Personally I think extreme, vitriolic attacks on benefit claimants of this sort should be classed as hate crimes, as they are an attack on an identifiable group in society that possesses below average economic and social capital.
I agree and the government are also guilty.there is no shortage of evil in our society at the moment.
The Government should bring the Daily Mail to account for this type of reporting.
Why would they? It suits their purposes to have the press vilify people on benefits. Did you not see what Osborne said last time the Fail reported something like this? Of course the Government aren't going to do anything about it.
Why would they? It suits their purposes to have the press vilify people on benefits. Did you not see what Osborne said last time the Fail reported something like this? Of course the Government aren't going to do anything about it.
I don't expect this Government will but I still think they should.
The Government should bring the Daily Mail to account for this type of reporting.
In the unlikely event that the Govt tried to do something like that the Mail would come out with something like
"The government is trying to curb the press' right to free speech!! We warned you something like this would happen after Levenson but did you listen to us??"
In the unlikely event that the Govt tried to do something like that the Mail would come out with something like
"The government is trying to curb the press' right to free speech!! We warned you something like this would happen after Levenson but did you listen to us??"
So the Daily Mail and other media who misrepresent the facts should be allowed to do so?
I think there is no doubt that directly or indirectly a welfare state that rewards a poor work ethic and anti social behaviour has deleterious social consequences. That's really not in question. Many of our ills have come from a ideology that might have been conceptually idealistic but on closer inspection, economically and morally reprehensible.
I think there is no doubt that directly or indirectly a welfare state that rewards a poor work ethic and anti social behaviour has deleterious social consequences. That's really not in question. Many of our ills have come from a ideology that might have been conceptually idealistic but on closer inspection, economically and morally reprehensible.
It is also totally irrelevant to this story except for those people who like to use it as a stick to beat benefits claimants up with.
I think there is no doubt that directly or indirectly a welfare state that rewards a poor work ethic and anti social behaviour has deleterious social consequences. That's really not in question. Many of our ills have come from a ideology that might have been conceptually idealistic but on closer inspection, economically and morally reprehensible.
I like how you made this really vague statement without actually being on the point of the thread, the main one being that HAZEL AND THE GRANDMOTHER WORKED. IE they were not "Dole scum".
And not all evil people are on benefits. Stuart Hazell wasn't for a start! Hazell worked, so did the grandmother, therefore they were a "hard working family" that the Tories and the Daily Heil like to crow about so much.
So, basically, they were a "hard working family", rather than shirkers?
No they were scum, but what is wrong is you? and many others linking this to people who need help and for the most part payed into the system.
I lwas born in the UK, pay tax, I remember paying 34 pence in the pound and 9 pence for NI in the late 70s.
This Tory led Goverment wants to cause problems for the most needest people in our country. Putting public sector workers agaist private sector workes. Telling people those who are helped by the state are CHEATS.
I thought I lived in a great country, But I don't.
I think there is no doubt that directly or indirectly a welfare state that rewards a poor work ethic and anti social behaviour has deleterious social consequences.
Possibly true, but in the absence of a system such as you describe it remains a theoretical exercise. As we currently have a welfare state that rewards work and a justice system tha punishes anti social behaviour.
That's really not in question. Many of our ills have come from a ideology that might have been conceptually idealistic but on closer inspection, economically and morally reprehensible.
Indeed, it appears that the players in this tragedy were molded under Thatcher.
Where in the article does it claim that benefits were the reason for the killing? It merely highlights the environment that the benefits system generated.
Relatives cashing in on her murder. A home life based on benefits, drugs and casual sex. With this family, what hope did poor Tia have?
Tia was the product of a world most people could not begin to comprehend; a world of drug taking, alcohol abuse, domestic disturbances, social service interventions and loose sexual morals — fuelled by pornography — that has become part and parcel of everyday life in certain sections of welfare-dependent society.
Where in the article does it claim that benefits were the reason for the killing? It merely highlights the environment that the benefits system generated.
For throughout their lives? She was living with her mother.
The only jobs mentioned in the article, apart being a drug dealer:rolleyes: are 2007 for Hazell. He may well have had other jobs since or before then.
Either way, in 2007, Miss Bicknell, Sharp’s mother, started an affair of her own with window cleaner Hazell.
Ah, so being unemployed at any time makes them benefits scroungers and thus the welfare state is to blame.
She was living with her mother.
The only jobs mentioned in the article, apart being a drug dealer:rolleyes: are 2007 for Hazell. He may well have had other jobs since or before then.
Where in the article does it claim that benefits were the reason for the killing? It merely highlights the environment that the benefits system generated.
Exactly. Some children live in environments that not one of us would want to be in or raise our children in.
When are the government going to abolish this evil system and save our children from being murdered by the workshy?
Surely as decent hard-working tax payers we can let these children starve to death instead.
Yet again this Conservative propaganda rears it's head.
The Welfare state has never 'murdered' anyone. People Killed them. The whole idea of the welfare killing someone is like saying 'cars kill people' or even 'war kills' in ALL these situations it is people that commit the crime not welfare state, car or war. The conservative media machine is pumping out so much C***p these days - How long will it take for people to understand that the PM hasn't got a compassionate bone in his body and he will blame the welfare state for everything until he has dismantled it, his media machine blames the welfare state for these deaths - I BLAME HIM!
I think there is no doubt that directly or indirectly a welfare state that rewards a poor work ethic and anti social behaviour has deleterious social consequences. That's really not in question. Many of our ills have come from a ideology that might have been conceptually idealistic but on closer inspection, economically and morally reprehensible.
So what explains young men from employed middle class families running into schools/cinemas/shopping malls with multiple weapons and killing as many people as they can until the ammunition runs out?
When are the government going to abolish this evil system and save our children from being murdered by the workshy?
Surely as decent hard-working tax payers we can let these children starve to death instead.
Out of a matter of interest how did the neighbours know he was out of work and claiming benefits for four years and what has that got to do with the price of fish? Also - as already noted - he was a window cleaner. Maybe you should read the article below instead of the claptrap served up by the Fail:
Comments
I agree and the government are also guilty.there is no shortage of evil in our society at the moment.
Why would they? It suits their purposes to have the press vilify people on benefits. Did you not see what Osborne said last time the Fail reported something like this? Of course the Government aren't going to do anything about it.
I don't expect this Government will but I still think they should.
In the unlikely event that the Govt tried to do something like that the Mail would come out with something like
"The government is trying to curb the press' right to free speech!! We warned you something like this would happen after Levenson but did you listen to us??"
So the Daily Mail and other media who misrepresent the facts should be allowed to do so?
It is also totally irrelevant to this story except for those people who like to use it as a stick to beat benefits claimants up with.
I like how you made this really vague statement without actually being on the point of the thread, the main one being that HAZEL AND THE GRANDMOTHER WORKED. IE they were not "Dole scum".
Not all people on benefits are evil :rolleyes:
And not all evil people are on benefits. Stuart Hazell wasn't for a start! Hazell worked, so did the grandmother, therefore they were a "hard working family" that the Tories and the Daily Heil like to crow about so much.
No they were scum, but what is wrong is you? and many others linking this to people who need help and for the most part payed into the system.
I lwas born in the UK, pay tax, I remember paying 34 pence in the pound and 9 pence for NI in the late 70s.
This Tory led Goverment wants to cause problems for the most needest people in our country. Putting public sector workers agaist private sector workes. Telling people those who are helped by the state are CHEATS.
I thought I lived in a great country, But I don't.
The only jobs mentioned in the article, apart being a drug dealer:rolleyes: are 2007 for Hazell. He may well have had other jobs since or before then.
Can you explain that?
Exactly. Some children live in environments that not one of us would want to be in or raise our children in.
Yet again this Conservative propaganda rears it's head.
The Welfare state has never 'murdered' anyone. People Killed them. The whole idea of the welfare killing someone is like saying 'cars kill people' or even 'war kills' in ALL these situations it is people that commit the crime not welfare state, car or war. The conservative media machine is pumping out so much C***p these days - How long will it take for people to understand that the PM hasn't got a compassionate bone in his body and he will blame the welfare state for everything until he has dismantled it, his media machine blames the welfare state for these deaths - I BLAME HIM!
So what explains young men from employed middle class families running into schools/cinemas/shopping malls with multiple weapons and killing as many people as they can until the ammunition runs out?
Out of a matter of interest how did the neighbours know he was out of work and claiming benefits for four years and what has that got to do with the price of fish? Also - as already noted - he was a window cleaner. Maybe you should read the article below instead of the claptrap served up by the Fail:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22515463