Re: Welfare or Soldiers?
 

There is no "desired effect" but I will support my opinions. All I'm doing is stating my OPINION, which you are welcome to agree/disagree with but don't try to twist my opinion. If I haven't stated something explicitly don't assume I'm thinking it then post as my opinion.

Forums work best when we all post it how we see it, not trying twist what others have said. An there nothing worse than people who do that whole "ohh so in your way of thinking EVERYONE on benefits should be shot" when I haven't said anything like it and don't think it.

Re: Welfare or Soldiers?
 

Looks fairly explicit to me....

Re: Welfare or Soldiers?
 

<snip from article>He said the "first priority" for the Government should be "defending the country and maintaining law and order" and that further defence cuts were not possible while meeting stated security objectives.</snip from article>

As much as I understand the need to maintain a healthy defense budget should we take this to mean martial law takes precedence over civil responsibility to deserving causes as maintaining a fair income to those in need of long term benefits is crucial to maintaining law and order without imposing military force ?

I also see no reference by this jackass to the ongoing welfare needs for injured service personnel.