perdix22 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 In the mining areas where I used to live anyone caught or suspected of thieving or kiddy fiddling would be at best ostracised by the community or at worst severely dealt with by some of the younger hard men. They would not be tolerated. These days the thieves and cheats have the upper hand. Society, I use that work because community in those areas ceased to exist when the pits went, are running scared of the scum. No one dare stand up to them or grass on them. That is the biggest change I noticed in the last thirty years or so. I know exactly what you mean and have witnessed that myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 I see the chancellor has caught it in the press for highlighting the fact that the Philpots lifestyle was funded entirely by tax payers. I think it's a fair point. It's not as though Mr Philpot was hiding anything under a bushel was he? He'd been on telly twice and was quite proud of his morally bankrupt way of life. I'm no fan of any of "the spotty never done a days work or run a business themselves" government but old George appears to be calling it how the rest of the tax paying Country see it. I am beginning to see how the concept of "shame" helps glue a well ordered society together. There is no shame anymore. I await the Mick Philpot book and mini series I agree, why do you think the Channel 4 comedy drama was called 'Shameless' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynny Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 (edited) He had a dozen kids and was larging it up on telly. I reckon the local dole office would have loved to tell him to f-off, but oh no, the legislation is there and they are "entitled" to all the dosh they got. That "entitlement" and the system is completely and utterly wrong, end of. Another reason to stop children / family related benefits beyond 2 kids. Bang on mungler, I think if you don't work and can't afford kids if you do decide to have kids don't expect the tax payer/ government to pay for them, this would make the chavs think twice bout getting knocked up to get the house and benefits because youd get NOWT.Actually if this was so ,there would be a dramatic reduction in chav/ immigrant culture. NO WORKY NO FREEBIE BENEFITS, when /if you fall upon hard times, Atb Flynny Edited April 5, 2013 by flynny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 As you drive round North London you will see lots of shops with Western Union (money transfer) signs outside them. Consider for a moment, who is using those shops to send money abroad? where does the money come from? Its an absolute can of worms and a lot of it is fed by the benefits system, people claiming in multiple names, people who shouldn't even be here can claim it. It draws people from all over the world, I see it everyday, its in my face everyday. Its everywhere. Stop the benefits, its the only answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 (edited) As you drive round North London you will see lots of shops with Western Union (money transfer) signs outside them. Consider for a moment, who is using those shops to send money abroad? where does the money come from? Its an absolute can of worms and a lot of it is fed by the benefits system, people claiming in multiple names, people who shouldn't even be here can claim it. It draws people from all over the world, I see it everyday, its in my face everyday. Its everywhere. Stop the benefits, its the only answer. It's the same in my area. The Liebore Party have issued inhouse statements warning themselves not to fall into the tap of being seen as supporting the benefits culture, after Ed Ball's backlash against George Osbourne's comments on the Phillpotts. Edited April 5, 2013 by Penelope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynny Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Stop immigration ,no job = no entry to our country, and stop benefits, no past work history = no benefits , As Vincent green has said, stopping benefits is the only answer Atb Flynny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 He had a dozen kids and was larging it up on telly. I reckon the local dole office would have loved to tell him to f-off, but oh no, the legislation is there and they are "entitled" to all the dosh they got. That "entitlement" and the system is completely and utterly wrong, end of. Another reason to stop children / family related benefits beyond 2 kids. What are your views on restricting legal aid to serial criminals or refugees? From my experience people like Philpott (even without the latest manslaughter charges) are drawing thousands of £'s every year from this system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 (edited) I guess that the individuals view on benefits depends to some extent on whether they are a lazy yobs with no intention of ever working or one of those who see their wage packet increasingly gnawed away at by various forms of taxation. The benefit system was a fantastic idea but a bit like the unions got way out of hand to the point where it is unaffordable. Personally I can sympathise with people who have fallen on hard times but have tried their best to keep going, as far as the idiots who breed like rats and live off the backs of the people who do go to work not a smidge! Where is the justice in publicly funding unchecked breeding of massive families? If they feel they have a god given right to have as many as they like they can extend that philosophy to paying for their upkeep. Getting back to Philpots, I didn't realise until yesterday that he had already done time for nearly stabbing to death one of his previous women and her mother, kind of suggests that the sentence he got then wasn't quite long enough? Edited April 5, 2013 by old rooster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 What are your views on restricting legal aid to serial criminals or refugees? From my experience people like Philpott (even without the latest manslaughter charges) are drawing thousands of £'s every year from this system. you cant restrict legal council in criminal cases as they would all get out on appeal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 There is a bit of a dilema in this as I see it most of the money that he got was to look after the children and from what I have hered the children have been fed and clothed and seem to be well looked after. So what do we do not give them the money to look after the children the question of should they all have been borne in the first place in a so called civilised country we cannot just decide ok you have two children we are going to chop your balls off or give a woman an opperation to remove her bits. On the other hand we could say if you are out of work and have more than two children we will bup them in to a childrens home if they did that any of you with more than two children if you lost your job and could not find another would have some of your children taken away I do not no what the answer is I am just posing the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 There is a bit of a dilema in this as I see it most of the money that he got was to look after the children and from what I have hered the children have been fed and clothed and seem to be well looked after. So what do we do not give them the money to look after the children the question of should they all have been borne in the first place in a so called civilised country we cannot just decide ok you have two children we are going to chop your balls off or give a woman an opperation to remove her bits. On the other hand we could say if you are out of work and have more than two children we will bup them in to a childrens home if they did that any of you with more than two children if you lost your job and could not find another would have some of your children taken away I do not no what the answer is I am just posing the question. The answer is............................common sense. It isn't that the people with massive families have been able to ever afford them is it? They've always had to be subsidised so are a drain on public resources. It is pure selfishness, we don't have a need to replace people lost in conflict on a grand scale at this point in time so nobody is encouraged to breed like that. As with most things in life it is all about being reasonable, if the population can't manage that it eventually leads to legislation and it can only be a matter of time before some sort of "kid quota" is introduced as globally we are rushing towards a point where the population is just not sustainable. Might sound a bit dramatic but population growth is a major issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 you cant restrict legal council in criminal cases as they would all get out on appeal Only because at present the law gives the right to free and independent legal advice? Then why not change it? I don't see why serial criminals and those arriving from other countries should obtain unlimited free legal aid. Do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Only because at present the law gives the right to free and independent legal advice? Then why not change it? I don't see why serial criminals and those arriving from other countries should obtain unlimited free legal aid. Do you? if you restrict council the defendant can then say his trial is unfair as he has inadequate defence and win on appeal i doubt it could be changed to only allow fair trials for certain types of people as the law would then be flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 THE major issue, as all other problems stem from the fact of over population. David Attenborough has a lot to say on this. The answer is............................common sense. It isn't that the people with massive families have been able to ever afford them is it? They've always had to be subsidised so are a drain on public resources. It is pure selfishness, we don't have a need to replace people lost in conflict on a grand scale at this point in time so nobody is encouraged to breed like that. As with most things in life it is all about being reasonable, if the population can't manage that it eventually leads to legislation and it can only be a matter of time before some sort of "kid quota" is introduced as globally we are rushing towards a point where the population is just not sustainable. Might sound a bit dramatic but population growth is a major issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeds chimp Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 its now to got the point that its not worth SWMBO actually going to work....took on an extra day...and now works out that we are worse off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 if you restrict council the defendant can then say his trial is unfair as he has inadequate defence and win on appeal i doubt it could be changed to only allow fair trials for certain types of people as the law would then be flawed. Other civilised countries have different arrangements. You can't guarantee a free interpreter and free council everywhere. In my opinion it is another waste of taxpayer's money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Other civilised countries have different arrangements. You can't guarantee a free interpreter and free council everywhere. In my opinion it is another waste of taxpayer's money. And that doesn't take into account the frivolous cases and appeals brought by ambulance chasing lawyers just to rack up the legal aid bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 No-one has mentioned tax-avoidance yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 (edited) Other civilised countries have different arrangements. You can't guarantee a free interpreter and free council everywhere. In my opinion it is another waste of taxpayer's money. wouldnt want to be innocent and wrongly charged there then , now that would ruin a good holiday its just not sporting if your going to bang a man up for years you should at least tell him why they must go straight past the entering a plea bit and go to guilty Edited April 5, 2013 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 No-one has mentioned tax-avoidance yet You just did! The thing is, faced with the prospect of being seen to finance people like this bloke, it isn't much incentive to pay more tax than one needs to. I don't pay any more than I have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 You just did! The thing is, faced with the prospect of being seen to finance people like this bloke, it isn't much incentive to pay more tax than one needs to. I don't pay any more than I have to. I'm with you on that score Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 No-one has mentioned tax-avoidance yet Is that relevant here Henry?. Agree with a lot of what has been said. It all comes down to common sense. The system should be there as a safety net, not as a lifestyle choice for some. ? Why do we provide interpreters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 There is a bit of a dilema in this as I see it most of the money that he got was to look after the children and from what I have hered the children have been fed and clothed and seem to be well looked after. So what do we do not give them the money to look after the children the question of should they all have been borne in the first place in a so called civilised country we cannot just decide ok you have two children we are going to chop your balls off or give a woman an opperation to remove her bits. On the other hand we could say if you are out of work and have more than two children we will bup them in to a childrens home if they did that any of you with more than two children if you lost your job and could not find another would have some of your children taken away I do not no what the answer is I am just posing the question. I don't think he spent much on the kids at all. This is the same man who left the children alone in the house so he could have a threesome in the caravan on the drive. Your are right, I don't know the answer, for sure it's not a simple one. We cannot continue as we are though. We do not give people money after their second child would be my proposal. I would be happy to see "family allowance" as it used to be called, scrapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 What I don't get is with people's opions we seem to hate this benefitand no win no fee ****, so why are we in such a **** state. We all know people poncing of us tax payers. Why do we put up with it what can we do? I wonder how many people on here are work shy spongers. Makes my blood boil but what can I do we and are children are screwed as its only going to get worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 wouldnt want to be innocent and wrongly charged there then , now that would ruin a good holiday its just not sporting if your going to bang a man up for years you should at least tell him why they must go straight past the entering a plea bit and go to guilty There are people in society who commit crime on a daily basis, are arrested several times a year and receive thousands of £££'s worth of legal aid every year whether they plead guilty or not guilty. Why should that be continued? Why should someone who has violated a householder's property or been caught committing assault and caught bang to rights inside be given any rights? I agree with the principles of PACE, but it has gone too far. The rights of criminals are regarded as sacristan whilst those same criminals abuse the rights of anyone they choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.