Harming children for no good reason

EFLImpudence · 27 Jun 2017

Brigadier said:

Ah, but he was lucky.

You wouldn't have been able to afford one of them on only £384 (formally £500) per week tax-free benefits so how would he get to work?

Actually, in my experience, there is no shortage of toys in benefit households; it's just the rent they can't afford - knowing they will be rehoused somewhere else.

EFLImpudence · 27 Jun 2017

Nozzle said:
Perhaps if benefit claimants are not ready or responsble to use cold hard cash in the open market to do The Right Thing - then they could instead receive payment in-kind? That is to say, instead of "universal tokens" (pound notes), they could instead have non-universal tokens, with which to look after themselves and their children. Food tokens, fuel tokens, rent tokens, transport tokens, and just as important, tokens to buy a suit and apply for jobs. Though of course this is state intevention - something socialists hold dear, but only under very strict and limited circumstances.

It's like a nice hand-out hamper allowance from dear old HMG to help them seek a job. It could be named Job Seekers Allowance.

Nozzle

Good idea - and paying the rent direct to the landlord, as they used to, would be a simple solution.

Doggit · 27 Jun 2017

Now that would be classified as discriminatory Nozzle.

EFLImpudence said:
Good idea - and paying the rent direct to the landlord,

An even better idea, but they'd just rip other people off - tis the nature of the beast I'm afraid. Labour gave the benfits under class the idea that they deserve everything, and have to give nothing back in return.

You don't improve peoples lives by giving them the incentive to do nothing; you help them get a better life, and sometimes, you have to be cruel to be kind.

Nozzle · 27 Jun 2017

Give a man a fish, he can eat for a day. Give a man a net...

Nozzle

EFLImpudence · 27 Jun 2017

Left in flat after eviction from unfurnished flat.

Apparently not desperate for money - they will all be replaced at your expense.

Nozzle · 27 Jun 2017

If there's debt against the telly it's more of a liability than an asset. It's a shame the rabbit got dumped though, animals enrich a child's life and teach them the importance of care and looking further than only their own selfish needs. Cheap to look after until they go wrong....

Nozzle

Brigadier · 27 Jun 2017

EFLImpudence said:
Ah, but he was lucky.

You wouldn't have been able to afford one of them on only £384 (formally £500) per week tax-free benefits so how would he get to work?

I beg to differ; I pretty sure that i was on a lot less than £384 pw net, back when the lad was a nipper. Even with lots of OT.

Brigadier · 27 Jun 2017

Nozzle said:
It's a shame the rabbit got dumped though, animals enrich a child's life and teach them the importance of care and looking further than only their own selfish needs.

Nozzle

What sort of harm has that abandonment done then, to the kid(s) involved?
What life lesson can they have taken from it?

Nozzle · 27 Jun 2017

Brigadier said:
What sort of harm has that abandonment done then, to the kid(s) involved?
What life lesson can they have taken from it?

I dread to think. The parent or parents have shown it is "okay" to go ahead a dump the animal. The life lesson is get priorities straight and focus on that which is most important - not doing so often leads to bad things.

Nozzle

ajstoneservices · 27 Jun 2017

Nozzle said:
Give a man a fish, he can eat for a day. Give a man a net...

Nozzle

Give a lazy man someone elses net and eventually they both go hungry.

noseall · 27 Jun 2017

Brigadier said:
Kids can have all of the material things, but what will probably stand them in best stead for life is having good role models, and love.

Correct. Our children are a product of the parents whether we like it or not.

Doggit · 27 Jun 2017

Nozzle said:
Give a man a fish, he can eat for a day. Give a man a net..

And he'll sell it, then expect you to give his daily fish again.

securespark · 27 Jun 2017

Nozzle said:
All those things and more besides, yes. And they're all very cheap indeed. Even on "only" £20k/year

£20 K goes nowhere for a family of, for example, 5.

One of my lads had his PE kit stolen. To replace it (as there was no second hand kit available for sale) cost nearly £55.00.

1 x Rugby shirt, 1 x polo shirt, 1 x shorts, 1 x socks.

Doggit · 27 Jun 2017

securespark said:
£20 K goes nowhere for a family of, for example, 5

It's 23K, and then there'll be child benefit on top of that. The 23K, is for housing benfit and income support. Child benefit for 5 kids would add another £3926 taking them up to ££27K

1 x Rugby shirt, 1 x polo shirt, 1 x shorts, 1 x socks

Rugby shirt? grammer school by any chance.

Brigadier · 27 Jun 2017

Nozzle said:
Perhaps if benefit claimants are not ready or responsble to use cold hard cash in the open market to do The Right Thing - then they could instead receive payment in-kind? That is to say, instead of "universal tokens" (pound notes), they could instead have non-universal tokens, with which to look after themselves and their children. Food tokens, fuel tokens, rent tokens, transport tokens, and just as important, tokens to buy a suit and apply for jobs. Though of course this is state intevention - something socialists hold dear, but only under very strict and limited circumstances.

Nozzle

Trouble with the above though, the scratter ones will cash them (losing a percentage to the trader).

My f-i-l was a taxi driver for a period, and they used to cash taxi vouchers at the council office.
The taxi vouchers were meant to be used for, taxi trips.
The scratters used to sell them to the taxi drivers below face value, and spend the moolah as they wished.
The taxi drivers made profit, the scratters got their fags / booze / hit, everyone was sorted

Harming children for no good reason

Doggit

Doggit

Doggit

Similar threads