Question Time

[Herr Tubthumper]

Stunned at the lunacy of what you have just posted.

It's going to take something pretty special and smart for Billy The Fish to come back from that post. If I were him I'd sneak off and call it a day.

 

[Billy the Fish]

You really are an idiot. The past few thousand years have obviosly passed you by.

If you have the balls to call me an idiot when you can't even expand your way of thinking beyond some imaginary lines on a map then something is very wrong here. I think you might be referring to the last few HUNDRED years in Europe. Much of the world hasn't even caught up to that point yet.

This isn't just aimed at HT, but I think you're all being very small minded.

What makes you all think that just because we live on a particular island in a particular part of the planet that we should be entitled to any more than enough to stay alive when there's millions upon millions of humans who don't even get that.

You all need a reality check if you think that not being able to afford new trainers or not having certain dinners is poverty, those things are all luxurys.

Don't twist or misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm not saying that we should actually leave people with bread and water and a roof and nothing else because we are already way past that. I just think some people need to get a better sense of perspective.

 

[User removed 4]

If you have the balls to call me an idiot when you can't even expand your way of thinking beyond some imaginary lines on a map then something is very wrong here. I think you might be referring to the last few HUNDRED years in Europe. Much of the world hasn't even caught up to that point yet.

This isn't just aimed at HT, but I think you're all being very small minded.

What makes you all think that just because we live on a particular island in a particular part of the planet that we should be entitled to any more than enough to stay alive when there's millions upon millions of humans who don't even get that.

You all need a reality check if you think that not being able to afford new trainers or not having certain dinners is poverty, those things are all luxurys.

Don't twist or misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm not saying that we should actually leave people with bread and water and a roof and nothing else because we are already way past that. I just think some people need to get a better sense of perspective.

Well done Billy, you just answered Herr Tubthumpers post easily , beat that HT !!

 

[Hamilton]

If you have the balls to call me an idiot when you can't even expand your way of thinking beyond some imaginary lines on a map then something is very wrong here. I think you might be referring to the last few HUNDRED years in Europe. Much of the world hasn't even caught up to that point yet.

This isn't just aimed at HT, but I think you're all being very small minded.

What makes you all think that just because we live on a particular island in a particular part of the planet that we should be entitled to any more than enough to stay alive when there's millions upon millions of humans who don't even get that.

You all need a reality check if you think that not being able to afford new trainers or not having certain dinners is poverty, those things are all luxurys.

Don't twist or misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm not saying that we should actually leave people with bread and water and a roof and nothing else because we are already way past that. I just think some people need to get a better sense of perspective.

So you don't think we should just leave people with bread, water and a roof now? Get your argument straight will you. I think you know you sounded a bit daft. But hey, when you've got bushy applauding you, you know you're in the wrong territory altogether.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well done Billy, you just answered Herr Tubthumpers post easily , beat that HT !!

Hamilton kindly stepped in for me

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Roof, water and bowl of food is all anyone should be entitled to IMHO. Everything else is a luxury, to say it isn't is an insult to billions of other people living on this little rock which floats around the sun.

You think people are ENTITLED to a roof? They only get the luxury of a roof if they have the right to occupy the land beneath it.

ENTITLED to water? They only get the luxury of clean water if they have the right to stop other people dumping their sewage in it.

And a bowl of food? Only if there's a Tesco on a nearby street corner. Everyone has one of those, so it's hardly worth discussing.

 

[Waynflete]

The problem with tying poverty to the median wage is that you can then easily design policy to game the 'system' (by which I mean address the statistic rather than the problem). What's the easiest way of reducing the number of people with income less than 60% of the median? Reduce the median income - so cut benefits, reduce the minimum wage and increase direct taxation - and in all likelihood you will reduce relative poverty. Great stuff.

I agree that as a measurement it can throw up anomalies, but then so can any system that tries to simplify something very complex. I don't agree, though, that governments are likely deliberately to drive down the median income in order to massage poverty figures. That wouldn't make the government very popular.

 

[Billy the Fish]

So you don't think we should just leave people with bread, water and a roof now? Get your argument straight will you. I think you know you sounded a bit daft. But hey, when you've got bushy applauding you, you know you're in the wrong territory altogether.

f*** off Hamilton. I only started down this line because you're too stupid to accept that being poorer than the median average doesn't necessarily constitute poverty. You were banging on about kids feeling hard done by because they can't affrd running shoes FFS, I'd suggest you must live a very sheltered existance. Don't tell me to get my argument straight just because you're too thick to understand what I'm saying.

Read back what I've said because I'm not backtracking at all here. People should only be ENTITLED to food, a roof and clothes. The fact that we have a welfare state which already provides more than this means that we're actually quite lucky, but you seem to take it for granted. With what we currently have as a starting point there's no reason that we shouldn't all strive to improve things for everyone.

This is a stupid argument anyway, I said about two hours ago that we shouldn't be arguing about what constitutes poverty in the west. The real debate is how we bridge the gap between people living off the state and people in work. As Lord Bracknell (who can also poke it if that last post is somehow trying to put the boot in) alluded to earlier, an incentive to start work in low income jobs without completely cutting benefits is a good place to start. Just throwing around subjective info about % of children living in so called "povrety" doesn't help anyone.

There is also the wider issue of what the state can actually afford to pay in terms of a welfare bill. With mountains of public debt which isn't going down and the fact we're still borrowing to sustain our way of life, there's certainly an argument to suggest that the "have nots" standard of living isn't going to improve anytime soon, and that goes for most of Europe and especially the likes of Greece and Spain.

 

[BLOCK F]

f*** off Hamilton. I only started down this line because you're too stupid to accept that being poorer than the median average doesn't necessarily constitute poverty. You were banging on about kids feeling hard done by because they can't affrd running shoes FFS, I'd suggest you must live a very sheltered existance. Don't tell me to get my argument straight just because you're too thick to understand what I'm saying.

Read back what I've said because I'm not backtracking at all here. People should only be ENTITLED to food, a roof and clothes. The fact that we have a welfare state which already provides more than this means that we're actually quite lucky, but you seem to take it for granted. With what we currently have as a starting point there's no reason that we shouldn't all strive to improve things for everyone.

This is a stupid argument anyway, I said about two hours ago that we shouldn't be arguing about what constitutes poverty in the west. The real debate is how we bridge the gap between people living off the state and people in work. As Lord Bracknell (who can also poke it if that last post is somehow trying to put the boot in) alluded to earlier, an incentive to start work in low income jobs without completely cutting benefits is a good place to start. Just throwing around subjective info about % of children living in so called "povrety" doesn't help anyone.

There is also the wider issue of what the state can actually afford to pay in terms of a welfare bill. With mountains of public debt which isn't going down and the fact we're still borrowing to sustain our way of life, there's certainly an argument to suggest that the "have nots" standard of living isn't going to improve anytime soon, and that goes for most of Europe and especially the likes of Greece and Spain.

Hear ,Hear!

 

[Hamilton]

f*** off Hamilton. I only started down this line because you're too stupid to accept that being poorer than the median average doesn't necessarily constitute poverty. You were banging on about kids feeling hard done by because they can't affrd running shoes FFS, I'd suggest you must live a very sheltered existance. Don't tell me to get my argument straight just because you're too thick to understand what I'm saying.

Read back what I've said because I'm not backtracking at all here. People should only be ENTITLED to food, a roof and clothes. The fact that we have a welfare state which already provides more than this means that we're actually quite lucky, but you seem to take it for granted. With what we currently have as a starting point there's no reason that we shouldn't all strive to improve things for everyone.

This is a stupid argument anyway, I said about two hours ago that we shouldn't be arguing about what constitutes poverty in the west. The real debate is how we bridge the gap between people living off the state and people in work. As Lord Bracknell (who can also poke it if that last post is somehow trying to put the boot in) alluded to earlier, an incentive to start work in low income jobs without completely cutting benefits is a good place to start. Just throwing around subjective info about % of children living in so called "povrety" doesn't help anyone.

There is also the wider issue of what the state can actually afford to pay in terms of a welfare bill. With mountains of public debt which isn't going down and the fact we're still borrowing to sustain our way of life, there's certainly an argument to suggest that the "have nots" standard of living isn't going to improve anytime soon, and that goes for most of Europe and especially the likes of Greece and Spain.

You have no idea what you are saying. That's not an insult, it's an observation. As for my being too stupid to accept that being poorer that the median average not constituting poverty, I think that in your own words you've just hung yourself with the rope of idiocy. A bit of basic research on what classifies poverty and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Hamilton]

Hear ,Hear!

And by association you have what to add?

 

[BigGully]

You have no idea what you are saying. That's not an insult, it's an observation. As for my being too stupid to accept that being poorer that the median average not constituting poverty, I think that in your own words you've just hung yourself with the rope of idiocy. A bit of basic research on what classifies poverty and you'll see what I mean.

I showed you a particular scenario of an unemployed single mother with two young children, living in a council house.

You would probably agree that she might be categorised as a person that could fall into your poverty status.

She would receive more than £400 per week, considerably more with associated benefits.

But you and some others continue to say poverty exists, it doesn't, how can it.

She is being paid an annual salary in excess of £20 000 by the state.

Quite simply give a scenario where poverty exists, show the figures and we can all decide.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I showed you a particular scenario of an unemployed single mother with two young children, living in a council house.

You would probably agree that she might be categorised as a person that could fall into your poverty status.

She would receive more than £400 per week, considerably more with associated benefits.

But you and some others continue to say poverty exists, it doesn't, how can it.

She is being paid an annual salary in excess of £20 000 by the state.

Quite simply give a scenario where poverty exists, show the figures and we can all decide.

BBC News - UK seeing a big rise in poverty, says IFS

 

[Waynflete]

I showed you a particular scenario of an unemployed single mother with two young children, living in a council house.

You would probably agree that she might be categorised as a person that could fall into your poverty status.

She would receive more than £400 per week, considerably more with associated benefits.

But you and some others continue to say poverty exists, it doesn't, how can it.

She is being paid an annual salary in excess of £20 000 by the state.

Quite simply give a scenario where poverty exists, show the figures and we can all decide.

From the End Child Poverty website, based on the definition of poverty as 60% or less of median income:

The Effects

Poverty and Life Chances

Poverty shortens lives. A boy in Manchester can expect to live seven years less than a boy in Barnet. A girl in Manchester can expect to live six years less than a girl in Kensington Chelsea and Westminster.

Poor children are born too small; birth weight is on average 130 grams lower in children from social classes IV and V. Low birth weight is closely associated with infant death and chronic diseases in later life.

Poverty shapes children's development. Before reaching his or her second birthday, a child from a poorer family is already more likely to show a lower level of attainment than a child from a better-off family. By the age of six a less able child from a rich family is likely to have overtaken an able child born into a poor family.

Children aged up to 14 from unskilled families are 5 times more likely to die in an accident than children from professional families, and 15 times more likely to die in a fire at home.

Children growing up in poverty are more likely to leave school at 16 with fewer qualifications.
2% of couples and 8% of lone parents cannot afford two pairs of shoes for each child.
12% of lone parents cannot afford celebrations with presents at special occasions.

 

[Butch Willykins]

A lot of this debate centres around the term poverty. In UK it is based in the figures below (from BBC website) which most sane people would hardly describe as "poverty".

WHAT IS THE POVERTY LINE?

Single adult, no children: £165 per week
Couple, no children: £248 per week
Lone parent, 1 child: £215 per week
Lone parent, 2 children: £264 per week
Lone parent, 3 children: £314 per week
Couple, 1 child: £297 per week
Couple, 2 children: £347 per week
Couple, 3 children: £396 per week

 

[Butch Willykins]

2% of couples and 8% of lone parents cannot afford two pairs of shoes for each child.
12% of lone parents cannot afford celebrations with presents at special occasions.

Yes, but 98% of couples and 92% of lone parents can afford two pairs of shoes for there kids
And 88% of lone parents can afford presents at special occasions.

 

[Bigbelly]

Just watched it and what got my back up is that Benjamin buffoon, well he did call Boris Johnson buffoon and said could you trust Boris with his finger on the button ( Nuclear ) and laughed, you what you muppet. I watched 12 years of Blair and Bush and Blair was ban the bomb before he got into power and took us to war more times than all governments put together.

I used to wake up and see the ticker tape run along the bottom of sky news and it’ll say: Breaking news : Blair and Bush, and I’d think, Jesus, they haven’t have they?

I’d trust Boris with the button more thant Blair. Also, That Benjamin said that boris stopped some ethnic parade and is right wing? Is he right wing? If so, then why is it that London is probably the most diverse cities in the world and they voted him in?

 

[Billy the Fish]

From the End Child Poverty website, based on the definition of poverty as 60% or less of median income:

The Effects

Poverty and Life Chances

Poverty shortens lives. A boy in Manchester can expect to live seven years less than a boy in Barnet. A girl in Manchester can expect to live six years less than a girl in Kensington Chelsea and Westminster.

Poor children are born too small; birth weight is on average 130 grams lower in children from social classes IV and V. Low birth weight is closely associated with infant death and chronic diseases in later life.

Poverty shapes children's development. Before reaching his or her second birthday, a child from a poorer family is already more likely to show a lower level of attainment than a child from a better-off family. By the age of six a less able child from a rich family is likely to have overtaken an able child born into a poor family.

Children aged up to 14 from unskilled families are 5 times more likely to die in an accident than children from professional families, and 15 times more likely to die in a fire at home.

Children growing up in poverty are more likely to leave school at 16 with fewer qualifications.
2% of couples and 8% of lone parents cannot afford two pairs of shoes for each child.
12% of lone parents cannot afford celebrations with presents at special occasions.

A lot of this debate centres around the term poverty. In UK it is based in the figures below (from BBC website) which most sane people would hardly describe as "poverty".

WHAT IS THE POVERTY LINE?

Single adult, no children: £165 per week
Couple, no children: £248 per week
Lone parent, 1 child: £215 per week
Lone parent, 2 children: £264 per week
Lone parent, 3 children: £314 per week
Couple, 1 child: £297 per week
Couple, 2 children: £347 per week
Couple, 3 children: £396 per week

This is what I find absurd about the whole issue, that the state is actually trying to quantify things that are unquantifiable. Looking at it scientifically, those stats mean absolutely nothing because there's too many variables involed in an individuals life. The state only trotts out these figures so they can doctor them in a few years and then say "oh look at us aren't we great", it's political propaganda and nothing else. That is how I view the poverty calculation, it serves no purpose.

 

[BigGully]

A lot of this debate centres around the term poverty. In UK it is based in the figures below (from BBC website) which most sane people would hardly describe as "poverty".

WHAT IS THE POVERTY LINE?

Single adult, no children: £165 per week
Couple, no children: £248 per week
Lone parent, 1 child: £215 per week
Lone parent, 2 children: £264 per week
Lone parent, 3 children: £314 per week
Couple, 1 child: £297 per week
Couple, 2 children: £347 per week
Couple, 3 children: £396 per week

The benefit system surpasses those figures, I am guessing these represent disposable income after housing costs.

Benefits are not meant to make you rich and compared to many hard-working people these figures might seem quite obscene and surprising this constitutes someone's interpretation of poverty.

 

[Bigbelly]

Where I live you see girls 15 -16 and 17 who I know and think, yup, they ‘ll be pregnant soon as there is no way they’ll be able to get a job that can cover their rent so will go down the easy route and get pregnant so to get a flat/house and low and behold they get pregnant and get their wish.

You see, they only care about themselves and not about the child, I’m ok jack, I’ve got a flat/house and couldn’t give a shit about the child then the child grows up like the parent. f*** them, If you’re 15-16 etc and get up the duff then you shouldn’t get a flat/house and made to live with your parents.
Then these teens meet another bloke and want a bigger place and more money so get pregnant again and again meaning more welfare handouts and in the end get more money than me and my girlfriend who have a mortgage but can’t afford a child yet, maybe when we’re in our forties when we can afford it all while watching some slag given birth like a production line so they can get more welfare while me and my girlfriend are paying for her while we suffer as we cant afford it.

Any teenager who gets pregnant should be banned from free flats and houses. That’ll send a strong signal.

SCUM!!