The state benefits system mega-thread.

Originally Posted by Osem

Ok so I'm sure those who're rightly complaining about unfair stereotyping of benefit claimants won't be labelling all bankers as crooks, for example, or supporting those politicians who indulge in that sort of thing.

Excuse me but both sides of this argument are in danger of generalisations. Why don't we remember that not every politician,benefit claimant,Tory supporter,Labour supporter is whatever the other side assumes in every case.

Better still how about both sides refraining from the usual red rag waving about the other factions and actually debate the issues?Stop accusing others of not listening when you are all guilty of not listening.

Or even more novel.Agree to disagree.

[denphone]

l agree with Maggy as its irresponsible for people or politicians to make sweeping generalisations about benefit claimants or bankers and what we must have is a grown up adult discussion about these things and not have this corrosive demonising of all bankers and all benefit claimants.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Excuse me but both sides of this argument are in danger of generalisations. Why don't we remember that not every politician,benefit claimant,Tory supporter,Labour supporter is whatever the other side assumes in every case.

Better still how about both sides refraining from the usual red rag waving about the other factions and actually debate the issues?Stop accusing others of not listening when you are all guilty of not listening.

Or even more novel.Agree to disagree.

No need to excuse you. You just made my point that there are people complaining about negative stereotyping and guilt by association when they indulge in it themselves. Perhaps for some it just seems more acceptable when it's bankers or so called Tory toffs than benefit claimants who're on the receiving end.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:24 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

l agree with Maggy as its irresponsible for people or politicians to make sweeping generalisations about benefit claimants or bankers and what we must have is a grown up adult discussion about these things and not have this corrosive demonising of all bankers and all benefit claimants.

What about vanilla chicken eaters?

IDS claims £39 breakfast on expenses that would not leave him much would it lol http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...akfast-1810086

[Osem]

What's new? They all claim expenses for all sorts of stuff most normal people can't afford.

Originally Posted by Osem

What's new? They all claim expenses for all sorts of stuff most normal people can't afford.

nothing new just funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly1al4K3u2M

Originally Posted by Osem

What's new? They all claim expenses for all sorts of stuff most normal people can't afford.

The claim wasn't allowed.

And tbf, when I was working away in London, if the breakfast in the hotel was that price, that was what was claimed.

[Osem]

What you mean your morals as a taxpayer didn't stretch so far as to make you seek out a cheapy full English in Croydon?

Let's get real folks, all sorts of people claim expenses for things which are allowable and are beyond what many people can afford. No matter what they like to 'preach' I don't imagine when they're 'on the road' our union leaders, church leaders, charity execs. or whatever stay at the cheapest hotels and eat modestly to save money.

Originally Posted by Osem

What you mean your morals as a taxpayer didn't stretch so far as to make you seek out a cheepy full English in Croydon?

It would have cost me more to get a taxi from Central London and back, and they tend not to want to go Sahf of the River at that time...

But there is a little difference . Hugh's wages I believe does not come out of the tax payers pocket and neither does his expenses

Neither did IDS's, as it wasn't paid...

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It would have cost me more to get a taxi from Central London and back, and they tend not to want to go Sahf of the River at that time...

Taxis don't ever go sarf of the river, you should know that.

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

But there is a little difference . Hugh's wages I believe does not come out of the tax payers pocket and neither does his expenses

See the rest of my post. So is a politician who claims such expenses on the taxpayer any worse than a charity exec. who claims them out of the charity's funds? That's the point I'm making.

Originally Posted by Osem

Taxis don't ever go sarf of the river, you should know that.

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------



See the rest of my post. So is a politician who claims such expenses on the taxpayer any worse than a charity exec. who claims them out of the charity's funds? That's the point I'm making.

I agree they are both wrong

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Conversationally, you often hear corporate entities referred to as plural, but the correct usage is singular. A corporate entity is a singular thing, even if it comprises more than one person.

The petitioner has set out text which he intended to be taken as a formal proposition (the resignation of the PM and his Chancellor) and his sentence construction attempts to reflect that formal tone. Under those circumstances, especially as he complains about having his intelligence insulted, correct spelling and grammar shouldn't be too much to ask.

---------- Post added at 11:28 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------

Off topic comments removed. Please don't try to play the rules, it won't end well.

Contextually when referring directly to specific people within the entity which he does, naming two also referring to the cabinet office and expanding to the entire coalition the plural usage would be absolutely correct, the rest of the government are not mentioned.

Originally Posted by Hugh

'Some'?

Over 63 million haven't signed it - once again, you and reality are non-contiguous Venn Diagram circles...

25 million did not vote at the last election, we are still being subjected to the dictatorial minority that voted for the conservatives and lib dems

Originally Posted by Gary L

Can we do Osborne for stirring 'racial' hatred?
it's not racial, but the same crime.
sickening how he's using Philpott as a way of getting people to turn against welfare claimants.

he doesn't realise it but the prat is disrespecting the dead 6 kids too.

---------- Post added at 18:30 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------



Wow.

Seems pretty clear to me the reporters question and Osborne's response was already rehearsed, as in Osborne hands a reporter the questions he will answer and the reporter asks them, Osborne has already rehearsed his responses, reporters who get creative usually end up with deviated and meaningless response. Most fall for the nonsense, whether it be a negative or positive reaction is not his concern, as long as the majority believe his response was off the cuff from a question he was not expecting the desired effect has been obtained. Politics is more about showmanship than anything else. The rest of us are just a paranoid psychotic minority who can be easily disregarded, as you can see my beliefs are well systematized.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Contextually when referring directly to specific people within the entity which he does, naming two also referring to the cabinet office and expanding to the entire coalition the plural usage would be absolutely correct, the rest of the government are not mentioned.



25 million did not vote at the last election, we are still being subjected to the dictatorial minority that voted for the conservatives and lib dems



Seems pretty clear to me the reporters question and Osborne's response was already rehearsed, as in Osborne hands a reporter the questions he will answer and the reporter asks them, Osborne has already rehearsed his responses, reporters who get creative usually end up with deviated and meaningless response. Most fall for the nonsense, whether it be a negative or positive reaction is not his concern, as long as the majority believe his response was off the cuff from a question he was not expecting the desired effect has been obtained. Politics is more about showmanship than anything else. The rest of us are just a paranoid psychotic minority who can be easily disregarded, as you can see my beliefs are well systematized.

As an indication of support, there is a bit of a difference between 17.5 million voters and 27k petitioners...

Re your 'rehearsed Q&A', how does this fit in with all the attacks on Osborne et al in the media, or is that all part of an overall 'master plan'?