Wealthy UK politician reckons he can survive on £53 a week.

reply to post by Freeborn


I was amazed to learn that animal Philpott had attempted to murder an ex-girlfriend back in the 70's, sneaking into her room as she slept and stabbing her 27 times because she left him.

The media are taking every opportunity to show the world that this sadistic murderer claimed benefits, as if that's the root cause of his crimes. Revelations about his past reveal that this monster should have never been part of society in the first place...and the ultimate consequences of his release was the murder of his own 6 children.

You're bang and and thanks for pointing this out. What Mr Osborne is really saying is that all benefits claimants are potential Mick Philpotts, well I've clamed benefits in the past and I'm more than a little insulted at this underhanded insinuation.

People who claim benefits being associated with a murderer. Mick Philpott is ill in the head, they've known he was ill in the head since the late 70's.

Not being flippant, but you know what? I'd rather people like him either in jail, or on benefits. Because I don't want to have to work with people like him.

reply to post by samerulesapply

even the government states that £130 .00 per week is the poverty level , so i do not understand where they get this £53.00 per week from because the system will increase your payments to include rent , heating , council tax .

reply to post by samerulesapply


i totally agree with you ...but on the flip side it also brought to light how much money they were getting from the tax payer ..over £68k a year ...a guy making £100k a year wouldn't come out with that much after tax....

making 100k a year puts you in the 2% in the UK ...that cant be right can it ???

we are in a breed for cash culture ...i know this as i witness it everyday

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by samerulesapply


I think The Independant columnist Owen Jones best sums it up in the article;

"The idea he is representative of people on benefits is as absurd as suggesting Harold Shipman is representative of doctors.

reply to post by tom.farnhill


It's amusing that they will pay peoples rent and council tax only to then tax them for having an additional spare bedroom.

I've received benefits in the past and was never, ever...given £130.000 a week. The most I ever got was jobseekers allowace (JSA) of £70 a week.

You know what JSA is actually for? It's not for paying rent, biils or feeding yourself, it's to look for a job. I don't know how it works now because I haven't claimed anything in the last 6 years, been steadily employed, but back then they'd send you on courses, and on one particular back to work training course we were given a breakdown, and you could ask in the jobcentre for that breakdown on paper. It was to cover the cost of finding work.

I spend on some occasions more than 6 months unemployed due to the nature of the industry I worked in, lived in a rural area with little job prospects. A major local employer offered factory work via an agency who would not offer full time, permenant contracts. Laid off when excess to requirements. I'd no choice but to claim during those spells...but I never, once...was given $130 a week or even close to it, and it was never for "living" off in the first place, it was for finding work.

I was lucky I had a caring family who never saw me go without. Moving closer to the city was a tough thing to have to do but I'd no choice and have been working steadily since.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by samerulesapply

 

I think The Independant columnist Owen Jones best sums it up in the article;

"The idea he is representative of people on benefits is as absurd as suggesting Harold Shipman is representative of doctors.

Yeah, that struck a chord with me, good analogy.

Originally posted by samerulesapply
reply to post by Freeborn

 

I was amazed to learn that animal Philpott had attempted to murder an ex-girlfriend back in the 70's, sneaking into her room as she slept and stabbing her 27 times because she left him.

The media are taking every opportunity to show the world that this sadistic murderer claimed benefits, as if that's the root cause of his crimes. Revelations about his past reveal that this monster should have never been part of society in the first place...and the ultimate consequences of his release was the murder of his own 6 children.

You're bang and and thanks for pointing this out. What Mr Osborne is really saying is that all benefits claimants are potential Mick Philpotts, well I've clamed benefits in the past and I'm more than a little insulted at this underhanded insinuation.

People who claim benefits being associated with a murderer. Mick Philpott is ill in the head, they've known he was ill in the head since the late 70's.

Not being flippant, but you know what? I'd rather people like him either in jail, or on benefits. Because I don't want to have to work with people like him.

edit on 4-4-2013 by samerulesapply because: Amendments.

I'm sure I read somewhere on t'internet that both his women were working and were claiming working tax credits. I'll see if I can find it.

So he is including the low-income working families too in his abhorrent slur, as well as those who don't work.


Edit: Found it. Yes the two women went out to work:
www.guardian.co.uk...
Sorry guys, just tried to copy the relevent quote but it won't let me C+P for some reason

reply to post by Freeborn


What do you expect?

We need to go to war with these animals. We need to capture and try every single one of them, and bring back the death penalty especially. They do not deserve any mercy. They consistently destroy the lives of the vulnerable, so they can profit, then blame us for their evil actions. This is EXACTLY what bullies do. We need to stand up to them while we still can.

Kill them all. They do not deserve to exist, they are pathetic excuses for human beings and a complete waste of space. Look at the state of this planet with those idiots in charge. We are yet again allegedly on the precipice of a nuclear war. They have engineered an economic collapse. They are absolute evil.

reply to post by doobydoll


I was never entitled to working tax credits in my current job, they say I earn too much. I didn't mind to be honest, many earn less than me and work just as hard and probably deserve it more.

Kinda grateful I didn't, now...claimed benefits and tax credits? You're more like Mick Philpott that Mick Philpoot is!

Man alive, I'm scum!

Originally posted by Freeborn
The demonising of those on benefits continues.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Those comments are below contemptible at such a sensitive time - words fail me.

And look here:
www.mirror.co.uk...
Osborne caught parking in disabled bay when there was room elsewhere.

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by something wicked

 

You do know you don't get a 'free' second house don't you? It's meant to cover the fact that commuting from constituency to parliament isn't considered viable and rent of it lasts for your term as an MP. Yes, that system has been abused by members of all parties and there is no defending that, but then the fact that is now under more scrutiny can't be denied either.

Why should we pay rent on their 2nd home when they get tens of thousands in salaries? Not viable to commute? Then do what the rest of us would have to do and bloody MOVE! Or get a job nearer home.

If they move then they are no longer based in their constituency - that's really not difficult to understand is it? Oh dear.

You mean they took on the job of dictating that poor folk can't sponge off taxpayer money, knowing full well they can't/won't carry out said job unless THEY themselves are allowed to sponge off the taxpayer?

Is that what you mean?

Oh dear.

edit on 4-4-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

I don't think you actually understand the concept of what a constituency is and the part it plays in becoming an MP do you? Kind of pointless discussing this with you if you don't know something like that.

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by Freeborn
The demonising of those on benefits continues.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Those comments are below contemptible at such a sensitive time - words fail me.

And look here:
www.mirror.co.uk...
Osborne caught parking in disabled bay when there was room elsewhere.

Are you serious? How exactly is George Osbourne, as a passenger in a car, guilty of parking in a Disabled Bay? Or, to put it another way, if you are a passenger in a car that is speeding, are you also guilty of speeding? No, of course not as that would be completely ridiculous.

If you want to attack Osbourne and pick holes in him then fine, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so and issues to attack him on. Attacking him on where the official driver parked the car is certainly not one of them.....

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by something wicked

 

You do know you don't get a 'free' second house don't you? It's meant to cover the fact that commuting from constituency to parliament isn't considered viable and rent of it lasts for your term as an MP. Yes, that system has been abused by members of all parties and there is no defending that, but then the fact that is now under more scrutiny can't be denied either.

Why should we pay rent on their 2nd home when they get tens of thousands in salaries? Not viable to commute? Then do what the rest of us would have to do and bloody MOVE! Or get a job nearer home.

If they move then they are no longer based in their constituency - that's really not difficult to understand is it? Oh dear.

You mean they took on the job of dictating that poor folk can't sponge off taxpayer money, knowing full well they can't/won't carry out said job unless THEY themselves are allowed to sponge off the taxpayer?

Is that what you mean?

Oh dear.

edit on 4-4-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

I don't think you actually understand the concept of what a constituency is and the part it plays in becoming an MP do you? Kind of pointless discussing this with you if you don't know something like that.

Oh you think so?

I understand plenty. I understand that they have legs, cars, chauffers, trains, buses, aeroplanes, helicopters, all at their disposal, and no matter where they live in this country, any of these modes of transport could take them every day to their place of work within a couple of hours, give/take few minutes. Ordinary folk manage it every day for years. But the taxpayer is forced to fork out for a nice 2nd home for MP's because they don't want to spend their own money.

If MP's are unable to finance their MP duties on the pay they get without dipping in taxpayer pockets for more free stuff, then they have the wrong attitude for being an MP in the first place. As it is, they go in for the job with the full knowledge and intention of fleecing taxpayers for everything they want no matter how extravagant - and this is why our country is in the toilet - too many expensive taxpayer-funded perks and benefits for MP's when there should be none. As it is, the job attracts corrupt greedy rich folk whose only intention in life is to help themselves to as much as they can get away with, and screw everyone else into paying for it.

If they received just salary and nothing else, maybe we would have people in politics who are there because they want to do a good job of bettering the country, and the lives of it's citizens.

MP's are a worse 'something for nothing' culture than any of the people they villify.

So, my clever-clogs friend, you can't deny any of what I say. Tis all true.

I suggest it is you who doesn't understand.

So, my clever-clogs friend, you can't deny any of what I say. Tis all true.

I suggest it is you who doesn't understand.

edit on 5-4-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

Whatever, I try not to engage in discussions on here with people who treat their opinion as not only fact, but the only opinion that matters.

In the 'old' days....councillors weren't paid a wage...they got very limited travelling expenses and some didn't even claim that! They did it because THEY WANTED TO.

Rainbows
Jane

Originally posted by something wicked

So, my clever-clogs friend, you can't deny any of what I say. Tis all true.

I suggest it is you who doesn't understand.

edit on 5-4-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

Whatever, I try not to engage in discussions on here with people who treat their opinion as not only fact, but the only opinion that matters.

edit on 5-4-2013 by something wicked because: (no reason given)

Not just my opinion - I state what I see, and I see what every other struggling citizen sees, a gov which is made up of a bunch of greedy hypocritical liars who have no intention of giving up their freeloading ways - they have made it that they are entitled to anything they want out of the taxpayer on top of their pay, whilst at the same time tell struggling families with no income that unlike MP's, THEY can't have 'something for nothing'.

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by something wicked

So, my clever-clogs friend, you can't deny any of what I say. Tis all true.

I suggest it is you who doesn't understand.

edit on 5-4-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

Whatever, I try not to engage in discussions on here with people who treat their opinion as not only fact, but the only opinion that matters.

edit on 5-4-2013 by something wicked because: (no reason given)

Not just my opinion - I state what I see, and I see what every other struggling citizen sees, a gov which is made up of a bunch of greedy hypocritical liars who have no intention of giving up their freeloading ways - they have made it that they are entitled to anything they want out of the taxpayer on top of their pay, whilst at the same time tell struggling families with no income that unlike MP's, THEY can't have 'something for nothing'.

No, you state what you think. Can you clarify where an MP (you said in your last post all MPs, now you specifically say the government - keep to one or the other) are entitled to anything they want? Go for it, deny ignorance should mean being able to back up your opinion.

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by something wicked

So, my clever-clogs friend, you can't deny any of what I say. Tis all true.

I suggest it is you who doesn't understand.

edit on 5-4-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

Whatever, I try not to engage in discussions on here with people who treat their opinion as not only fact, but the only opinion that matters.

edit on 5-4-2013 by something wicked because: (no reason given)

Not just my opinion - I state what I see, and I see what every other struggling citizen sees, a gov which is made up of a bunch of greedy hypocritical liars who have no intention of giving up their freeloading ways - they have made it that they are entitled to anything they want out of the taxpayer on top of their pay, whilst at the same time tell struggling families with no income that unlike MP's, THEY can't have 'something for nothing'.

Actually, as you now mention what you see and you talk about the government, here's an interesting thing. You say you are in Nottingham, did you know the main area of Nottingham is covered by three MPs from Labour - NOT the government.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by something wicked

So, my clever-clogs friend, you can't deny any of what I say. Tis all true.

I suggest it is you who doesn't understand.

edit on 5-4-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

Whatever, I try not to engage in discussions on here with people who treat their opinion as not only fact, but the only opinion that matters.

edit on 5-4-2013 by something wicked because: (no reason given)

Not just my opinion - I state what I see, and I see what every other struggling citizen sees, a gov which is made up of a bunch of greedy hypocritical liars who have no intention of giving up their freeloading ways - they have made it that they are entitled to anything they want out of the taxpayer on top of their pay, whilst at the same time tell struggling families with no income that unlike MP's, THEY can't have 'something for nothing'.

No, you state what you think. Can you clarify where an MP (you said in your last post all MPs, now you specifically say the government - keep to one or the other) are entitled to anything they want? Go for it, deny ignorance should mean being able to back up your opinion.

It's clarified and backed up by opening your eyes and looking further than the end of your beak. You should try it sometime.

reply to post by something wicked



'There are none so blind as those who will not see'.

So nvm.