I don't agree with what the MEP said yesterday although I can kinda see where he is coming from but I don't believe what he is saying as universities, the City etc are full of people with working class / state school upbringings, yes a sizeable minority are exactly as he described but I don't believe that what he described represents every working class person any more than every muslim supporting Al Qaeda, its nonsense.

 

Apparently, the fact they have a working-class mother guarantees they'll have a criminal record in 10 years, according to you. Oh, not forgetting the fact they wear tracksuits. :rolleyes: EDIT: Actually having looked at the picture for the first time, the kids' clothes don't look particularly chavvy at all to me, so I don't know what the hell you're on about...

Edited September 1, 201014 yr by Danny

I've gathered from that article that they don't receive any benefits. Her partner has a job, they don't get school meals and they pay rent, so surely they are entitled to ask for a bigger house? And if they get the bigger house, they will pay rent like they do now. What's the problem?

Apparently, the fact they have a working-class mother guarantees they'll have a criminal record in 10 years, according to you. Oh, not forgetting the fact they wear tracksuits. :rolleyes: EDIT: Actually having looked at the picture for the first time, the kids' clothes don't look particularly chavvy at all to me, so I don't know what the hell you're on about...

 

Maybe my post where I said it was not to do with clothing was lost on you ;)

 

I never said it was to do with clothing it was more to do with facial expressions, look at that horrible boy at the front in the black t shirt, the look on his face, he has evil written all over him from the facial expression and his brother next to him isn't much better, the one at the back with the grey top again looks a right nasty piece of work with his hairstyle and look on his face etc, it was nowt to do with clothing

 

And that woman at the front she looks like the ugly sister of the woman that took her kids to Raul Moat's funeral

I've gathered from that article that they don't receive any benefits. Her partner has a job, they don't get school meals and they pay rent, so surely they are entitled to ask for a bigger house? And if they get the bigger house, they will pay rent like they do now. What's the problem?

 

He drives a van, van drivers earn around 200-250 a week, there is no way they are feeding a family of 10 on that sort of money, they will definitely be poncing off the state even though he is bringing in a modest income

He drives a van, van drivers earn around 200-250 a week, there is no way they are feeding a family of 10 on that sort of money, they will definitely be poncing off the state even though he is bringing in a modest income

 

Which is a very good case for why we should bring into law legislation that means ALL employers have to pay all employees a decent, living wage, so people who are working hard don't have to rely on the state.

Maybe my post where I said it was not to do with clothing was lost on you ;)

 

I never said it was to do with clothing it was more to do with facial expressions, look at that horrible boy at the front in the black t shirt, the look on his face, he has evil written all over him from the facial expression and his brother next to him isn't much better, the one at the back with the grey top again looks a right nasty piece of work with his hairstyle and look on his face etc, it was nowt to do with clothing

 

And that woman at the front she looks like the ugly sister of the woman that took her kids to Raul Moat's funeral

 

Are you seriously judging who will get criminal records solely on the basis of a 10-year-old's facial experssion? Seriously?

 

 

 

Seriously?

Which is a very good case for why we should bring into law legislation that means ALL employers have to pay all employees a decent, living wage, so people who are working hard don't have to rely on the state.

 

That isn't practical though, in a recession when a company is bringing in less money giving a driver a large pay rise would mean prices having to rise thus the driver then ends up out of work when there isn't enough business coming in to justify him.

 

While your idea sounds nice in theory in practice it is unworkable, would have to effectively double his salary to bring in enough to provide for 10 kids

Are you seriously judging who will get criminal records solely on the basis of a 10-year-old's facial experssion? Seriously?

Seriously?

 

The boy might turn out to be a vicar or discover a cure for cancer but looking at him all I see is feral chav

That isn't practical though, in a recession when a company is bringing in less money giving a driver a large pay rise would mean prices having to rise thus the driver then ends up out of work when there isn't enough business coming in to justify him.

 

While your idea sounds nice in theory in practice it is unworkable, would have to effectively double his salary to bring in enough to provide for 10 kids

Heartless right-wing bast*rds like you said EXACTLY the same thing about the minimum wage 13 years ago, and lo and behold, it didn't ruin the economy.

 

Anyway, I would be in favour of temporary small tax cuts to the smallest businesses to ensure they can provide a living wage. Big businesses who have six-figure profits have no excuse not to be doing it already.

He drives a van, van drivers earn around 200-250 a week, there is no way they are feeding a family of 10 on that sort of money, they will definitely be poncing off the state even though he is bringing in a modest income

 

On average, a delivery driver would get over £300 p/w. If they were "poncing off the state" then they would get free school meals, which they don't. According to the article, the same article which you've used to assume they're all going to grow up as criminals, they pay for everything.

Heartless right-wing bast*rds like you said EXACTLY the same thing about the minimum wage 13 years ago, and lo and behold, it didn't ruin the economy.

 

Anyway, I would be in favour of temporary small tax cuts to the smallest businesses to ensure they can provide a living wage. Big businesses who have six-figure profits have no excuse not to be doing it already.

 

I am not heartless even if I am right wing but unlike you I have run a business including one years ago that was turning over 7 figures a year so am far more equipped than you to understand harsh business realities, incase you hadn't noticed the country is on a verge of a double dip recession, VAT is going up so business orders are going to go down significantly and property prices are going to fall too so people are going to be less confident about spending so it is simply not practical to effectively double his salary while at the same time this time next year giving him less goods to deliver.

 

And for the record I am in favour of the minimum wage

incase you hadn't noticed the country is on a verge of a double dip recession, VAT is going up so business orders are going to go down significantly and property prices are going to fall too so people are going to be less confident about spending so it is simply not practical to effectively double his salary while at the same time this time next year giving him less goods to deliver.

 

I agree, measures such as the VAT rise that the Coalition are bringing in are profound mistakes, and will probably bring us into a double-dip recession whereas Labour's pro-growth agenda wouldn't. But please cut this bs about how you're going to be struggling - if you can afford private healthcare, then you can afford to pay any employees you might have a living wage. If the price of you providing a living wage might mean you have to stop getting private healthcare and share the NHS with all the "feral chavs" of the country and so you'll see first-hand what spending cuts would do to it, then that's a price that I and most others would be happy for you to bear.

I agree, measures such as the VAT rise that the Coalition are bringing in are profound mistakes, and will probably bring us into a double-dip recession whereas Labour's pro-growth agenda wouldn't. But please cut this bs about how you're going to be struggling - if you can afford private healthcare, then you can afford to pay any employees you might have a living wage. If the price of you providing a living wage might mean you have to stop getting private healthcare and share the NHS with all the "feral chavs" of the country and so you'll see first-hand what spending cuts would do to it, then that's a price that I and most others would be happy for you to bear.

 

I don't employ anyone directly, when I need to I use agency employees as that is the most convenient as opposed to paying someone a full time retainer, the agancy pay directly the people, I have no idea how much they get directly nor is it my business to ask but the amount I pay the agency even if half of it went to the employee it would be over the minimum wage.

 

I use private healthcare as I have a knee condition that needs regular treatment, if I did it on the NHS I would have to wait months just to see a consultant whereas with private it is a shock if I have to wait 3/4 weeks to see consultant or physiotherapist

Why did she have 6 kids in the first place though if she cant afford to look after them? Silly bitch

And how do you know that they couldn't afford them at the time they were born?

 

As for your other suggestions, if you don't know what eugenics means, look it up in a dictionary.

I think there should be a ban in the UK of parents having more than 4 children. The country is already over populated.

I think there should be a ban in the UK of parents having more than 4 children. The country is already over populated.

Well thanks for that. My dad was the youngest of eight so if your policy had been in place at the time I wouldn't exist.

I think there should be a ban in the UK of parents having more than 4 children. The country is already over populated.

What happens if a couple with three children have triplets? Do two of them get forced into adoption? Are they left to die at birth?

Well thanks for that. My dad was the youngest of eight so if your policy had been in place at the time I wouldn't exist.

 

 

Phew! With Shell's logic I'd have just scraped in!

 

Kath

The country is already over populated.

 

According to who?

According to who?

 

While I don't agree with Shelli's proposal for culling all kids after the 4th she is spot on that it is an overcrowded island

 

We have 58m people living here and are a tiny island, our roads are exceptionally overcrowded, our green belt is being eroded to build new houses, our hospitals and schools are overcrowded etc

 

The reason for that is immigrants so rather than cull babies I would rather stop all inbound immigration bar a select few who can make a major contribution to the country