Yup, that's right. Thick and stupid, walk around with my eyes shut, never read a newspaper, listen to the radio or television. And as for Newsnight and the Today programme - well, who needs them when you've got Jeremy Kyle.
Bah!
Why not try debating?
Debate what? Any stats or opinion polls to back up your assertion? As it seems to me you are currently arguing with Labour supporters here that YOU know how Labour supporters think and not them! So any debate will be 'I'm right"..."No I'M right". Give us some substance to back up your belief that you know that a 'great many Labour voters' don't agree with their party's leader.
Would cutting benefits have saved those children? Why did George link the killing of children to possible changes in benefits?
Nobody is saying that the benefits system had anything to do with this tragedy.
I think you know that you are just doing the very thing I was talking about.
The point really is that a certain life style has been exposed. Nothing to do with the murders. And we have the right to ask if we as taxpayers want to fund that.
Of course people not on benefits and in work never commit atrocities do they?
Philpots wife was working when she helped him kill the kids.
Its interesting that the fact that these benefit dependents actually had two wages coming in right up until the one woman left (for which the fire was an attempted punishment) and the welfare they were getting was in work benefits, and his wife was working right up until the point she was arrested.
So, are these people stating people in receipt of working tax credits these feckless killers, because I would be a fare number of people posting here are actually in receipt of the same payments that supposedly led to the murder of 6 children.
Nobody is saying that the benefits system had anything to do with this tragedy.
I think you know that you are just doing the very thing I was talking about.
The point really is that a certain life style has been exposed. Nothing to do with the murders. And we have the right to ask if we as taxpayers want to fund that.
You have a right to ask but the answer really means nothing unless you can prove its common, which you can't.
Nobody is saying that the benefits system had anything to do with this tragedy.
I think you know that you are just doing the very thing I was talking about.
The point really is that a certain life style has been exposed. Nothing to do with the murders. And we have the right to ask if we as taxpayers want to fund that.
What percentage of benefit claimants have this lifestyle?
The point really is that a certain life style has been exposed.
What lifestyle?
A lifestyle of two people in full time employment living in a house and having their wages topped up by the state through working tax credits? Because I didnt realise it was a secret, given a quarter of the welfare bill is paid out to working people.
A lifestyle of two people in full time employment living in a house and having their wages topped up by the state through working tax credits? Because I didnt realise it was a secret, given a quarter of the welfare bill is paid out to working people.
I think it's probably more in reference to the dude.
To whom would one have to prove it were common? And to what end?
Osborne was talking about society asking itself the question. Society does not have to prove it's conclusion surely?
The question was nonesense. Their is no evidence that says lifestyles like that are common and most sensible people know that, so discussing one lifestyle that is now over is a waste of time.
The question was nonesense. Their is no evidence that says lifestyles like that are common and most sensible people know that, so discussing one lifestyle that is now over is a waste of time.
How common dose it have to be for society to say it is not acceptable?
A lifestyle of two people in full time employment living in a house and having their wages topped up by the state through working tax credits? Because I didnt realise it was a secret, given a quarter of the welfare bill is paid out to working people.
I think it's probably more in reference to the dude.
I also was not asking the question.
Would anyone think anything of it if it was the 'dude' who was out working and the mother who was at home with the kids?
(Edit. I do NOT support having that many children if you cannot support them mind. Just, the household WAS working. No out of work benefits were recieved)
Nobody is saying that the benefits system had anything to do with this tragedy.
I think you know that you are just doing the very thing I was talking about.
The point really is that a certain life style has been exposed. Nothing to do with the murders. And we have the right to ask if we as taxpayers want to fund that.
Most people have been aware for many years that there are those who have been living this sort of lifestyle on benefits and I doubt anyone is happy about it but this is the first time that anything like this has happened and it's very unlikely it will ever happen again so why punish everyone for what this despicable person has done?
Since when has the taxpayer had the right to ask what 'us' taxpayers want to fund ?
Most people have been aware for many years that there are those who have been living this sort of lifestyle on benefits and I doubt anyone is happy about it
Nobody is saying that the benefits system had anything to do with this tragedy.
I think you know that you are just doing the very thing I was talking about.
The point really is that a certain life style has been exposed. Nothing to do with the murders. And we have the right to ask if we as taxpayers want to fund that.
They were getting the benefits that they were entitled to. As far as I'm aware they weren't fiddling the system. So they weren't doing anything wrong.
So how do we address this issue, without cutting or removing benefits?
Did any of the usual suspects on here actual hear what Osborne said before clambering on their well rehearsed soap boxes to sound off?
I've just heard his comments on on the radio. Any suggestion that he was linking the crime with welfare are tenuous at best.
The politicians accusing him of playing politics are the ones playing the bigger game of politics from what I've heard. They aren't even bothering to quote him accurately - they're simply wading in with their usual gusto.
Comments
Debate what? Any stats or opinion polls to back up your assertion? As it seems to me you are currently arguing with Labour supporters here that YOU know how Labour supporters think and not them! So any debate will be 'I'm right"..."No I'M right". Give us some substance to back up your belief that you know that a 'great many Labour voters' don't agree with their party's leader.
Nobody is saying that the benefits system had anything to do with this tragedy.
I think you know that you are just doing the very thing I was talking about.
The point really is that a certain life style has been exposed. Nothing to do with the murders. And we have the right to ask if we as taxpayers want to fund that.
@ disgusting isn't it.
They're even worst than I thought and that's saying something.
As do I and it certainly isn't the rags
Jack the Ripper was on benefits, official.
Philpots wife was working when she helped him kill the kids.
Its interesting that the fact that these benefit dependents actually had two wages coming in right up until the one woman left (for which the fire was an attempted punishment) and the welfare they were getting was in work benefits, and his wife was working right up until the point she was arrested.
So, are these people stating people in receipt of working tax credits these feckless killers, because I would be a fare number of people posting here are actually in receipt of the same payments that supposedly led to the murder of 6 children.
Which paper said that welfare caused the murders?
You have a right to ask but the answer really means nothing unless you can prove its common, which you can't.
What percentage of benefit claimants have this lifestyle?
Come off it, everyone knows the techniques, sleight of hand, involved in spreading the propaganda, stop playing the fool.
To whom would one have to prove it were common? And to what end?
Osborne was talking about society asking itself the question. Society does not have to prove it's conclusion surely?
190 families in the same boat as the Philpotts, yet the media select extreme examples out of those 190 and pass it off as the tip of the iceberg.
What lifestyle?
A lifestyle of two people in full time employment living in a house and having their wages topped up by the state through working tax credits? Because I didnt realise it was a secret, given a quarter of the welfare bill is paid out to working people.
Only a ****ing moron would think that welfare caused this.
I do not believe that anyone is that stupid that they would accept this by slight of hand or explicitly.
I think it's probably more in reference to the dude.
I also was not asking the question.
The question was nonesense. Their is no evidence that says lifestyles like that are common and most sensible people know that, so discussing one lifestyle that is now over is a waste of time.
How common dose it have to be for society to say it is not acceptable?
What is the number?
Would anyone think anything of it if it was the 'dude' who was out working and the mother who was at home with the kids?
(Edit. I do NOT support having that many children if you cannot support them mind. Just, the household WAS working. No out of work benefits were recieved)
Well so far the evidence is one family. I think most sensible people realise their are bigger issues than that.
Most people have been aware for many years that there are those who have been living this sort of lifestyle on benefits and I doubt anyone is happy about it but this is the first time that anything like this has happened and it's very unlikely it will ever happen again so why punish everyone for what this despicable person has done?
Since when has the taxpayer had the right to ask what 'us' taxpayers want to fund ?
They were getting the benefits that they were entitled to. As far as I'm aware they weren't fiddling the system. So they weren't doing anything wrong.
So how do we address this issue, without cutting or removing benefits?
I think this is pretty obvious. But the question would be if they should be entitled to what they were entitled to.
I've just heard his comments on on the radio. Any suggestion that he was linking the crime with welfare are tenuous at best.
The politicians accusing him of playing politics are the ones playing the bigger game of politics from what I've heard. They aren't even bothering to quote him accurately - they're simply wading in with their usual gusto.