Try reading the link that Mick supplied. In the survey the more that people became informed, the more they agreed with the DM stance. If you are trying to say that those are more informed who follow the story closely are more susceptible to propaganda then I would like to see some evidence.
You clearly wouldn't believe the evidence anyway so why would i bother?
Try reading the link that Mick supplied. In the survey the more that people became informed, the more they agreed with the DM stance. If you are trying to say that those are more informed who follow the story closely are more susceptible to propaganda then I would like to see some evidence.
I take it you missed the poll the other month that showed those who are best-informed about how the welfare state works have much more positive views about it?
I take it you missed the poll the other month that showed those who are best-informed about how the welfare state works have much more positive views about it?
Hows does that relate to this case though? - if the better informed feel that the case raises concerns about the workings of the Welfare System, perhaps they are simply concerned at the damage cases like this can do the system?
I take it you missed the poll the other month that showed those who are best-informed about how the welfare state works have much more positive views about it?
It may well be true to say that many of those who are best informed of how it works, are the recipients.
This useless human being apparently wanted to make sure he kept his kids when bitch no 2 moved out.
Therefore start a fire and then "save" the kids and try to blame bitch no 2. for starting it, thus ensuring (or so he apparently expected) he would keep the kids and by a happy coincidence £1000 a month in benefits (allegedly)
Those appear to be the facts of the case as far as I can ascertain.
One can only guess whether the £1000 a month was a factor in him wanting to keep the children but it seems to me only he knows that and the assertion by some that it was not relevant is merely conjecture.
One thing is for sure that this scum bag was living off the taxpayer who was funding his revolting lifestyle is undeniable and whether there are only 10 in the country or 10000 more doing the same it is unacceptable.
Comments
You clearly wouldn't believe the evidence anyway so why would i bother?
I take it you missed the poll the other month that showed those who are best-informed about how the welfare state works have much more positive views about it?
so we just take your word for it then? :rolleyes:
Hows does that relate to this case though? - if the better informed feel that the case raises concerns about the workings of the Welfare System, perhaps they are simply concerned at the damage cases like this can do the system?
It may well be true to say that many of those who are best informed of how it works, are the recipients.
I don't know who this "we" is, i think its just you.
so its a secret then?
Only for you.
Hmm, evidence which is secret - yes that should convince everyone :D:D
Therefore start a fire and then "save" the kids and try to blame bitch no 2. for starting it, thus ensuring (or so he apparently expected) he would keep the kids and by a happy coincidence £1000 a month in benefits (allegedly)
Those appear to be the facts of the case as far as I can ascertain.
One can only guess whether the £1000 a month was a factor in him wanting to keep the children but it seems to me only he knows that and the assertion by some that it was not relevant is merely conjecture.
One thing is for sure that this scum bag was living off the taxpayer who was funding his revolting lifestyle is undeniable and whether there are only 10 in the country or 10000 more doing the same it is unacceptable.
I don't need to convince "everyone". Those who don't get it are a small minority.