last 5 pages and my god, you just don't really have a clue do you?

    You keep banging on about the financial situation of the country in relation to having children, but you then seem to completely disregard that and think that anyone who can speak English can get a job. Due to, you guessed it, the financial situation people with over 40 years experience in their own field of work are being made redundant. But no, you're right, people on benefits are clearly work-shy and lazy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 69Crazyfists)
    I've read the last 5 pages and my god, you just don't really have a clue do you?

    You keep banging on about the financial situation of the country in relation to having children, but you then seem to completely disregard that and think that anyone who can speak English can get a job. Due to, you guessed it, the financial situation people with over 40 years experience in their own field of work are being made redundant. But no, you're right, people on benefits are clearly work-shy and lazy.
    Don't edit quotes of mine, it's so ridiculously juvenile.

    Please, enlighten me as to where I've said everyone on benefits falls into that category?

    I was referring specifically to the lazy and the workshy. If you read several of my posts properly, you'll see I said "to enable those who really need to to be helped". Those who have worked, paid into the system, and now find themselves in an unfortunate position would fall into the category of 'those who really need it'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I don't even regularly read the Daily Mail! I'm not going to pretend I know what it's like to be poor, that would be very arrogant of me as I never have been. But seriously, some of these people take the mic
    Some, but the majority don't and you'd punish the majority for the actions of a minority.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    There's nothing wrong with it. We had to put a condom on a dildo for goodness sake, if that's not practically teaching someone how to have safe sex, Idk what is! What's wrong with everyone getting free condoms? Should I somehow have to pay for the privellage of contraception, because I can? :rolleyes:
    That was in your school and I highly doubt you're at a normal state school. There's actually a really funny joke about using props for condoms, but I shan't relate it here. My school, apparently one of the better grammar schools in NI, didn't have anything nearing that and they didn't really bring home the entire idea of safe sex, condoms, pregnancy, etc. It's looked at from a scientific point of view and to get people to understand it needs to be looked from a more human point of view.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    One, human rights these days are ridiculous and namby pamby. I agree with the basic ones obviously, but that's another debate. Two, what human right?! The right to claim money off of the taxpayer? Punish people for accidents? If they're financially responsible and save money and finance for a rainy day, they'll be able to plan for any accidents. Abandoned children, I highly doubt. It might force more women to take the pill and more men to use condoms, or an increase in vasectomies. Why would it lead to gender selection? We don't have a culture that socially favours one gender over the other?
    1) The right to do with your body as you see fit.
    1i) Also the right of the child to a life.

    2) How can anyone save for a rainy day when they're living hand to mouth?! See, it comments like that which show you really need a good kick in the ass. If you have no spare cash, you can't save for a rainy day or an accident.

    3) Not every woman can go on the pill. Men won't use condoms if they aren't taught properly. Hell, I know a lot of well educated people who refuse to use contraception. However, it is a well researched fact that contraceptive use is corrollated to class/income.

    4) You really think that a guy at the age of 14 is going to consider getting a vasectomy because some upset, selfish rich person thought it was a good idea to remove child benefits for all but the first child?

    5) Our society might not be as strictly gender-centred as China, but if you made it so that poor people only got benefits for the first child, you would begin to see a shift. It wouldn't be as pronounced as in China, but there would be gender selection. Leading to children put up for adoption, pressure on the Social Services, or pressure on the NHS due to an increase in abortions.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Not everyone does. Some people get pregnant just to get a council house. Irresponsible much? Well if you got rid of those benefits, they'd have an incentive to find a job.
    Do you actually have any proof of that statement? Daily Mail does not count. Especially as people get council houses all the time without having to get pregnant.

    Let's ignore the fact that most jobs out there pay less than the benefits, due to part time and travel costs, etc. and the fact that we are still in a downturn and even highly qualified candidates are failing to get jobs.

    You'd remove people's ability to survive, kick them out on the street and then tell them to find a job when there's precious few jobs to be had. Great idea. All because you're upset that the middle class and the upper class, who can afford to look after their children and set them up for a decent life, aren't getting help.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Disability allowance needs reforming too. They all do.
    Not as much as you think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Some, but the majority don't and you'd punish the majority for the actions of a minority.
    No, I'd tighten it to make sure this minority cannot abuse the system to the same extent.




    That was in your school and I highly doubt you're at a normal state school. There's actually a really funny joke about using props for condoms, but I shan't relate it here. My school, apparently one of the better grammar schools in NI, didn't have anything nearing that and they didn't really bring home the entire idea of safe sex, condoms, pregnancy, etc. It's looked at from a scientific point of view and to get people to understand it needs to be looked from a more human point of view.
    I've been to both state and private, and that was actually at a state school. That said, I live in a predominantly middle and upper class area, and the school is very good. When I went to private school, there wasn't much difference between the two, so I do accept that at prehaps, your "regular" state school, things may be different.



    1) The right to do with your body as you see fit.
    1i) Also the right of the child to a life.
    No, you can still have sex. You can still procreate. You just have to pay for it yourself. There is nothing wrong with that.

    The second one depends solely on whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. Also, if the couple choose to abort their pregnancy, that's up to them, we can't subsidise people so that they won't get abortions.

    2) How can anyone save for a rainy day when they're living hand to mouth?! See, it comments like that which show you really need a good kick in the ass. If you have no spare cash, you can't save for a rainy day or an accident.
    £1 here and there. It adds up. Anyone can open an ISA, anyone can purchase premium bonds.

    3) Not every woman can go on the pill. Men won't use condoms if they aren't taught properly. Hell, I know a lot of well educated people who refuse to use contraception. However, it is a well researched fact that contraceptive use is corrollated to class/income.
    Fair enough, but there's the injection, femidoms, the contraceptive implants, diaphragms, spermicidal lubricants, etc. There are lots of different types available. Why not? You just roll it on, how hard can it be? :lolwut: Why would you refuse to use it? (Unless it's on religious grounds).

    4) You really think that a guy at the age of 14 is going to consider getting a vasectomy because some upset, selfish rich person thought it was a good idea to remove child benefits for all but the first child?
    Erm, why would he be having a child at the age of 14? Having sex, maybe, but surely he'd be aware that unprotected sex = baby, no matter what the quality of his sex education? Was the selfish rich person comment aimed at me? It's hardly selfish to want people to support themselves, also, what constitutes as 'rich' is debatable.

    5) Our society might not be as strictly gender-centred as China, but if you made it so that poor people only got benefits for the first child, you would begin to see a shift. It wouldn't be as pronounced as in China, but there would be gender selection. Leading to children put up for adoption, pressure on the Social Services, or pressure on the NHS due to an increase in abortions.
    Why? I cannot see why it would be more favourable to have one gender over the other in the UK. Even looking at it from a financial point of view, one gender isn't necessarily more expensive than the other.

    Do you actually have any proof of that statement? Daily Mail does not count. Especially as people get council houses all the time without having to get pregnant.
    You probably won't count this, but several people who I have met know people who admit to doing this.

    Let's ignore the fact that most jobs out there pay less than the benefits, due to part time and travel costs, etc. and the fact that we are still in a downturn and even highly qualified candidates are failing to get jobs.
    I understand that the economic situation at the moment is certainly less than favourable. However, where I live, we always have part time jobs going. It can't be the only place in the UK where that's happening.

    You'd remove people's ability to survive, kick them out on the street and then tell them to find a job when there's precious few jobs to be had. Great idea. All because you're upset that the middle class and the upper class, who can afford to look after their children and set them up for a decent life, aren't getting help.
    No, I wouldn't kick them into the street. Merely give them the bare minimum needed to survive to encourage them to get a job. It's the principle that the middle class in particular get squeezed all the time. We always get hit! And it's so, so annoying.




    Not as much as you think.
    But you agree that it could be better, yes?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    In her defence, she's the shadow international development spokesman, and sending money home to look after poor, struggling families is charity.

    I agree its a bizarre thing for the (shadow) government to be promoting, but it's a very noble way of using legitimate welfare money they are entitled to - far better than spending it on alcohol/cigarettes etc. that many people do. You could argue they shouldn't be accepting the benefits if they didn't need them, but who can honestly say if they were entitled to free money they would turn it down?
    With charity i get a choice to send it or not. Do i get a choice how much they receive in benefits? No
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Undermining the Conservatives by any means neccesary: the Labour way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the fact the Mail are the ones making a huge deal of it says a lot
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    Frankly I can't believe that a student website is sounding so overwhelmingly Daily Mail-esque. Sort it out, guys.
    True that; I can't quite understand it either.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    So basically you're complaining that people who can look after themselves and their children, some to a high degree, aren't getting anything whilst those who struggle to provide food, heating, etc. are being helped? Obviously there are people who **** about with the system, but you're sounding incredibly selfish right here. Especially, when we consider your whining about the child benefits you lost.
    How many of those who do struggle to provide food.... etc..... have themselves to blame for not getting properly educated?


    (Original post by Hylean)
    Social mobility in the UK isn't as great as people would like to believe. It's easier for us to fall than it is for us to climb.
    Labour shouldnt have closed the grammar schools then

    We've got them here and social mobility is thriving.....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Don't edit quotes of mine, it's so ridiculously juvenile.

    Please, enlighten me as to where I've said everyone on benefits falls into that category?

    I was referring specifically to the lazy and the workshy. If you read several of my posts properly, you'll see I said "to enable those who really need to to be helped". Those who have worked, paid into the system, and now find themselves in an unfortunate position would fall into the category of 'those who really need it'.
    I hadn't got a specific quote to use because frankly I have beef with pretty much all of them. Would you please enlighten me as to where I've said everyone on benefits. I didn't. You did rather imply that the majority of those on benefits are just too lazy to get a job. I believe you said we have a generation of people riding the dole, or words to that effect.
    And now you're just making things up. I read all your posts and you never really distinguish between those who need help and those who don't.

    Never thought I would find myself this annoyed at a 16 year old girl...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    No, I'd tighten it to make sure this minority cannot abuse the system to the same extent.
    How would you tighten it, though, that leaves the majority free from being pinched? They're already heavily pinched as it is.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I've been to both state and private, and that was actually at a state school. That said, I live in a predominantly middle and upper class area, and the school is very good. When I went to private school, there wasn't much difference between the two, so I do accept that at prehaps, your "regular" state school, things may be different.
    I can see you can read. I mentioned I went to a "grammar school", which at the time I was a student, was a proper grammar, not like the type you have in England. Northern Ireland only got rid of the grammar school system a few years ago. My school's now private, sadly.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    No, you can still have sex. You can still procreate. You just have to pay for it yourself. There is nothing wrong with that.
    Yes. You're removing their ability to provide for the child if they don't have the funds, thus they can't procreate. If they do, they can't feed anyone and everyone suffers.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    The second one depends solely on whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. Also, if the couple choose to abort their pregnancy, that's up to them, we can't subsidise people so that they won't get abortions.
    I was actually talking about the child after birth. You know, poor parents with two kids, but only funding for one. Not enough money going round for all four, even when they pinch every last penny. That's when babies get abandoned in orphanages.

    That would lead to increase on Social Services, who are already suffering from lack of funding, giving the child an even worse chance in life.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    £1 here and there. It adds up. Anyone can open an ISA, anyone can purchase premium bonds.
    Right... You're ignoring the fact that most people on JSA can't afford to save that kind of money. They've got to pay the heating and electricity bills, buy food, etc. In fact, it only tends to work out okay if you're single. The amount needed to look after a baby properly all the way to adulthood is not going to be found by the people in such situations. They don't have it spare.

    I do agree that they probably shouldn't have kids when they can't afford it. However, once it's in this world, it has to be kept alive somehow. Either through Social Services and the NHS or through Child benefits. The slack has to be taken up somewhere.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Fair enough, but there's the injection, femidoms, the contraceptive implants, diaphragms, spermicidal lubricants, etc. There are lots of different types available. Why not? You just roll it on, how hard can it be? :lolwut: Why would you refuse to use it? (Unless it's on religious grounds).
    A lot of men, and women, dislike condoms because it reduces intimacy and the pleasure. As I said, sex ed isn't as good as you think. Research suggests that condom use is falling in the UK at the moment. This is why universities end up spending so much money on STI ad campaigns.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Erm, why would he be having a child at the age of 14? Having sex, maybe, but surely he'd be aware that unprotected sex = baby, no matter what the quality of his sex education? Was the selfish rich person comment aimed at me? It's hardly selfish to want people to support themselves, also, what constitutes as 'rich' is debatable.
    Didn't you see that article about the 10 year old father right there in Britain? As I said above, condom use is dropping at the moment, especially in England, which has a high teen pregnancy rate.

    The rich comment was aimed at people, such as yourself, who come up with these new strategies without thinking of the consequences. Mostly this comes along with a comment about how their taxes shouldn't be used to bolster somebody else, how they don't pay taxes for this, etc. That is exactly what taxes are for, aside from running the country. It's just being selfish and wanting to keep the money for yourselves, which is understandable, to a point. How the middle classes are always feeling the pinch the hardest, which is, admittedly, usually true, but that always happens to people in the middle. Would you swap your position in life for a poor person's? No, then don't complain.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Why? I cannot see why it would be more favourable to have one gender over the other in the UK. Even looking at it from a financial point of view, one gender isn't necessarily more expensive than the other.
    Men are obsessed with their legacy and generally wish to see their family name carry on, which involves having sons. There was a thread a while back on whether guys would change their name to their wife's if they got married, "no" won resoundingly, last time I checked.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    You probably won't count this, but several people who I have met know people who admit to doing this.
    I'm sure people have done it. Again, you're taking it out on the majority.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I understand that the economic situation at the moment is certainly less than favourable. However, where I live, we always have part time jobs going. It can't be the only place in the UK where that's happening.
    Part time jobs pay **** all, especially once you factor in tax and travel expenditure. Add to that if they work over 16 hours they lose JSA and a large chunk of their housing benefit, if not all of, taking a part-time job is far worse than being on the dole.

    When I was on the dole, I wouldn't apply for any job under 40 hours a week cause that was the only way I'd actually break even.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    No, I wouldn't kick them into the street. Merely give them the bare minimum needed to survive to encourage them to get a job. It's the principle that the middle class in particular get squeezed all the time. We always get hit! And it's so, so annoying.
    They're already on the bare minimum. What is less than 65 quid a week? Or who is just breaking even, but has no money for holidays or treats or anything that even pinched middle class people can afford.

    Of course you get hit, you're in the middle, but stop complaining unless you want to swap places with the poor people.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    But you agree that it could be better, yes?
    Only the criteria in regards to Disability allowance. However, that's exceptionally hard to pin down as it's so fluid.




    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    How many of those who do struggle to provide food.... etc..... have themselves to blame for not getting properly educated?
    Who knows. Quite a few, I would expect, but at the moment not as many as you would think.


    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Labour shouldnt have closed the grammar schools then

    We've got them here and social mobility is thriving.....
    There are no grammar schools in the UK anymore, not true grammar schools. Where are you from?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    With charity i get a choice to send it or not. Do i get a choice how much they receive in benefits? No
    I didn't say charity from you, it's charity from the person sending it home to their family.

    It really doesn't matter whether you have a say in how much they get, they get just the same as everyone else but spend it on their family instead of themselves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    There are no grammar schools in the UK anymore, not true grammar schools. Where are you from?
    Yes there are, there's 164!

    Im from Kent- we've got ~41 of the Grammar schools and any bright pupil, regardless of class or parent's income can get a top education.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Yes there are, there's 164!

    Im from Kent- we've got ~41 of the Grammar schools and any bright pupil, regardless of class and parent's income can get a top education.
    Hm, so there are. Well done, Kent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    It really doesn't matter whether you have a say in how much they get, they get just the same as everyone else but spend it on their family instead of themselves.
    The point is THEY receive benefit money because THEY need it, not their relatives.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    The point is THEY receive benefit money because THEY need it, not their relatives.
    No, everyone with the same financial/employment etc. status gets equal benefits. They don't get any excess taken back from them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some of the people on this thread make me feel sick.

    I am in reciept of benefits, I have three children. I am studying full time (in the final year of my degree) and have been for 5 years. Next year I shall be completing the English PGCE so I can teach. Do I deserve benefits in your eyes then?

    People on benefits aren't all workshy losers you know? Yes there are some but they are in a massive minority, but as always the minority give the rest a bad name.

    Most people on this thread have a lot of growing up to do and you need to do it quickly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh and if I had family living abroad in poverty and me buying 50p shampoo and not eating cheese for a month would allow me to send them £20 then I would do it!!

    Judge away.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.