Harming children for no good reason

The ones working often had smaller TVs and sometimes just terrestrial channels. Seemed they maybe thought a bit more where their cash was going.
They are also less likely to allow their hyperactive little...ahem, angels... break everything once they've bought it.
 
Sponsored Links
You mean you think there are judges who do not uphold the laws passed by Parliament?

Show me an example.
Thought I did Johnnymelad.. If you get 12 points on your licence it's (supposedly) an automatic ban. Tell me then why judge after judge sees fit to allow people with over double this amount of points to still be driving? Tell me why people get 2 yrs in prison suspended for 3 yrs? If you can't do the time , don't do the crime (or so the adage goes) About time we adopted the American system 3 strikes and you're out.
 
Someones managed to get to 62 points without being banned. I shan't even bother finding other examples, but there is so much evidence that judges interpret the law in the way they see fit, that you wonder why the police even bother to put someone uo before them.
 
Someones managed to get to 62 points without being banned. I shan't even bother finding other examples, but there is so much evidence that judges interpret the law in the way they see fit, that you wonder why the police even bother to put someone uo before them.
And Johnnyboy questions why people say that judges are completely out of touch. And there I thought judges were there to uphold the bloody law? All I can think of is judges must be a sucker for a good sob story. Christ it's a good job he isn't one (probably get a suspended sentence and a £50 fine for murder)
 
Sponsored Links
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

That's interesting. You think that child benefit is not inside the cap? Where did you hear that? On the IHatePoorPeople.com website? And I see that you think all poor people live in London. They don't.

Does this list come as a total surprise to you?


"2. Benefits affected by the cap

The cap applies to the total amount people in your household (you, your partner and any children living with you) get from the following benefits:

 
The other issue around children's clothes I think is unfair is that many kids these days are taller than their clothes age (for example, they are 15 but they don't fit "15" clothes) and you end up with the double whammy of having to buy adult clothes (which are more expensive anyway) and then paying VAT on top.
 
What happens if you do give people enough money but they squander it? Do you keep giving them more? Or how do you think that should work?
depend what you mean by squander ??
for some its the choice off getting the bus to work to save the £1.50 each way so having enough for supper for the kids but spending an extra hour walking
for some its have the heating on and your pension running out before the end off the month
for some its not eating yourself to make sure the kids have enough
most off the squandering i see is by governments wasting our money on seemingly pointless reorganizations supposedly to save money often demonizing the poorest in society or to bribe to get votes rather than do there job off running the the country fairly and efficiently for all over the long term with long term commitment rather than short term gain
 
Last edited:
Smoking, gambling, unecessary upgrading of stuff that is fine, excessive subscription services, that sort of thing.

and where are your statistics to suggest that more than a few come into that category ??
after all by looking at someone its hard to tell there life style choices or how they spend there time or money :D
 
The other issue around children's clothes I think is unfair is that many kids these days are taller than their clothes age (for example, they are 15 but they don't fit "15" clothes) and you end up with the double whammy of having to buy adult clothes (which are more expensive anyway) and then paying VAT on top.
Stop feeding them then!

(That was a joke BTW, before anyone wants to extend the thread for another four pages on a unsubstantiated crusade(y))
 
and where are your statistics to suggest that more than a few come into that category ??
That's irrelevant to my question, so I presume you can't answer it.

"What happens if you do give people enough money but they squander it? Do you keep giving them more? Or how do you think that should work?"
 
Do people really think that benefit receivers are scroungers who squander and waste?
Sure there's a few bad eggs, there always will be. Blame the system, not tar the genuine folk who need help.
 
I visited around 1600 properties a year over a 3 1/2 year period on contract. That's a lot of visits, in a lot of benefit recipients homes. Other guys on the firm did the same. I saw my first "rear projector TV" in a house with no carpets and barely any furniture. I saw a baby asleep in a draw form some old chest, on the floor, car on tick worth several thousand on the grass outside. As time went on, all the guys on my firm that I spoke to, marveled as to how nearly all of these people had several tv's, sky/cable subscription. I know it's not a nice thing to deal with but there are a huge amount of benefits wasters. There are many genuine cases of course but pretending that the cheats and wasters are a tiny minority, I feel, is a little naive. Maybe I'm behind the times and having the movie channels is now seen as essential?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top