Broken Britain

[james23_uk]

[quote="Your Funny Uncle"]

[raggatwin]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=fiEEwfikiVk

[raggatwin]

http://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/photo.php ... =523404233

[Patrick Bateman]

Jones called out as the hypocrite he is. I love how the sanctimonious t*** uses the Costa Coffee example yet supports mass immigration. Champagne socialism: the true enemy of the working class.

[raggatwin]

funny, I thought Boris Johnson lost that one....

[raggatwin]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 62469.html

[Drico One]

Why is it disgusting? Without eugenics, this country is f*cked. This violent criminal was allowed to have seventeen children at the expense of the state. He even had a full-size snooker table ffs!!!!! Still as long as New Labour had his vote.....

So, are you suggesting dismantling the entire welfare state - which is clearly what the Daily DiCanio wants - or are you simply proposing a way to hold feckless individuals responsible, because I'd agree with you on the latter but find the former a transparently despicable Tory plot to ensure Gideon and his ilk pay less tax, whilst those in genuine need of state support are abandoned. While the Tories can retreat behind their walled mansions and the secure boundaries of their country piles, it'll be the rest of us that suffer in Osborne's fantasy, one way or the other.

The welfare state isn't responsible for sociopaths like Osborne, I mean Philpott. People want to have it both ways: they want to sanctimoniously lament the deaths of six innocent children whilst at the same time cutting off the social welfare that those children receive - all to punish the likes of Philpott. You don't - to be fair - but you know full well that eugenics can't work. After a bout of that, there would only be LSE graduates left.

The problem is, for a man who didn't think twice about setting the home of his children on fire with them in it, what makes anybody think the children wouldn't be the ones to suffer if welfare to that family was cut? The likes of Philpott will exist in society whether he commandeers the social welfare due to his children or not. He was named on the birth certs of his children, wasn't he? So, we're into limiting people's reproductive rights, because limiting their benefits rights will merely impact the innocent offspring.

There's an argument that welfare should be restricted to one child if the father isn't named on the birth cert - everyone can get caught once - and no welfare is forthcoming for subsequent children without the father's name, but that's an argument for chasing down irresponsible fathers. In this case, the father seems to have been very much present. So, what do we do? Castrate criminals after x number of convictions? But that's using the judiciary as a tool of class warfare, because Osborne's tax evading buddies will never fall foul of such a system.

Still, I'm under no illusions. I'd wager that at least one of those poor kids would have turned into a dangerous criminal with that man as their father, their symbol of masculinity, and role model of manhood. What chance had they? The solution for me isn't less welfare state - but more (and proper sentencing for lunatics like Philpott who should have remained in jail after his previous heinous crime). Families like that need social supports - not cash benefits - thrown at them to ensure that they don't go off the rails. If that means specialist social work directed at them, 24/7, so be it. If that means more money to build more prisons, so be it. It's a myth to suggest that this money isn't out there - it is, in the Cayman Islands and other well-known haunts of Osborne and his pals. Get some of that back, and nobody needs to suffer the likes of Philpott: not his children nor society. Just Gideon.

Drico.

[raggatwin]

Excellent!


Flaffer says Drico doesnt refer to class like what I does.......

[raggatwin]

.....but then again I dont have the power to ban people for chatting absolute caca.....

[Drico One]

Am I referring to class, though? I'm referring to tax-evading Tories and criminal arsonists. I've no issue whatsoever with socially-progressive upper class elitists, nor with the law-abiding peasantry. I just happen to think that Osborne and his ilk are cynically manipulating put-upon members of the public by linking Philpott to the welfare state, rather than admitting that the likes of Philpott would never have been on the streets if resources were properly distributed across society instead of being stashed in off-shore tax havens. At worst, he'd have been locked up in the jails that, apparently, society can no longer afford to build.

Drico.

[Patrick Bateman]

So, are you suggesting dismantling the entire welfare state - which is clearly what the Daily DiCanio wants - or are you simply proposing a way to hold feckless individuals responsible, because I'd agree with you on the latter but find the former a transparently despicable Tory plot to ensure Gideon and his ilk pay less tax, whilst those in genuine need of state support are abandoned. While the Tories can retreat behind their walled mansions and the secure boundaries of their country piles, it'll be the rest of us that suffer in Osborne's fantasy, one way or the other.

The welfare state isn't responsible for sociopaths like Osborne, I mean Philpott. People want to have it both ways: they want to sanctimoniously lament the deaths of six innocent children whilst at the same time cutting off the social welfare that those children receive - all to punish the likes of Philpott. You don't - to be fair - but you know full well that eugenics can't work. After a bout of that, there would only be LSE graduates left.

The problem is, for a man who didn't think twice about setting the home of his children on fire with them in it, what makes anybody think the children wouldn't be the ones to suffer if welfare to that family was cut? The likes of Philpott will exist in society whether he commandeers the social welfare due to his children or not. He was named on the birth certs of his children, wasn't he? So, we're into limiting people's reproductive rights, because limiting their benefits rights will merely impact the innocent offspring.

There's an argument that welfare should be restricted to one child if the father isn't named on the birth cert - everyone can get caught once - and no welfare is forthcoming for subsequent children without the father's name, but that's an argument for chasing down irresponsible fathers. In this case, the father seems to have been very much present. So, what do we do? Castrate criminals after x number of convictions? But that's using the judiciary as a tool of class warfare, because Osborne's tax evading buddies will never fall foul of such a system.

Still, I'm under no illusions. I'd wager that at least one of those poor kids would have turned into a dangerous criminal with that man as their father, their symbol of masculinity, and role model of manhood. What chance had they? The solution for me isn't less welfare state - but more (and proper sentencing for lunatics like Philpott who should have remained in jail after his previous heinous crime). Families like that need social supports - not cash benefits - thrown at them to ensure that they don't go off the rails. If that means specialist social work directed at them, 24/7, so be it. If that means more money to build more prisons, so be it. It's a myth to suggest that this money isn't out there - it is, in the Cayman Islands and other well-known haunts of Osborne and his pals. Get some of that back, and nobody needs to suffer the likes of Philpott: not his children nor society. Just Gideon.

The welfare state in its current form is unsustainable; the Barnet Graph of Doom indicates that. For too long (particularly under the last government) it was used as a sop to uneducated, ineffectual proles whilst Third World immigrants were imported en masse to do the jobs they should have been trained to do. It was perhaps the most egregious disavowal of Beveridge and all that the post-war Labour government laid the foundations of.

Now for a significant proportion of the population work doesn't pay and it certainly doesn't pay when compared with the bounty festooned on the likes of Philpott. That's for many reasons: the sale of council houses under Thatcher, mass immigration under New Labour squeezing the traditional working class, the dumbing down of the state educational system, the failure to create an industrial base, and an over-reliance on spivs and shysters in the City.

As it is the new Jerusalem is now little more than a razed Babylon.

[Patrick Bateman]

.....but then again I dont have the power to ban people for chatting absolute caca.....

You can always ban yourself.....

[raggatwin]

.....but then again I dont have the power to ban people for chatting absolute caca.....

You can always ban yourself.....

All the usual suspects back you up.

I see my work with you as giving something back, care in the online community if you will. ...

[raggatwin]

Am I referring to class, though? I'm referring to tax-evading Tories and criminal arsonists. I've no issue whatsoever with socially-progressive upper class elitists, nor with the law-abiding peasantry. I just happen to think that Osborne and his ilk are cynically manipulating put-upon members of the public by linking Philpott to the welfare state, rather than admitting that the likes of Philpott would never have been on the streets if resources were properly distributed across society instead of being stashed in off-shore tax havens. At worst, he'd have been locked up in the jails that, apparently, society can no longer afford to build.

Drico.

Not in an explicit marxian way no, but in a more, some might suggest, nuanced Weberian way. Most of the xhief mouth pieces deny the existence of social class as a way of exercising power and that is why they continually refernce made up stories - or at least cases which are non typical - as a way of 'proving' how much power and privelidge poor whites or ethnic minorities have.

[Patrick Bateman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... eight.html

Scared of losing the next election?