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 69Crazyfists)
    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...
    Actually, I did distinguish between the two. The reason I'm going on about the workshy is because it enrages me that my parents support them. I see them sometimes. You know who I mean...chavs...common people. :/ Shouting profanities in the street, allowing their children to behave like absolute terrors, acting vile to everyone, having that attitude. They usually have a certain look about them too, and they smell (I'm being serious, when you walk past them, they smell 'stale'). Sorry if that sounds snobby or whatever, but it's actually true. I'm not saying it's everyone, but when I see people like that (even if they're not on benefits, they're still ridiculously annoying) it makes me physically ill. What is wrong with them?!

    Yes, I did say we had a generation of dole riders, which is true. Again, not everyone.

    Why are you annoyed? It's my opinion, I am entitled to it, just as you're entitled to disagree with me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    How would you tighten it, though, that leaves the majority free from being pinched? They're already heavily pinched as it is.
    I'd remove some of the 'freebies' the people on JSA get, so that it would actually pay to work, if that makes sense. I support capping the benefits like DC and GO have done. I'd make people more aware of adult training schemes. I'd make sure JSA was only for those who had paid into the system...meaning you couldn't leave school and claim it like some idiots do.




    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.
    I didn't personally mean yours, you said "I doubt you went to a regular state school", so I was referring to that concept. Actually, I'd support there being more grammar schools, I think the UK should have kept them. There are private grammar schools, and you can get scholarships. When I went to private (not grammar but still) there were poor people there.



    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.
    That's how it is though. If my parents suddenly had triplets, and were struggling, no one would help us because of our income levels. It should be the same for poor people.


    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.
    Well, then they work and get a job, or a promotion, and raise more finds.

    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.
    I don't think people would just give up their children tbh.



    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.
    There's not going to be £1? Maybe not all the time, but some months there may be. People need to take responsibility for their own finances.

    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.
    Or through the parents learning to be self sufficient financially.



    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.
    Well there are plenty of other methods, providing they want it for contraception purposes only. Why does the responsibility lie with schools, what about the parents? My mother taught me about this sort of stuff when I was about 9, but maybe I'm in the minority.



    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.
    Yeah, that was disgusting tbh.

    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.
    That point is debatable and can depend on what ideology you believe in. Personally, I think any taxation over the bare minimum is legalised theft. Think of welfare (benefits, NHS, public services) as like a timeshare based thing. If you pay into it, you can use it. So if you work for 20 years and suddenly find yourself redundant, claim benefits. If you pay your taxes and your child gets ill, use the NHS. You pay for it, so you can use it. What I object to is people who have never paid for it using it. A way we could reduce the amount of taxation would be to charge people more for public services and healthcare if they'd lived here for under two years (similar to what they do in Greece). That's perfectly fair, and it also stops the problem of people coming here solely for the welfare system.

    It's just being selfish and wanting to keep the money for yourselves, which is understandable, to a point.
    Why? We've worked for it.

    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.
    Of course I wouldn't, I enjoy my lifestyle. And yes, I know it happens, but that doesn't make it any less irritating. The uni fees is a prime example. They're trying to push through the poor can get up to two years paid for. So, £9000 for three years...the same as it is now. So prices have only risen for the middle and upper classes.



    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.
    And a girl can't keep her own name? Personally, I plan to double barrel mine (unless it sounds stupid with his name lol ). That's because it's traditional to change the girls. I've never heard men obsessed with having sons to be honest, but I see what you mean about legacy, as I'm an only child and my father was very pleased when I said I'd keep my surname. I don't think it's extreme enough to cause gender selection though.



    I'm sure people have done it. Again, you're taking it out on the majority.
    It probably isn't, but it's a significant number.



    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.
    Which is why I suggest removing some of the freebies, so it pays to work. Another system I'd agree with is making the unemployed do community service work. We always have litter on our streets, grass that needs cutting, trees that need pruning, etc.

    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.
    I can understand why, and that's a fault of the system.



    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.
    That's only JSA, they may be on other benefits along with that. I'm sure they do go on holiday sometimes, even if it's only in the UK or something.

    Of course you get hit, you're in the middle, but stop complaining unless you want to swap places with the poor people.
    It's not fair that we get hit though.



    Only the criteria in regards to Disability allowance. However, that's exceptionally hard to pin down as it's so fluid.
    I agree, but it should be looked at.






    Who knows. Quite a few, I would expect, but at the moment not as many as you would think.
    A significant number though, wasting the money of the taxpayer.



    There are no grammar schools in the UK anymore, not true grammar schools. Where are you from?
    That's quite sad actually. A small rural town, literally on the border between the south and the midlands lol. It's quite nice.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I t doesn't say which type of benefit, I I highly doubt it's going to be something like JSA when that barely covers living expenses now, let alone enough to send home. I take a bet that this isn't anything near what the DM are saying it is, in fact, I take a bet that these people are working, and benefit is something like child tax credit or top up benefit. People choose to give their money to foreign aid through charity - I mean look at how much people donated to Haiti cause, earthquakes and tsunamis also cause people t put their hands in their pockets and give a good sum to foreign aid - there is really no difference here. In fact, yes, there is a difference. The people sending abroad to families are doing it because they actually care about this cause and are actually genuanly concerned for their welfare, upbringing and life. We send money to overseas because we feel it's what we should be doing or to make us look good and feel better about ourselves.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's the DM. Enough said.

    (Original post by .Ali.)
    That's how it is though. If my parents suddenly had triplets, and were struggling, no one would help us because of our income levels. It should be the same for poor people.
    And what about people who did have a good income, had kids, but then have been made redundent during the recession (or because of the current government cuts). You can't really blame the parents there.

    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Of course I wouldn't, I enjoy my lifestyle. And yes, I know it happens, but that doesn't make it any less irritating. The uni fees is a prime example. They're trying to push through the poor can get up to two years paid for. So, £9000 for three years...the same as it is now. So prices have only risen for the middle and upper classes.
    Wrong. The only people who will get one or two years fee are those who are get free school meals. Ie the poorest of the poor pretty much. Normaly working class families will still be hit hard by the fee increases.

    (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
    Oh come on. The number of people who do that is nothing compared to the number of people who actually need the benefits. You can't punish everyone on benefits just because a tiny number of people abuse the system. Surely the better idea is to simply go after those who do abuse it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Actually, I did distinguish between the two. The reason I'm going on about the workshy is because it enrages me that my parents support them. I see them sometimes. You know who I mean...chavs...common people. :/ Shouting profanities in the street, allowing their children to behave like absolute terrors, acting vile to everyone, having that attitude. They usually have a certain look about them too, and they smell (I'm being serious, when you walk past them, they smell 'stale'). Sorry if that sounds snobby or whatever, but it's actually true. I'm not saying it's everyone, but when I see people like that (even if they're not on benefits, they're still ridiculously annoying) it makes me physically ill. What is wrong with them?!

    Yes, I did say we had a generation of dole riders, which is true. Again, not everyone.

    Why are you annoyed? It's my opinion, I am entitled to it, just as you're entitled to disagree with me.
    It's not your opinions that annoy me, it's the smarmy, self-righteous way you express them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    It's the DM. Enough said.



    And what about people who did have a good income, had kids, but then have been made redundent during the recession (or because of the current government cuts). You can't really blame the parents there.
    In either that post or the one before, I said that it should only be for those who've paid into it. Therefore, those people would have been paying into the system, and therefore have a right to use it.



    Wrong. The only people who will get one or two years fee are those who are get free school meals. Ie the poorest of the poor pretty much. Normaly working class families will still be hit hard by the fee increases.
    Not really, because they'll get grants and support. What will I get? A student loan. Yes my parents will assist me, but that's not the point. My education shouldn't cost more (unless I'm going to a better uni, thus paying more for the privillage, kind of like private school) just because of my family's income.


    Oh come on. The number of people who do that is nothing compared to the number of people who actually need the benefits. You can't punish everyone on benefits just because a tiny number of people abuse the system. Surely the better idea is to simply go after those who do abuse it?
    It's still a significant number. Yes, we should 'hunt down', for lack of a better word, the ones who abuse it, but we also need people to be self sufficient.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 69Crazyfists)
    It's not your opinions that annoy me, it's the smarmy, self-righteous way you express them.
    I haven't been particularly self-righteous. Trust me, I could express them in a far more insensitive, 'self-righteous' way if I wanted to. I'm doing my best to try to say it in the least offensive way possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I haven't been particularly self-righteous. Trust me, I could express them in a far more insensitive, 'self-righteous' way if I wanted to. I'm doing my best to try to say it in the least offensive way possible.
    Look, it doesn't matter how you feel you come across. The fact is you do appear that way, so bad news for you.
    I suppose you probably think that the reason almost every time you post on the site you end up in an argument is because your a Tory. Well, I think it's probably a little bit more than that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 69Crazyfists)
    Look, it doesn't matter how you feel you come across. The fact is you do appear that way, so bad news for you.
    I suppose you probably think that the reason almost every time you post on the site you end up in an argument is because your a Tory. Well, I think it's probably a little bit more than that.
    Oh no, did I inadvertantly offend someone?! On the internet?! :eek:

    Lol well this site is very left-leaning so it doesn't help that I'm a Tory, especially as I'm towards the right of the party. The arguments on here are just about differing views, and they sometimes get a bit personal. It's okay though, I love the bant.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    i ****ing swear this government is the most incompetent in the history of the ****ing world. everyone seems to be under the illusion that we are rich and always will be rich and the world is a safe and stable place. it's ****ing not and we must look after ourselves if any of us is to survive. we need to protect british interests on this planet (and i don't mean the white people of this country - i mean this country we are all a part of). if you think any different you are deluding yourself, or just plan retarded.
    Its disgusting, people on benefits should only be able to spend their money in Britain on drink, drugs and gambling
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear, when I first read the headline I though Harman was joking.

    Does the woman not realise that we should be looking after the UK, not paying illegal immigrants and "asylum shoppers" so much that they can send money home.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    In either that post or the one before, I said that it should only be for those who've paid into it. Therefore, those people would have been paying into the system, and therefore have a right to use it.
    Well at least we agree on one thing
    Although it still leaves the problem of people who don't plan on having children. After all, accidents do happen and no contraception is 100% effective. If that happens, and the choice is to help the family with benefits, or to give the child away, then I will always support helping the family (of course, getting pregnant on purpose is a different matter).

    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Not really, because they'll get grants and support. What will I get? A student loan. Yes my parents will assist me, but that's not the point. My education shouldn't cost more (unless I'm going to a better uni, thus paying more for the privillage, kind of like private school) just because of my family's income.
    But thats the same for a lot of "normal" families. Don't kid yourself into thinking its just you (and people like you) that suffer. Because I am welsh, studying at an English uni, I get £1000 less a year in loans / grants than what I would get if I was an English student studying in the same place.

    And as you said, your family will support you. Families on lower incomes cannot afford to support their kid at uni. I did say it somewhere else on TSR, I do think its a bit unfair that students from a richer background don't get enough support from the SLC, but it is fair that poorer kids get access to more money.

    I think the best solution would be that anyone can get access to the full student loan (enough to actually live), but poorer students could apply to get a grant on top. Whatever way you do it isn't going to be perfect however.

    (Original post by .Ali.)
    It's still a significant number. Yes, we should 'hunt down', for lack of a better word, the ones who abuse it, but we also need people to be self sufficient.
    But if you can't get a job (because there is shortage of jobs out there right now) or if you are on a very low income, then you can't be self sufficient. As I said, you can't punish all benefit claiments because a very small minority abuse the system. If you do that, then we will see real poverty (people literally starving to death) back in Britain. I do however agree with the mentality behind what you are saying (that being in work should pay better than being on benefits), but I disagree with how you suggest we tackle the problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Well at least we agree on one thing
    Although it still leaves the problem of people who don't plan on having children. After all, accidents do happen and no contraception is 100% effective. If that happens, and the choice is to help the family with benefits, or to give the child away, then I will always support helping the family (of course, getting pregnant on purpose is a different matter).
    Yes but the point is, they should financially plan for unexpected happenings. I mean, they could end up getting pregnant, they could lose their job (if they have one), a parent could become sick and they need time off to help care for them, etc. There are a multitude of situations where people would be much better had they financially planned for these eventualities.



    But thats the same for a lot of "normal" families. Don't kid yourself into thinking its just you (and people like you) that suffer. Because I am welsh, studying at an English uni, I get £1000 less a year in loans / grants than what I would get if I was an English student studying in the same place.
    That seems a bit unfair you get less money! I know it's not just the middle, but it IS annoying, as we get taxed to high heaven but have to pay the most. It seems we pay for the system, but we don't use it.


    And as you said, your family will support you. Families on lower incomes cannot afford to support their kid at uni. I did say it somewhere else on TSR, I do think its a bit unfair that students from a richer background don't get enough support from the SLC, but it is fair that poorer kids get access to more money.

    I think the best solution would be that anyone can get access to the full student loan (enough to actually live), but poorer students could apply to get a grant on top. Whatever way you do it isn't going to be perfect however.
    That would actually be a good system for unis.


    But if you can't get a job (because there is shortage of jobs out there right now) or if you are on a very low income, then you can't be self sufficient. As I said, you can't punish all benefit claiments because a very small minority abuse the system. If you do that, then we will see real poverty (people literally starving to death) back in Britain. I do however agree with the mentality behind what you are saying (that being in work should pay better than being on benefits), but I disagree with how you suggest we tackle the problem.
    At least we agree on principle! I'm not suggesting we allow people to die, but charities are much more suited to giving them extra support than the government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Its disgusting, people on benefits should only be able to spend their money in Britain on drink, drugs and gambling
    no, they should be given tokens to redeem rationed items to feed their family and pay their bills. encouraging drink and drugs is wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can sum it all up in one sentence. She was misquoted.

    Not really a surprise really seeing as it was the Daily Mail, I do wish they'd make more of an effort really, it really is pathetic that they have to put words in peoples mouths. All Harman was talking about was people who had 'worked hard' sending money home to support families. Are people suggesting they should be banned from trying to help their relatives who have much greater need?

    LFF covered it here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Would you rather vote for this man?

    "There were quite a lot of people who were hell bent on violence and destroying property." David Cameron

    "Things got out of hand and we'd had a few drinks. We smashed the place up and Boris set fire to toilets" David Cameron
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I see them sometimes. You know who I mean...chavs...common people. :/ Shouting profanities in the street, allowing their children to behave like absolute terrors, acting vile to everyone, having that attitude. They usually have a certain look about them too, and they smell (I'm being serious, when you walk past them, they smell 'stale').
    I was trying to be polite before but this is literally the worst thing. This is the most stereotypical, rude, ignorant thing I have ever read. You are basically saying that all 'common' people who live on benefits stink, which just makes me angry.

    I hope one day you lose your wealth and have to try to survive on the measly amount of money people get a week from benefits, then we'll see what you have to say about all the 'common' people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    They shouldnt be having babies if they can't feed them!
    Agreed. I don't get why this simple piece of common sense is seen as barbaric by the Loony Left
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Throw her in an asylum along with the rest of the vermin.A bunch of red diper doper baby insane leftist traitors who hate this country and the people in it. Apart from those who benefit them of course.If I was prime minister I would sort people like her out in 24 hrs. and the country would be a better place.

    And the tory party is little better with buffoons like ken clarke inserting his own brand of liberal insanity regarding prisons. If cameron really cared about this country,he would get rid of people like him ,but he won't.

    The day the future heir of the throne got attacked by thugs,and no one took firm action represented a new low for this country. The fact they were not shot on sight or arrested and then put against a wall and shot, is a disgrace. All round the world they are laughing at what a third world toilet britain has become.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CWallace91)
    I can sum it all up in one sentence. She was misquoted.

    Not really a surprise really seeing as it was the Daily Mail, I do wish they'd make more of an effort really, it really is pathetic that they have to put words in peoples mouths. All Harman was talking about was people who had 'worked hard' sending money home to support families. Are people suggesting they should be banned from trying to help their relatives who have much greater need?

    LFF covered it here.
    Yes they should all be thrown out, I don't care if she was misquoted or not,she has form for this kind of insanity,she has no business having any form of political office. End of discussion.
 
 
 
  • 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.