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

Why doesn't Labour use money from people on benefits to fund the armed forces? Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanoi)
    The UK is trying to be a military equivalent to US even though it no longer isn't. The UK can no longer project it's military power aboard like the US can, neither can they afford it.
    We can and we do, thats what our blue water navy is for.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comp_Genius)
    When I say benefits, I mean disability or housing
    So people with downs syndrome should beg in the gutter?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xmarilynx)
    I'm not overly keen on my taxes being spent on either tbh. Health or education, please.
    This country would be truly great if only we could choose how our tax-paid money was spent...
    Sadly, that's not the case.

    PS. I'd pick the same. If uni was free for all that would be awesome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    Don't use the word "immigrants" trying to tar every one with the same brush.
    immigrants are made of all sort of races and culture,,and can not be generalized.
    (Original post by Lé Nash)
    is your brain in gear oddball?

    illegal immigrants dont get benefits.
    because theyre illegal immigrants
    I'm not tarring anyone; I have a mate serving alongside me who is muslim (and not born in the UK), proud to be doing a lot more for this, his, country than half of you ignorant self-absorbed Britons. Instead you're happy to watch about it on TV. As I said, I'm not racist and am not tarring everyone atall; I'm tarring this country's system - and the people (of which are posting on here) who help by supporting it.

    Oddball? Granted I've had more than my fair's share of beer tonight, but I'd say I'm still pretty much "with it"; and when I read what I've said in the morn, I'm sure I won't have made too much of a fool of myself. Is my brain in gear, however? Well I'm sitting on a 1st in a decent subject from a better uni, so yeah, I'd say so.

    :top:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    I'll bet you there aren't. There isn't any places for people with such attitudes: there are very strict Rules of Engagement (RoE cards, held by every soldier "on the frontline" ), and every is accountable. I know plenty of people who joined to hopefully do good, and serve their country - I don't know a single person who wants to "shoot and kill people."

    :top:
    True. I am sure most do - but in another thread, someone posted that a few wanted to 'shoot a few pakis', and this person didn't want to remind them that they are more likely to shoot 'afghans' instead. But I agree, I thinks this is probably like 1 in a million.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hafsaay)
    This country would be truly great if only we could choose how our tax-paid money was spent...
    Sadly, that's not the case.
    Yeah thats kinda why people vote. If a majority didn't want the welfare state it wouldn't be here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Make the people on benifits go to war OP. Two birds with one stone...*sarcasm*

    I would, as others have said, rather have my taxes fund people on benefits then on a war. A small minority of people who accept benefits are what you call 'scroungers'. Most however are single mothers, have disabilitys or are incapable of work. Yes some choose to abuse the system and thats why the government hunt them down.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hafsaay)
    PS. I'd pick the same. If uni was free for all that would be awesome.
    So you'd pick the ones that benefit you? Interesting choice!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    Yet there are a proportion who spend it on garbage, and they are the ones in question. Keep up, love.



    Source?



    An extensive string of lazy adjectives, which are suited to the playground certainly will not offend me. I suggest you take off your rose-tinted glasses and enter the real world, you're clearly drowning within a sea of socialist drivel.

    Its ironic you would suggest I am immature by being so angry I struggle to present my argument as eloquently as I might, when it is absurd that an intelligent adult could hold such prejudice views.

    Yes there are a proportion who submit fraudulent benefit claims, but the proposal that this money be spent on defence is absurd, illogical and impractical. Secondly, I take offence at the fact that you suggest generalising the most disadvantaged in society as criminals, as a means of fraud prevention.

    Finally, please don't tell me to 'enter the real world' and 'take off my rose-tinted glasses' without having any knowledge of my life. I'm on the minimum wage, I went to a state school and worked hard to get 4 A's and a distinction at A-level as well as a place at one of the top universities in the country.
    Offline

    0
    id rather money was spent on a tribute to mj but we didnt even get that
    BROWN OUT
    TOFFS WHO HATE SCOUNGERS IN
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    Oddball? Granted I've had more than my fair's share of beer tonight, but I'd say I'm still pretty much "with it"; and when I read what I've said in the morn, I'm sure I won't have made too much of a fool of myself. Is my brain in gear, however? Well I'm sitting on a 1st in a decent subject from a better uni, so yeah, I'd say so.

    :top:
    :top:

    so do you think illegal immigrants get benefits then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    No actually, i stated many times that the UK faces no EXTERNAL threats, with the obvious implication that it DOES face INTERNAL ones. Infact i explicitly stated this point a few posts back.

    And no, i never suggested disbanding the military. I just don't think the British ISLES needs a military for its usual role, defence against an aggressive neighbour. It needs it for peacekeeping sure. I even said that previously.
    And where do these INTERNAL threats trace back to? EXTERNAL ONES! Yet these people will continue to have the facility to provide this threat, so long as we're proving them with a roof over their head! I can't keep up with this thread, I'm being quote 6 times in 3 minutes, I'm not exactly superman here.

    You said we don't need an army other than for NI, an airforce or a navy - I'm pretty sure, without putting words in your mouth that that'd be us disbanding our armed forces. In order to DEFEND our country and it's commitments we require our forces to have a capability of attacking. I'm not sure what you're aiming at here: we don't require a military for our USUAL role, but we require one enough not to have it disbanded? So our forces aren't fulfilling their "usual" role? By defending our country and it's allies commitments, iaw. NATO?

    :top:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comp_Genius)
    True. I am sure most do - but in another thread, someone posted that a few wanted to 'shoot a few pakis', and this person didn't want to remind them that they are more likely to shoot 'afghans' instead. But I agree, I thinks this is probably like 1 in a million.
    I'm pretty sure I gave the person who said that the exact same reply I've just given you: someone who wishes to "shoot pakis" wouldn't have made it past the careers office.

    I apologise for being slightly blunt, but I'm in the armed forces, I work with people in the armed forces: I have a pretty good idea of what people in the armed forces are like, and I know that they're happier to go out to Africa to give poor kids food than "shoot pakis."

    :top:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heyjude)
    Finally, please don't tell me to 'enter the real world' and 'take off my rose-tinted glasses' without having any knowledge of my life. I'm on the minimum wage, I went to a state school and worked hard to get 4 A's and a distinction at A-level as well as a place at one of the top universities in the country.
    Your distinctly unimpressive, anecdotal academic qualifications and bland sob story really does not provide any further grounding to your hysterical arguments. Such arrogance really has no place on a forum where a vast proportion of its users achieve AAA. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    And where do these INTERNAL threats trace back to? EXTERNAL ONES! Yet these people will continue to have the facility to provide this threat, so long as we're proving them with a roof over their head! I can't keep up with this thread, I'm being quote 6 times in 3 minutes, I'm not exactly superman here.

    You said we don't need an army other than for NI, an airforce or a navy - I'm pretty sure, without putting words in your mouth that that'd be us disbanding our armed forces. In order to DEFEND our country and it's commitments we require our forces to have a capability of attacking. I'm not sure what you're aiming at here: we don't require a military for our USUAL role, but we require one enough not to have it disbanded? So our forces aren't fulfilling their "usual" role? By defending our country and it's allies commitments, iaw. NATO?

    :top:
    Uhh, the internal threats? If you're talking about radical islam, that is a result of miseducation.

    My point was that the british isles doesn't need much to defend it. I even specifically said when it came to interests and territories then yes, Britain needed its forces to defend its overseas posessions and interests (such as kuwaiti oil or falklands oil).

    But Britain faces no threat from the world. No single country, barring idiot table thumpers with no actual capability like the iranian PM, would be iwlling to attack the BRITISH ISLES.

    Now, the EU as a WHOLE would obviously need armed forces (NATO), but the British Isles, in reference to the idiot MrJolly1902's posts (he was suggesting that something like Germnany attacking the UK could happen again :rolleyes: ) doesn't need them except for peacekeeping duties.

    Now, if you're suggesting that EXTERNAL threats are an issue like AFghanistan, they're the result of meddling by foreign nations (the UK included), so it's a bit of a chicken coming home to roost.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    Are people incapable of reading?

    My first post clearly targets this initiative (benefits being a colloquialism for JSA) towards those who:

    - Have been it for years.
    - Spend it on rubbish.

    No, not ALL people on benefits are like this, but I think a significant proportion are.
    Please suggest a method whereby the government can distinguish between the scroungers and the people who are fairly on benefits?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lé Nash)
    :top:

    so do you think illegal immigrants get benefits then?
    They get treated fairer than they treat those serving our country. Some may well come to this country to better themselves, I know some of those exact people, but it's thanks to the people who support them (are scared of saying anything against them in our PC Britain more like) that they're able to do what they do (those not "bettering themselves").

    This has sidetracked to immigrtion; my original point was about our forces being under-staffed (cuts right left and centre) and ill-equipped (boots falling apart with no replacements). Yet there are people who are blatantly robbing the system - somehow some of you manage to be oblivious to this.

    :top:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markwaza)
    Please suggest a method whereby the government can distinguish between the scroungers and the people who are fairly on benefits?
    Labour has vast experience with excessive bureaucracy, I am sure they will find a way.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    You like Purnell's work then?
    Is this what he proposed? The refusal of benefits to claimants who decline job offers was from 'Yes Prime Minister' .

    (Original post by Renner)
    Hong Kong was British up until 1997, then the lease ran out and it went back to the PRC (Hong Kong never got a say in the matter, they wanted to stay). So anybody born before ’97 (I think) can claim British nationality
    It wasn't any of them - it was something like 30,000 families or something. I was fortunately one of them. Everyone should have been eligible though. Everyone could get a BN(O), but it's not a full British passport:
    "Lord Goldsmith discussed the BN(O) issue in his Citizenship Review in 2008[4]. He admitted the BN(O) status is an "anomalous" in the history of British Nationality Law."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comp_Genius)
    I don't read the daily mail but:
    1) young single parents - it's their decision to have children early in life. They should have planned their live better. Their family should be supporting them, not the state. Why should my tax go to someone who think they can have babies when they're 14 and then claim benefits for the next 10 years?

    2) Pension. When I say benefits, I mean disability or housing, or unemployment. Pension shouldn't really be classed as benefits (even if they are).

    So you want to punish the unborn child for the mistakes of their parents?

    If we had a private health care system such as in America and you were paralysed in a car accident and couldn't afford surgery, how would you feel if the government said "Well, you should have paid more attention to the road...Bye!"
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.