Conservative Conference - BENEFITS

7 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
next time jumpy, I will quote all your text so there can be no doubt.
You know what you wrote and it was accusatory. You changed the text before my post so there is now no evidence of what you wrote or what you edited in your post but I saw it. A typical cowards response.
You accused me of trying to get you banned, relented and changed your text.
Deny it as much as you like but I know what I saw.
Some people are too clever for their own good and soooo shallow.

Not denying it its still there and never was edited, and i still have the pm`s from you and have saved the posts that got removed too old chap, but i dont like school playgrounds and i was just commenting on my post!!

7 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
next time jumpy, I will quote all your text so there can be no doubt.
You know what you wrote and it was accusatory. You changed the text before my post so there is now no evidence of what you wrote or what you edited in your post but I saw it. A typical cowards response.
You accused me of trying to get you banned, relented and changed your text.
Deny it as much as you like but I know what I saw.
Some people are too clever for their own good and soooo shallow.

Not denying it its still there and never was edited, and i still have the pm`s from you and have saved the posts that got removed too old chap, but i dont like school playgrounds and i was just commenting on my post!!
Hmmmmm you must be confusing me with someone else then.
I can't recall EVER PMing you! Wouldn't frankly waste my time :-?
unless you have a secondary account of course and are being somewhat economical with the truth about who you are....
Isn't there something about that in the AUP?

7 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
Very lame Kenty answering my question with my own point, but you always do that when you dont have an answer i have noticed.
Using your idea of taking child benefit off everyone with 4 or more kids does not take into account everyones circumstances and you are as usual classing everyone as the same..... how can you.... not evryone is the same or has the same circumstances.
How many of the people in the numbers you quote are catholic and dont use contraception for religious reasons, the numbers add up and yes are factual unfortunately you can read them how you want to to class everyone in the same boat.... wrong so very very wrong and so very Victor Meldrew!!!

Dont have a go at me about circumstances old chum.
This benefit is NOT means tested, yet the Government are not interested in circumstances old chum.
Anyone...did you see that word....ANYONE earning over a certain amount will be penalised. IF you think it is unfair and unjust to tar everyone with the same brush, then instead of whining on here...contact your MP.
When things are means tested, then they can look at circumstances, when it is not means tested then everyone gets put into the same pot...that is what happens.
I do not think it is right, to pay extra money for someone just because they are Catholic and their religion forbids them to use contraception...what an out dated medieval practice.
People want kids then fine, just why should somebody else be expected to pick the tab up??
Whether you admit to it or not is really irrelevant but.....there are women out there who deliberately have loads of kids, purely for the money and lifestyle it brings....Mathews is just one of many, sitting on a very big iceberg.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
How many of the people in the numbers you quote are catholic and dont use contraception for religious reasons, the numbers add up and yes are factual unfortunately you can read them how you want to to class everyone in the same boat.... wrong so very very wrong and so very Victor Meldrew!!!

If people don't use contraception for religious reasons, maybe they should seek support from their church, rather than using religion as an excuse to claim benefits for children they continue to produce?

7 Oct 2010

Quote by flower411
of the 56,490 single mother claimants how many of these women actually had a husband who was say in the forces and was killed in combat that before there husband was killed they could afford the number of children they had, or how many of these women were married to husbands in a high earning job who and was tragically killed suddenly in a car crash.......... no Kenty you cant answer that can you, your statistics are just numbers and numbers alone and do not prove why these people are claiming, but hey with a broad sweeping brush like you have who cares?!?!? Oh and before you start mate i know of 2 guys who left behind widows 1 has 4 kids and 1 has 5 and they are not benefit scroungers but victims of a sad circumstance.

That's actually not a fair way to get back at kenty as he has a son serving in Afghanistan (or about to) so it's a bit below the belt if you don't mind me saying so.

Hang on !! Some people are constantly refering to having relatives serving (or about to serve) in Afghanistan....
Why is it "below the belt" for people you disagree with to claim personal involvment ??
that wasn't the issue I referred to flower.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by Freckledbird
How many of the people in the numbers you quote are catholic and dont use contraception for religious reasons, the numbers add up and yes are factual unfortunately you can read them how you want to to class everyone in the same boat.... wrong so very very wrong and so very Victor Meldrew!!!

If people don't use contraception for religious reasons, maybe they should seek support from their church, rather than using religion as an excuse to claim benefits for children they continue to produce?
:thumbup:

7 Oct 2010

can't remember now flower, it was ages ago :lol2:
and it's time for bed...

7 Oct 2010

Quote by flower411
can't remember now flower, it was ages ago :lol2:
and it's time for bed...

So ... just attack people who don`t agree with ya mate for no reason you can fathom !
errrmm rolleyes

No. I was entirely respectful and seem to remember saying that kenty is quite capable of answering his own critics.
And I don't "attack" people so much as you might suggest.
And it is an hour later here than UK...
zzzzzz

8 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
can't remember now flower, it was ages ago :lol2:
and it's time for bed...

So ... just attack people who don`t agree with ya mate for no reason you can fathom !
errrmm rolleyes

No. I was entirely respectful and seem to remember saying that kenty is quite capable of answering his own critics.
And I don't "attack" people so much as you might suggest.
And it is an hour later here than UK...
zzzzzz
To be fair, there was some text that seemed to have vanish from a post, I did see it and then it was gone.
Gnv just bellows, maybe he likes a cosy fire but fires dont ingite unless you have enough fuel to light them. you can puff with all your might it just wont work. wink

8 Oct 2010

Yes text was removed.....without any doubt.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Yes text was removed.....without any doubt.

Really and you know this how? Nowhere under any of my posts does it say "edited by" etc unlike on other peoples.
Now i dont want to labour on the point but proof please would be lovely as i know what i wrote and it is still there unedited, i will not be accused of things i have not done and i will certainly not stand to be called a liar by either you or GNV.
The fact is Kenty old chummy chap that you put your point forward and if anyone disagrees with you or questions you, your chum and you then attack and bully, it has been seen numerous times on here and has been commented on about.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
next time jumpy, I will quote all your text so there can be no doubt.
You know what you wrote and it was accusatory. You changed the text before my post so there is now no evidence of what you wrote or what you edited in your post but I saw it. A typical cowards response.
You accused me of trying to get you banned, relented and changed your text.
Deny it as much as you like but I know what I saw.
Some people are too clever for their own good and soooo shallow.

Not denying it its still there and never was edited, and i still have the pm`s from you and have saved the posts that got removed too old chap, but i dont like school playgrounds and i was just commenting on my post!!
Hmmmmm you must be confusing me with someone else then.
I can't recall EVER PMing you! Wouldn't frankly waste my time :-?
unless you have a secondary account of course and are being somewhat economical with the truth about who you are....
Isn't there something about that in the AUP?
In response to this i have actually been a member of this site longer than you GNV so why would i have 2 accounts or is that what you do?
I am pleased to see however that you admit that you do send nasty and vicious pm`s normally but just deny doing it to me on this account but have done it to my phantom account, just so laughable.......

8 Oct 2010

Now back to the actual topic!!
Benefits are in place for the less well off of our population and those that need help.
Yes some people know how to play the system and how to claim more and receive more cash than they possibly deserve, are they any different to the self employed who know all the tax loops and use them (and openly brag about it) to pay less and line there pockets more.
I am sure someone is sure to say well thats the governments fault for leaving open the loop holes, well like wise with benefits then.
Many people are saying the government are doing the right thing with all the cuts they are proposing and maybe they are, but to means test all benefits claims will cost loads and take an infinite amount of time to do thus costing even more as the tests rumble on.
So say some of you just stop everyone with 4 or more kids claiming, why this is victimisation at its worst.
I am sure that those of you who are all for the cuts and the cancellation of benefits are sat easy in your ivory towers having already received child benefit for the full time they can and now have grown up children and dont care cos they are no longer eligable to receive it, or dont even live in the Uk so again not affected, or are on sizeable wages and again dont see why others should get help.
Not everyone is the same and peoples circumstances can change in a matter of seconds, so go ahead and means test people on benefits, and then when their circumstances change means test them again and on and on it goes costing more and more and taking more and more time and money.
Rose tinted glasses are one thing but having a 5 bedroom detached house in suburbia, with no little foreign people living there and no single parent famillies around spoiling the view through the rose tinted double glazing you had put in as windows is just not reality.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
In response to this i have actually been a member of this site longer than you GNV so why would i have 2 accounts or is that what you do?
I am pleased to see however that you admit that you do send nasty and vicious pm`s normally but just deny doing it to me on this account but have done it to my phantom account, just so laughable.......

what!! Where was that said? You do really love yourself, don't you.
I'm not going to trade insults with you. If you have something constructive to say or more importantly are able to prove your claims then do so otherwise crawl back into the relative obscurity you have so far enjoyed throughout your long membership.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
Yes text was removed.....without any doubt.

Really and you know this how? Nowhere under any of my posts does it say "edited by" etc unlike on other peoples.
Now i dont want to labour on the point but proof please would be lovely as i know what i wrote and it is still there unedited, i will not be accused of things i have not done and i will certainly not stand to be called a liar by either you or GNV.
The fact is Kenty old chummy chap that you put your point forward and if anyone disagrees with you or questions you, your chum and you then attack and bully, it has been seen numerous times on here and has been commented on about.
I saw it for myself....Minxy also spotted it. Maybe all three of us need glasses then dunno

I think people will judge for themselves. Or are you also saying that all three of us are liars?

Quote by Minxy
To be fair, there was some text that seemed to have vanish from a post, I did see it and then it was gone.

Let us be perfectly clear here....IF you have any problems with me with regards to " bullying " or " attacking ", then instead of the drivel report it to admin!!
To be honest I really do not give a toss whether you edited your post or not, the bit taken out was nothing to do with me. What I do object to is your attack on me because I put a link up with some figures regarding single parents on benefits who have loads of kids.
I already admitted that the figures did not specify any percentages....they were just unbroken down figures.
I even took your points on board and yet you still attacked me. That is fine but be very careful what you write, as the three strike rules are winging their way to your account.
To be honest your aggression I am suprised at to be honest.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
Yes text was removed.....without any doubt.

Really and you know this how? Nowhere under any of my posts does it say "edited by" etc unlike on other peoples.
Now i dont want to labour on the point but proof please would be lovely as i know what i wrote and it is still there unedited, i will not be accused of things i have not done and i will certainly not stand to be called a liar by either you or GNV.
The fact is Kenty old chummy chap that you put your point forward and if anyone disagrees with you or questions you, your chum and you then attack and bully, it has been seen numerous times on here and has been commented on about.
I am neutral in all this, but there has been the removal of text, maybe it was admin, as there have been warnings about personally attacking people, if that is the case, maybe in future they could put up a post saying the removal of text has been actioned by admin. It doesn't have to say what the text was.
I think it is unfair that someone posts comments then another comments on them only to have the first comments removed.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
Oh and for the soldiers and servicemen serving this country it is a lifestyle choice, nobody made them sign up and they really do know what they are letting themselves in for.

Just for the record.....I am more than aware of that fact, in fact very aware.
Though what that comment had to do with this thread is beyond me.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
Oh and for the soldiers and servicemen serving this country it is a lifestyle choice, nobody made them sign up and they really do know what they are letting themselves in for.

Then they should also understand that if they have more children (and Child Benefit becomes only payable for two) then their lifestyle choice might include not having more children so that if they are killed, their surviving partner doesn't have to struggle. Why should servicemen and women be subject to different rules or criteria? People who have different jobs, also die leaving children behind.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by Freckledbird
Oh and for the soldiers and servicemen serving this country it is a lifestyle choice, nobody made them sign up and they really do know what they are letting themselves in for.

Then they should also understand that if they have more children (and Child Benefit becomes only payable for two) then their lifestyle choice might include not having more children so that if they are killed, their surviving partner doesn't have to struggle. Why should servicemen and women be subject to different rules or criteria? People who have different jobs, also die leaving children behind.
I do believe i also stated this.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
Oh and for the soldiers and servicemen serving this country it is a lifestyle choice, nobody made them sign up and they really do know what they are letting themselves in for.

Then they should also understand that if they have more children (and Child Benefit becomes only payable for two) then their lifestyle choice might include not having more children so that if they are killed, their surviving partner doesn't have to struggle. Why should servicemen and women be subject to different rules or criteria? People who have different jobs, also die leaving children behind.
I do believe i also stated this.
You did. However, you seem to be focussed on servicemen and women in particular. Even though, as you said, they know what they are letting themselves in for. Their choice to be servicemen or women shouldn't afford them any more benefit (in terms of the context of this thread) on death, than people in other jobs.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
Now back to the actual topic!!
Benefits are in place for the less well off of our population and those that need help.
Yes some people know how to play the system and how to claim more and receive more cash than they possibly deserve, are they any different to the self employed who know all the tax loops and use them (and openly brag about it) to pay less and line there pockets more.
I am sure someone is sure to say well thats the governments fault for leaving open the loop holes, well like wise with benefits then.

That may well have been the original intention of Bevan but your additional comment about those that need help is quite interesting. Who determines "need"?

Quote by jumpy
Many people are saying the government are doing the right thing with all the cuts they are proposing and maybe they are, but to means test all benefits claims will cost loads and take an infinite amount of time to do thus costing even more as the tests rumble on.

Isn't that why the ConDem Alliance have determined to stop means testing and why the Labour model was so expensive?

Quote by jumpy
So say some of you just stop everyone with 4 or more kids claiming, why this is victimisation at its worst.

Is that a question or a statement of fact? In my childhood as the second to youngest of 6, most of the clothes I had were first worn by my siblings and when they outgrew them, they were handed down and then from me to my younger brother. No shame in that; they were still of good quality. There is surely a point at which State assistance in the form a child's allowance has a "profit" element after a certain number of children?

Quote by jumpy
I am sure that those of you who are all for the cuts and the cancellation of benefits are sat easy in your ivory towers having already received child benefit for the full time they can and now have grown up children and dont care cos they are no longer eligable to receive it, or dont even live in the Uk so again not affected, or are on sizeable wages and again dont see why others should get help.

When my parents received child benefit (or whatever it was called then) the Country could afford it. When we received similar benefits, the Country could afford it but as the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to his successor earlier this year after the election, "there is no money" so times have changed and it is a bit disingenuous to suggest this is the fault of other tax payers.
Incidentally, I think some benefits are still payable to people "who don't even live in the Uk." as you so kindly put it. Some of them are still UK tax payers after all!

Quote by jumpy
Not everyone is the same and peoples circumstances can change in a matter of seconds, so go ahead and means test people on benefits, and then when their circumstances change means test them again and on and on it goes costing more and more and taking more and more time and money.

Odd that since earlier in your post you seem to suggest that means testing should be dropped dunno

Seems more of a rant to me.

Quote by jumpy
Rose tinted glasses are one thing but having a 5 bedroom detached house in suburbia, with no little foreign people living there and no single parent famillies around spoiling the view through the rose tinted double glazing you had put in as windows is just not reality.

Not even worth commenting on. Pure drivel.

8 Oct 2010

I think that if a post is edited (inc removing text) before anyone else posts on the thread there is no edit notice at the bottom. I've done that many times when i've changed a spelling mistake - but if someone else has posted before you edit THEN you see the 'edited post' thingy.
So is the text was removed before anyone else posted there would be no edited post notice at the end of the post.

8 Oct 2010

Quote by vampanya
I think that if a post is edited (inc removing text) before anyone else posts on the thread there is no edit notice at the bottom. I've done that many times when i've changed a spelling mistake - but if someone else has posted before you edit THEN you see the 'edited post' thingy.
So is the text was removed before anyone else posted there would be no edited post notice at the end of the post.

:thumbup: spot on Vamps

8 Oct 2010

exactement! :thumbup:
Now, you would think that someone who has been here longer than me would know that, wouldn't you wink

9 Oct 2010

Defending an opinion or arguing a point is not attacking a person. Why is it this so often gets labeled schoolyard bullying?
Disagreeing with a point is not bullying. Others disagreeing with the same hysterically made point is still not bullying.
My thoughts are that those who cry about playground meanies should grow up a little and play like adults or step away from the forum.

9 Oct 2010

Quote by vampanya
Defending an opinion or arguing a point is not attacking a person. Why is it this so often gets labeled schoolyard bullying?
Disagreeing with a point is not bullying. Others disagreeing with the same hysterically made point is still not bullying.
My thoughts are that those who cry about playground meanies should grow up a little and play like adults or step away from the forum.

Bully!

9 Oct 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Defending an opinion or arguing a point is not attacking a person. Why is it this so often gets labeled schoolyard bullying?
Disagreeing with a point is not bullying. Others disagreeing with the same hysterically made point is still not bullying.
My thoughts are that those who cry about playground meanies should grow up a little and play like adults or step away from the forum.

Bully!

:kick:

9 Oct 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Defending an opinion or arguing a point is not attacking a person. Why is it this so often gets labeled schoolyard bullying?
Disagreeing with a point is not bullying. Others disagreeing with the same hysterically made point is still not bullying.
My thoughts are that those who cry about playground meanies should grow up a little and play like adults or step away from the forum.

Bully!

Dont you personally attack me!
Not unless its with a good stick of celery anyway wink

9 Oct 2010

Quote by vampanya
Defending an opinion or arguing a point is not attacking a person. Why is it this so often gets labeled schoolyard bullying?
Disagreeing with a point is not bullying. Others disagreeing with the same hysterically made point is still not bullying.
My thoughts are that those who cry about playground meanies should grow up a little and play like adults or step away from the forum.

Bully!

Dont you personally attack me!
Not unless its with a good stick of celery anyway wink

You dieting again after eating all those number 69's in China?

9 Oct 2010

Mmmm I had the odd chow mein too!