Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Reg
Thought I would correct one of your earlier posts
There are thousands of dysfunctional families in UK,who are, highly probably, abusing the tax and banking systems
Most of us dont have one or more such families in our neighbourhood.as our neighbourhoods are not affluent enough
They need to be exposed but the law seem helpless and we all live in fear of them.
However they are a minuscule element in numerical terms but massive in financial terms and manage to be devastating to our quality of life
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
So much for the hopeful interesting non-political thread which has now turned into the highly political George Osborne saga.
Shame on you miserable lot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Sorry Jan (and others) it would have been nice to debate the moral issues surrounding child-farming for benefits without the political yah-boo but our moderator put paid to that in post 2.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Do the children have to come into this?
Is it not enough that much work was done in order to maximize an 'unearned' benefit? Or must we only moralize over the lesser orders?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Yes Tom, the children are central to this case. That should be clear to a man of your intellect.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Clearly the Chancellor is calculating that masses of potential voters will latch on to his benefits comparison to this case, it could be a vote-bringer. A very woeful attempt of the Nasty Party.
I'd have thought this case was an individual, unheard-of, unprecedented sick idea of some sick people who planned to simulate a tragedy and appear as rescuers.
Looks like the Chancellor has now weighed in grasping it as a last-ditch rescue occasion that
a: explains why he failed dismally since May 2010 (fault of the "benefit scrounger(s) - millions of 'em.
b: prepares the way to a successful run at the next GE (look what these "scum" get up to!
So, for the Chancellor, perhaps the master-mind perpetrator behind this terrible plot that resulted in tragedy could be the last rescuer of a political scheme that failed, dragging our economy into Austerity, but could rise again from the ashes.
To the chorus: "The benefit scroungers cha cha cha..."
Pots and pans clashing...
Hail the Nasty Party!
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Alex, please think what you want to think.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Yes Peter (thank you...I think) to this issue, in Derby, in the news at present.
Not to the morality of arranging ones affairs as a way of maximising ones unearned income.
The children, the duck house, the two toilet seats and the rented porn videos are innocents in these affairs.
Nobody who fancies following in the footsteps MPs etc. can be expected to wait until they are themselves elected to get their hand in.
We also must make a concerted effort to not paint the women here as mere vassals of their 'liege-lord.'
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
No thanks required, Tom, it's a pleasure.
Your last sentence is a very good point which I am sure the tabloid-oracles will explore in due course. But the remainder of your post really isn't relevant, at least not to this issue in Derby.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
Not your fault at all Peter, you did your best when you asked in the very first post for it not to happen.
Most threads on here end up the same way so I suppose it was a forgone conclusion, some seem to have have a very limited interest in the world outside of politics or their own pet subjects.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
OK Peter, if we must.
"child-farming for benefits" I'm not sure I can stick with the word 'farming', even though I do doubt that you would allow a change to something that could encompass 'serial pregnancy'.
Another point is 'benefits', to leave these as meaning only 'taxpayer funded state benefits' is too close to conceding whatever point you wish to display, without a debating blow being struck.
Hardly encouraging debate over one of the main pillars of society, morality.
Really, I do not see that the actions of this one man have broader lessons to teach us as a society. This 'Mick' is an aberration from accepted norms on many fronts.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 41...Feel free to `correct` my posts anytime Ross.
It deserves a place on `elite`..........
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
George Osborne 'playing politics' with Philpott deaths
Chancellor exacerbates Lib Dem unease over Conservative use of Philpott deaths
in making case for welfare reforms
The Lib Dem party has gone out of its way to distance itself from the chancellor's remarks.
A coalition rift was blown into the open when the Liberal Democrats condemned
George Osborne for "playing politics" with the deaths of six children after the
chancellor highlighted the Philpott case to raise questions about high welfare payments.
Amid deep unease among senior Lib Dems - up to and including Nick Clegg - over the
Conservatives' use of the deaths to make the case for controversial welfare reforms
, the party went out of its way to distance itself from the chancellor's remarks.
Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem chief secretary to the Treasury, who is usually careful not
to criticise the chancellor, made clear his unease. "The Philpott case is an individual
tragedy," he said. "Children have died in that case. I think that is where we should let
that case lie. I would not want to connect that to the much wider need to reform our
welfare system."
In the most hard hitting remarks by a Lib Dem, the party's former Treasury spokesman
accused the chancellor of playing politics with the deaths. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove
Bay said: "You can forgive George Osborne's immaturity and inexperience as chancellor
but not this calculating, callous cruelty. If he can't see it is wrong to play politics with
the death of six children, he is not fit to be chancellor."
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#c4news #Philpott is an evil who happens to be a welfare beneficiary
. @George_Osborne using this 2
undermine welfare system is gutter politics
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Perhaps the issue will appear in the Chancellor's "My Struggle".
It would come under the chapter: cutting benefits, under the heading: the depraved and their vices.
Now one of the topics that became evident during the trial was domestic abuse, and no-one would surely have the audacity to believe that domestic abuse is in connection to receiving benefits, or that it does not happen among people who work and earn a wage.
But knowledge of this fact would not further the Chancellor's struggle with the budget, so he needs scapegoats now, thus the "benefit scroungers" have become fair game.
Perhaps it will become collective guilt: "look what you have done!"
From "a history of lord Osborne":
...some who were on benefits also turned out to express their sorrow for the tragedy, but the crowd turned on them pointing a finger... and started chanting... The Chancellor looked on with a callous expression, his lips tight and sealed, self-righteous, as once sir Thomas Cromwell looked on as Queen Anne Boleyn lay at the block...
...he needed to confiscate the benefits, and distribute among the "working elite" the silver and gold plate taken from the houses of the benefit scroungers. These - it was claimed - had hoarded the nation's wealth while doing that which was abhorrent in the eyes of the working elite...
...the Chancellor could no longer borrow more money, and the BoE could no longer print any, and the Chancellor of England needed to confiscate it from those to whom by right it did not belong... the benefit scroungers who lived the life of Riley...
...these bore the stigma of a collective guilt...
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Ok, for farming, read breeding. Not a lot of difference, really. The point is, this man was deliberately producing offspring for the financial rewards.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
...and MPs would claim the same weekly subsistence for both their London and constituency home. Even if they could have been eating at both properties at one and the same time, would these claims be morally right?
We cannot discuss Morality from such a narrow perspective as one man. A farmer in the Hindu Kush will wish to father many children for the benefits they bring. One of these children, had they been left to live, could have found a cure for Cancer or given birth to or fathered one such.
I know you are annoyed, but are you anything more than annoyed Peter?
It is either Morality for all or a 'free for all'.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
can't happen anymore with benefits capped at a monkey a week.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The Concept Of Law by H. L. A. Hart*
From page 168...
"Moral and legal rules of obligation and duty have [therefore] certain striking similarities enough to show that their common vocabulary is no accident. They may be summarized as follows. They are alike in that they are conceived as binding independently of the consent of the individual bound and are supported by serious social pressure for conformity; compliance with legal and moral obligations is regarded not as a matter for praise but as a minimum contribution to social life to be taken as a matter of course. Further
both law and morals include rules governing the behaviour of individuals in situations constantly recurring throughout life rather than special activities or occasions, and though both may include much that is peculiar to the real or fancied needs of a particular society, both make demands which must obviously be satisfied by any group of human beings who are to succeed in living together..."
(my emphasis)
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_LawIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Does anyone realy think peter raised this subject and didnt want it to become political#i think he did
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS