No Fault Evictions
- Thread starter Ozi
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
What matters and costs society much more are the parasites at the top of the heap. They do vastly more damage than the few nutters at the bottom end, with whom you are so strangely obsessed.
If you don't like being "labelled prejudiced, far right or whatever" you just have to stop churning out "prejudiced, far right" opinions and start thinking a little about what you are saying. Your choice!
Nothing much is happening on the ground except bursts of racist abuse with occasional riots, governmental harassment of immigrants (to attract the racist vote) and labour shortages.
OTOH what's happening at sea is the systematic drowning of migrants due to deliberate governmental laxity over procedures and humanitarian issues, in the face of a world wide crisis of migration. Murder by turning a blind eye.
These people need safe passage and this could be implemented overnight, if the will was there.
Last edited:
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
governmental harassment of immigrants to attract the racist vote?
When did that happen? I must have blinked.
When did that happen? I must have blinked.
ey_tony
Established Member
Yet more of your left wing nonsense.
I am obsessed by nothing unlike yourself who has a fixation about anyone who dares to contradict your perverse view of the world.
The only people who label people prejudiced and far right are the real nutters...they can not see that their condoning of wrongdoing only fragments society even more.
You're great at throwing your labels around but you avoid awkward questions like what financial contribution single mothers make to the system and society. I've asked you three times now but so far I've had no luck.
People who deliberately sponge off our welfare system are a scourge of society.
I wouldn't do it as I have principles just as many others wouldn't so as far as I'm concerned, I have a right to call out these freeloaders and anyone else who condones their behaviour without fear of being labeled prejudiced.
It's not prejudiced to point out that some people abuse the system.
Apart from a few extremists I don't think anyone is against those seeking asylum with genuine cases for safe haven or coming to the UK as legitimate economic migrants but what people object to is the wholesale abuse of our welfare system by people claiming to be seeking asylum when in fact they are economic migrants, adding further burdens on our already struggling infrastructure.
My OH's sister is a solicitor who has spent the past 15 years dealing with asylum seeker's/economic migrant's applications both for the Home Office and private companies and has informed me of much of what goes on so please don't waste time with your usual meaningless left wing drivel telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Just because someone lives in a dung-heap of a country that isn't our fault and realistically we can't take everyone who turns up at the door. Mass migration is happening world wide, not because of war etc but because they seek a better life. I can appreciate the sentiment but we have to be realistic.
We in the UK don't have the infrastructure to cope with those already here or living here so the logical thing is to close the doors to migrants until such times that we have, otherwise inflation will increase and living standards will simply fall, especially for those already at the lower end of society.
Those who are here illegally/overstayers are unable to claim any benefits etc so have to resort to crime or working illegally for dishonest employers to cover their living expenses.
Apart from the illegality of them being here, many are subject to abuse by unscrupulous employers and criminal gangs.
We don't need them here, we have enough problems and quite frankly I couldn't give a jot as to whether you label me as far right or whatever. I can live with that.
AJB Temple
Finely figured
Sausages.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
He'll never live that one down.
woodieallen
Established Member
I am afraid that you will be waiting a very long time. Sadly, although Jacob does sometimes make some very good points, these are outweighed by dross.
woodieallen
Established Member
Thank you. Another excellent post that points out the utter naievity of a certain member. I don't (as do many) have the patience to beat our heads against a shut door.
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,992
- Reaction score
- 1,399
@ey_tony
@woodieallen
Here’s a wee suggestion. In order for the pair of you to be less stressed and less bad tempered use the ignore option. It’s not difficult, a couple of clicks or taps and you’re there.
Point is, continually moaning and gurning about somebody’s views and opinions isn’t a good thing. Much better to just ignore and move on.
@woodieallen
Here’s a wee suggestion. In order for the pair of you to be less stressed and less bad tempered use the ignore option. It’s not difficult, a couple of clicks or taps and you’re there.
Point is, continually moaning and gurning about somebody’s views and opinions isn’t a good thing. Much better to just ignore and move on.
Last edited:
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
The last general election. Must have been quite some blink!
AJB Temple
Finely figured
Debate is surely only interesting if opinions differ. Almost no one ever changes their mind with internet arguments - they just pretend they haven't heard and change tack or make fun, which occurs here quite a lot. Personally I don't think the ignore button is needed unless someone is abusive or makes persistent ad hominem remarks. We can choose simply not to care. It's a public discourse and others are tuning in too. 
Well said, mate. On the nose, as they say.
ey_tony
Established Member
Toi be honest I don't really get stressed or bad tempered, in fact I quite enjoy a bit of tit for tat jousting with Jacob because for all I may disagree with many of his contentions, in all fairness he does put forward some valid ideological points in defence of his arguments and for that he has my respect so I bear no malice toward Jacob or anyone else if the debate becomes a little heated or adversarial.
Jacob is an excellent ideological debater and I wouldn't want or expect him to change that. He is what makes forums like this, interesting!
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,992
- Reaction score
- 1,399
Good to hear. So moderate your tone and we’ll all be happy. Think I’ve already warned about such (not you) not too long ago in this thread.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Sorry I missed you questions! The answer is zero.
The point is; no non working mothers (married or single) make a financial contribution to society. There are many millions of them. Ditto non working fathers.
But what most of them do contribute is care of their offspring and probably other members of their family, if there are any.
It's part of the huge amount of unpaid work which doesn't appear on any balance sheets or gets included in estimates of GDP.
There are other varieties of unpaid work going on everywhere - from obvious ones like voluntary work, onwards.
In fact it's the basic weakness/fallacy behind the "financialisation" of society and why it should be resisted. It's the elephant in the room!
https://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2023/08/a-flawed-gdp-bypasses-womens-unpaid-care-work/
Many extremely valuable things don't make a profit on paper - these include roads, libraries, schools, NHS, council housing, voluntary groups, etc.... a very long list of state provided services and other societal activities which generate no financial profit.
The market view of the economy says these things are thus worthless.
Obviously stupid, but even more stupid is for them to act upon it and selling them off to profiteers, which is largely why we are up **** creek and getting worse. We've had 45 years of this nonsense, PFI, and other sell offs etc.
https://cebr.com/blogs/unpaid-house...osier-picture-for-growth-during-the-pandemic/
https://weownit.org.uk/privatisation
They've even been selling off playing fields, town parks and looking greedily at national parks themselves. Greedy accountants rubbing their hands together!
Child care could be included in GDP if parent A paid parent B for looking after their children, and vice versa.
There'd be measurable and taxable transactions but completely pointless except for satisfying the small minded accountants/politicians who run so much of our lives.
PS
Once again; worth revisiting @Croolis comment.
He's only talking about paying benefits but the argument applies to so many other things which benefit us all but are "not profitable" appear in no balance sheets, or work at a massive loss.
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/no-fault-evictions.148471/page-68#post-1759714
Last edited:
ey_tony
Established Member
Now I've no doubt you and others will find this point controversial but what I find somewhat unjust in our society is the fact that whenever there is any cash to be doled out around budget or election time you can guarantee it's the "hard working families" which inevitably receive by seemingly default, the lion's share of any handouts while the single adult without children is always at the back of the queue. All of this day care, maternity leave etc etc has to be paid for and it's essentially the taxpayer who foots the bill.
Having children clearly is essential for the continuance of the human race but it's also a lifestyle choice whether as a single parent or a married /cohabiting couple and I can remember a time when people had children when most were married and they could afford them rather than the taxpayer picking up the tab. When I raised my children there was very little financial help. I had to fund almost everything unlike today.
The only child creches back then were in local village halls organised by local mothers and government funding for my children was good old family allowance.
Obviously times change and we've moved on since then but it doesn't change the fact that all of today's social policies have to be paid for and quite honestly if people want to become parents then they should not expect the rest of society to prop up their lifestyle choice so that they are not inconvenienced or affected by having children. In other words they shouldn't expect to have children and still retain their lifestyle at the expense of the taxpayer.
Single people in the UK are largely forgotten and marginalised by governments, mostly because the single or cohabiting parents are the ones who will likely vote for their political party if they make their policies attractive enough.
A little more redistribution of what is available would certainly make it a fairer society.
Serious question.
Is there a correlation between political affiliation and a preference for dying ones hair red, green, pink, purple, blue?
Tell me its not just me that observes this.
Is there a correlation between political affiliation and a preference for dying ones hair red, green, pink, purple, blue?
Tell me its not just me that observes this.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
What colour do you dye yours?
That applies to other cabinet members as well, grabing any freebies on offer whilst inflicting hardship on others is morally wrong and that is the bottom line. These members of parliament seem to have left all their morals behind now they are in office yet when in opposition they were the first to attack the government over much of what they themselves are now doing. Maybe someone needs to give them some good advice such as that they should be setting high standards in government like they said they would and show people the way to behave instead of acting like a bunch of looters. If the rules allow immoral behavior and Mp's cannot be trusted to comply with standards in public office then it is time to change the rules.
Many people are abandoning the sinking ship, not all are millionares but there are also people looking for a better life in places with a better climate. The problem for reeves is that it is the smallest group of tax payers at the top that pay by far the majority of taxes in the uk and would pay even more if they closed the avoidance schemes and there was some reason to remain in the Uk.
That has been an issue for decades, not all the fault of those who choose to live that lifestyle but also many governments have to take there share of the blame for closing down so much of british industry that turned whole communities into ghetto's and gave them so little future but also created generations of people who just gave up and signed on.
At the end of all of this the UK is in a really bad position with huge national debt, a government that seems intent on political suicide, a high number of economicaly inactive people and we are filling up with unskilled immigrants that are net consumers who will contribute little and people like raynor who are more interested in hiring photographers and seeking out freebies.
- Status
