Drives me nuts
-
11 year old girl gets pregnant on night out with 15 year old boy, smokes 20 a day, and mother 34 is pround. About to become Britains youngest mother. <http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13523408,00.html[^] Thanks New Labour for funding this. Becuase she knows she can do this becuase the state will take care of all her needs giving her a house, and money etc to keep her in smokes. I think the parents should be fined. Not fit to have children if they think this is okay. People complain about imigration. I have no problem with it. Its trash like this I can't stand, and the fact I'll be paying for it with record taxes. Fucked up.
I thought rednecks only lived in the Southern US. :~
-
K(arl) wrote:
When readng such a story the only reaction is "Hey, I pay too much tax", I take that as an incredible display of selfishness.
Selfish? ha ha ha. I'll tell you what's selfish - bringing a child into the world who has fuck all chance in life. It really is shocking - teenage pregnancies are the highest in Europe and I put that down to two things - education (or lack of) and the knowledge that the state will provide. The education problem is basically caused by a Victorian prudish attitude to sex (the Conservatives have a lot to blame for this - they would prefer it if sex wasn't mentioned in schools at all, which I disagree with). Some might also blame the media and the fact that sex is everywhere (you can buy thongs for little girls in many supermarkets and clothes shops - WTF! What happened to children being children?).
K(arl) wrote:
presence of the British presence in Iraq, or the cost induced by your Royal Family?
If there was no Royal Family (boy, would that make me happy) or troops in Iraq, taxpayers having to foot this sort of behaviour would still have every right to feel aggrieved. The welfare state costs the taxpayer £100 billion a year - or over £1,500 for every man, woman and child in the country - probably more like £3,500 per tax-payer. The war in Iraq costs £1 billion a year (£16 a head) and the Royal Family coses ~£35 million a year (58p a head). Drops in the ocean mate.
K(arl) wrote:
...amongst the wealthiest ones.
Well, I came from nothing Karl, and have worked hard for the last 20 years to make something of my life, and yes, it pisses me off when I read about people who think that I and others like me owe them a living. A mother that is proud of her pregnant 11 year old daughter is just another example of why this needs to change. Stan is actually right (!) - this government wants to keep (even expand) the welfare state simply to buy votes, ensuring it stays in power. It sucks. I don't disagree with the welfare state in principle at all - there does need to be a safety net - but it has done too far. Man, I know people who are out of work, get their mortgage paid, have two cars in the drive, Sky TV, smoke 20 fags a day and are propping up the bar in the pub all weekend! It isn't on.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
I know people who are out of work, get their mortgage paid
I was out of work for 3 soul destroying months and I never got my mortgage paid! Some people know how to fiddle the system I guess.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
-
11 year old girl gets pregnant on night out with 15 year old boy, smokes 20 a day, and mother 34 is pround. About to become Britains youngest mother. <http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13523408,00.html[^] Thanks New Labour for funding this. Becuase she knows she can do this becuase the state will take care of all her needs giving her a house, and money etc to keep her in smokes. I think the parents should be fined. Not fit to have children if they think this is okay. People complain about imigration. I have no problem with it. Its trash like this I can't stand, and the fact I'll be paying for it with record taxes. Fucked up.
Thats just some crazy stuff... I can't believe kids are even thinking of having sex that young. When I was 11 I was still thinking something along the lines of "Go ninja turtles" (insert favorit cartoon here). I just don't get it... -Richard
-
K(arl) wrote:
"Hey, I pay too much tax"
The reaction is "The fact our tax money is distributed in such a fashion encourages a cycle of such behaviour", not "I want a playstation". It is the environment encouraged by naive redistributive taxation that is the problem, not the hole in my wallet. Personally, I would rather invest in my nations armed forces than support the lumpenproletariat - who in any other era would live similarly live by charity and crime. The royal family is another issue. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
The reaction is "The fact our tax money is distributed in such a fashion encourages a cycle of such behaviour", not "I want a playstation"
BS. The basic reaction is "it's MY money, I need it to buy this new HDTV". And for the argument "social welfare = encouragement to laziness", it lays on nothing other than clichés and preconceived ideas.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I would rather invest in my nations armed forces than support the lumpenproletariat
Don't worry, you do. Oh, let's kill these lumpenproletaires, or better, let's throw them in the sea, they are so ugly anyway.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
The reaction is "The fact our tax money is distributed in such a fashion encourages a cycle of such behaviour", not "I want a playstation"
BS. The basic reaction is "it's MY money, I need it to buy this new HDTV". And for the argument "social welfare = encouragement to laziness", it lays on nothing other than clichés and preconceived ideas.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I would rather invest in my nations armed forces than support the lumpenproletariat
Don't worry, you do. Oh, let's kill these lumpenproletaires, or better, let's throw them in the sea, they are so ugly anyway.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
lays on nothing other than clichés and preconceived ideas
No, it isn't. This[^], rather long piece presents both sides of the argument. The problem being: "This underclass are those who fall outside this class schema, becuase they belong to family units having no stable relationship at all with the "mode of production" - with legitimate gainful employment" As well as the clamping down on state subsidy of such lifestyles, I would decriminalise narcotics - which are the largest source of income outside of legitimate sources and the fact that it is a black market further damages those who depend on it.
K(arl) wrote:
Oh, let's kill these lumpenproletaires, or better, let's throw them in the sea, they are so ugly anyway.
Nope, let's figure out a way for them to no longer be lumpen, bankrolling them is not the answer. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
I know people who are out of work, get their mortgage paid
I was out of work for 3 soul destroying months and I never got my mortgage paid! Some people know how to fiddle the system I guess.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
In this case, they are a couple, both out of work, and they have two kids. They both do occasional "cash in hand" work, but they are actually better off being uneomployed - if they were to get one of the many low-paying jobs available, they would be out of pocket. How crap is that!
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
The reaction is "The fact our tax money is distributed in such a fashion encourages a cycle of such behaviour", not "I want a playstation"
BS. The basic reaction is "it's MY money, I need it to buy this new HDTV". And for the argument "social welfare = encouragement to laziness", it lays on nothing other than clichés and preconceived ideas.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I would rather invest in my nations armed forces than support the lumpenproletariat
Don't worry, you do. Oh, let's kill these lumpenproletaires, or better, let's throw them in the sea, they are so ugly anyway.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
What's even greedier than wanting to keep your own money is wanting to take others'.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
The reaction is "The fact our tax money is distributed in such a fashion encourages a cycle of such behaviour", not "I want a playstation"
BS. The basic reaction is "it's MY money, I need it to buy this new HDTV". And for the argument "social welfare = encouragement to laziness", it lays on nothing other than clichés and preconceived ideas.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I would rather invest in my nations armed forces than support the lumpenproletariat
Don't worry, you do. Oh, let's kill these lumpenproletaires, or better, let's throw them in the sea, they are so ugly anyway.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
And for the argument "social welfare = encouragement to laziness", it lays on nothing other than clichés and preconceived ideas.
You're wrong. Of course, I expect there are many people on benefits that are doing their best to seek gainful employment, but I personally know people who milk the system. One good friend of mine hasn't worked since 1990. As we speak, he will be in bed (he gets up around 5PM). His trick is to fake depression and receive sickness benefits. He has a nice flat in a decent neighbourhood, digital TV (DVD player, wide-screen TV, more guitars than Radiohead, etc.), he can afford to smoke (both cigarettes and cannabis) and is in the pub every single night. He has a yearly consultation with a psychiatrist, and he is signed off for another year. One year he overdid it, and was nearly thrown in a mental institution, another year he underplayed it and nearly lost his benefits (which, ironically, caused him to become REALLY depressed and his benefits were reinstated). He's a clever guy - and a very talented musician - he could work fulltime, but he would end up earning less than he gets on benefits (at least to start with). Of course, he does occasionally work for cash - thus avoiding taxation. And he isn't alone - he knows lots of people pulling the same scam - Jesus, they have their own little network. It does cause friction sometimes - it annoys me and my other hard-working friends (one especially, who, like you, is a Socialist at heart and believes very strongly in working for a living and paying your way in life - a rare breed in the UK). But short of informing the DSS (who would assess him again, he'd convince them again, and our friendship would be over) there isn't any end in sight - he's 41 and if he's still around in 20 years, he'll still be playing the system.
-
Well put and spot-on: unlike the Thatcher years when government was fairly thin on the ground and she only had the unions to defeat this time Labour have gone one better by simply employing the unemployable dross in well paid public service roles and awarding them fabulous pensions which us proles can only dream about. Nobody is going to vote for a party which essentially promises to fire them which is why the Tories can only fantasize about running the country whilst Blair and the utter corruption that is Labour can do and say whatever they want. Can't wait for those LEGAL immigration papers to arrive so I can get out of here... home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doordigital man wrote:
Can't wait for those LEGAL immigration papers to arrive so I can get out of here...
Well, if you're coming to the US, you'd better hurry - we're not that far behind as a democracy dependency. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
11 year old girl gets pregnant on night out with 15 year old boy, smokes 20 a day, and mother 34 is pround. About to become Britains youngest mother. <http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13523408,00.html[^] Thanks New Labour for funding this. Becuase she knows she can do this becuase the state will take care of all her needs giving her a house, and money etc to keep her in smokes. I think the parents should be fined. Not fit to have children if they think this is okay. People complain about imigration. I have no problem with it. Its trash like this I can't stand, and the fact I'll be paying for it with record taxes. Fucked up.
-
The cost of officially recognised benefit fraud is £50 per person[^] or £3 billion. I consider having kids for the specific purpose of gaining additional benefits to be a fraud, although the official figures don't recognise this. The full cost of the benefits system is £109billion or £1816 per person.
K(arl) wrote:
And what would the cost of helping this baby to survive the poor environment he will have to know, compared to the cost of the presence of the British presence in Iraq, or the cost induced by your Royal Family?
The Royal Family cost 61p per person[^] or £37 million per year. The illegal war in Iraq has cost the UK £6 billion over two years[^] or £50 per person per year - The same as OFFICIAL benefit fraud.
Voltaire (1694-1778) wrote:
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.
Jörgen Sigvardsson , on the subject of Wikipedia, wrote:
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least you have the chance to correct the wiki.
-- modified at 8:04 Friday 12th May, 2006
Andy *M* wrote:
illegal war in Iraq
What makes this war illegal? What makes a war legal? Honest questions; truly looking for honest answers.
-
Andy *M* wrote:
illegal war in Iraq
What makes this war illegal? What makes a war legal? Honest questions; truly looking for honest answers.
Tim Carmichael wrote:
What makes this war illegal?
The fact that leftists don't like it.
Tim Carmichael wrote:
What makes a war legal?
If waged by America and not in America's interests.
-
K(arl) wrote:
When readng such a story the only reaction is "Hey, I pay too much tax", I take that as an incredible display of selfishness.
Selfish? ha ha ha. I'll tell you what's selfish - bringing a child into the world who has fuck all chance in life. It really is shocking - teenage pregnancies are the highest in Europe and I put that down to two things - education (or lack of) and the knowledge that the state will provide. The education problem is basically caused by a Victorian prudish attitude to sex (the Conservatives have a lot to blame for this - they would prefer it if sex wasn't mentioned in schools at all, which I disagree with). Some might also blame the media and the fact that sex is everywhere (you can buy thongs for little girls in many supermarkets and clothes shops - WTF! What happened to children being children?).
K(arl) wrote:
presence of the British presence in Iraq, or the cost induced by your Royal Family?
If there was no Royal Family (boy, would that make me happy) or troops in Iraq, taxpayers having to foot this sort of behaviour would still have every right to feel aggrieved. The welfare state costs the taxpayer £100 billion a year - or over £1,500 for every man, woman and child in the country - probably more like £3,500 per tax-payer. The war in Iraq costs £1 billion a year (£16 a head) and the Royal Family coses ~£35 million a year (58p a head). Drops in the ocean mate.
K(arl) wrote:
...amongst the wealthiest ones.
Well, I came from nothing Karl, and have worked hard for the last 20 years to make something of my life, and yes, it pisses me off when I read about people who think that I and others like me owe them a living. A mother that is proud of her pregnant 11 year old daughter is just another example of why this needs to change. Stan is actually right (!) - this government wants to keep (even expand) the welfare state simply to buy votes, ensuring it stays in power. It sucks. I don't disagree with the welfare state in principle at all - there does need to be a safety net - but it has done too far. Man, I know people who are out of work, get their mortgage paid, have two cars in the drive, Sky TV, smoke 20 fags a day and are propping up the bar in the pub all weekend! It isn't on.
Well said. 5. :rose: Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
Hardly something for the mother to be proud of though Karl. The mother knows full well that the state will provide - IMHO, parents should be footing the blame (and the bill) for behaviour like this. And the 15 year old boy should be prosecuted - the age of consent in the UK is 16 FFS.
K(arl) wrote:
the fact I'll be paying for it with record taxes.
Next year, taxation in the UK will reach record levels - and, to be frank, accusing people of whining when we are paying excessive taxes and getting little or nothing in return is beneath you. People in the UK have a right to be upset when so much money is being wasted and who work hard and try to better themselves are seen as nothing more than a cash cow. The enormous and expensive welfare state breeds dependence, which is a real problem here at the moment and is causing a lot of resentment and bad feeling. On a lighter note, I watched Question Time last night and had a good laugh at Hazel Blears (a newly promoted Blair-ite) receiving a damn good verbal whupping from the audience - many of whom were disaffected Labour voters. The wheels are coming the government at the moment, and I have to confess that I find some amusement in seeing New Labour squirm. Politics is getting interesting again here! :)
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
And the 15 year old boy should be prosecuted - the age of consent in the UK is 16 FFS.
Well, he's not 16 either then. The girl could also be prosecuted then. Though I guess you chose the boy as he's older? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/4764417.stm[^] It says the girl smokes 20 cigarettes a day. If she's still smoking while pregnant, then she's a fucking selfish bitch.
This is grossly unfair and reflects an extreme state of gender-bias! The boy was under-age too, so technically he was raped too. When 2 under-aged kids have sex, do they just prosecute whoever it is who's older? Or whoever it is who's male? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. -
This is grossly unfair and reflects an extreme state of gender-bias! The boy was under-age too, so technically he was raped too. When 2 under-aged kids have sex, do they just prosecute whoever it is who's older? Or whoever it is who's male? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. -
K(arl) wrote:
lays on nothing other than clichés and preconceived ideas
No, it isn't. This[^], rather long piece presents both sides of the argument. The problem being: "This underclass are those who fall outside this class schema, becuase they belong to family units having no stable relationship at all with the "mode of production" - with legitimate gainful employment" As well as the clamping down on state subsidy of such lifestyles, I would decriminalise narcotics - which are the largest source of income outside of legitimate sources and the fact that it is a black market further damages those who depend on it.
K(arl) wrote:
Oh, let's kill these lumpenproletaires, or better, let's throw them in the sea, they are so ugly anyway.
Nope, let's figure out a way for them to no longer be lumpen, bankrolling them is not the answer. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
This[^], rather long piece presents both sides of the argument
I'm sure the American Enterprise Institure whose stated mission is to support the "foundations of freedom - limited government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, and a strong foreign policy and national defense" will support this thesis. Look at reality: In a country, UK, where social welfare is less important than in other major western european countries, the poverty rate is higher. From my basic experience , I can tell that abusers are a minority, sadly with more exposure. If these abuses have to be eradicated, it doesn't mean the whole system has to disappear: it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also, from my point of view, the real lumpenproletaires are the ones excluded by the welfare programs.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I would decriminalise narcotics - which are the largest source of income outside of legitimate sources and the fact that it is a black market further damages those who depend on it.
On the other hand, it would remove one of the resources some people need to live. If the disparition of this resource is not compensate one way of the other, I can predict a rapid growth of criminality and social unrest.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
I thought rednecks only lived in the Southern US. :~
Nah, I knew some when I lived up in Connecticut. Just called them townies. BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
K(arl) wrote:
And for the argument "social welfare = encouragement to laziness", it lays on nothing other than clichés and preconceived ideas.
You're wrong. Of course, I expect there are many people on benefits that are doing their best to seek gainful employment, but I personally know people who milk the system. One good friend of mine hasn't worked since 1990. As we speak, he will be in bed (he gets up around 5PM). His trick is to fake depression and receive sickness benefits. He has a nice flat in a decent neighbourhood, digital TV (DVD player, wide-screen TV, more guitars than Radiohead, etc.), he can afford to smoke (both cigarettes and cannabis) and is in the pub every single night. He has a yearly consultation with a psychiatrist, and he is signed off for another year. One year he overdid it, and was nearly thrown in a mental institution, another year he underplayed it and nearly lost his benefits (which, ironically, caused him to become REALLY depressed and his benefits were reinstated). He's a clever guy - and a very talented musician - he could work fulltime, but he would end up earning less than he gets on benefits (at least to start with). Of course, he does occasionally work for cash - thus avoiding taxation. And he isn't alone - he knows lots of people pulling the same scam - Jesus, they have their own little network. It does cause friction sometimes - it annoys me and my other hard-working friends (one especially, who, like you, is a Socialist at heart and believes very strongly in working for a living and paying your way in life - a rare breed in the UK). But short of informing the DSS (who would assess him again, he'd convince them again, and our friendship would be over) there isn't any end in sight - he's 41 and if he's still around in 20 years, he'll still be playing the system.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
but I personally know people who milk the system
So do I, but I believe they are not the majority. From my point of View, a socialist has to heavily condemn this kind of behaviour, because it hurts as the Collectivity as the people who really need these helps. They have to be pursued and harassed.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
he's 41 and if he's still around in 20 years, he'll still be playing the system.
Has he a wife, kids? If so, do they respect him?
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
but I personally know people who milk the system
So do I, but I believe they are not the majority. From my point of View, a socialist has to heavily condemn this kind of behaviour, because it hurts as the Collectivity as the people who really need these helps. They have to be pursued and harassed.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
he's 41 and if he's still around in 20 years, he'll still be playing the system.
Has he a wife, kids? If so, do they respect him?
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
They have to be pursued and harassed
I agree, but apart from the odd high-profile "gotcha!" (i.e. man off sick with bad back seen playing football, etc.) there is no real effort to crack down on these people.
K(arl) wrote:
Has he a wife, kids? If so, do they respect him?
He has a long-term (20 years) girlfriend who loves him dearly, and she has given up everything to be with him, including the prospect of having children. :( Tough one.