Reading the right wing posts on here and other forums I am beginning to realise what is wrong.

It should be a criminal offence to be poor, malnourished, ill, disabled and not be employable,
It should be a criminal offence to care about human beings who need help and try to change things that could improve the situation.
If you have no humanity and are of the opinion that me me me is the only social process available then you should be lauded.
As a right wing apologist you should realise that those who have the most are so GREEDY that anyone who even thinks about having a care for others should be immediately incarcerated without trial.
As right wing apologists, pre enlightened Scrooge is the person you should aspire to as this is how you believe the system should be.
The word Nasty is pornographic and should be deleted.

There are however people still with social conscience who will risk right wing claptrap and continue to help those in need or who have fallen on hard times. Thank you for your efforts.

I hope everyone has as good a time as possible during the next few days, including those who stick their fingers in their ears, wear blinkers and sing la la la and hope someone will take away the worlds problems for them.
There is still hope for you yet, optimist that I am

Your attempt to pretend that reducing one's outgoings doesn't mean that one is worse off if one's pay is frozen or reduced is still risable, though.

Surely you mean "risible"?
We'll have to agree to disagree.

No i did not I have never said that because I haven't had a pay rise nobody else should get one - which is what you claimed.

So either prove it by finding a quote I have made that says what you claim or retract. We both know what is going to happen - neither because you cannot prove it, you would have if could have and you haven't got enough about you to admit when you are wrong.

What I did say was that many in the private sector will have little sympathy with civil servants striking for compulsory pay increases when many in the private sector - like me - haven't had a pay increase in a number of years. That isn't anything like what claim I said. Again please read what is written not what you want it to say.

At best, it was nothing other than sophistry.

Try taking it to its logical conclusion: 'Oh, I'm not worse off because my boss slashed my pay by a huge: I cut my outgoings by giving up my house and now I sleep on a bench in the park, so I'm not actually worse off.'

Is that why you replied to "Graeme" on another thread while replying to Jerry Chicken?

I heard a foodbank manager on the radio yesterday, when questioned about the nutritional value of a typical basket, stated that they tried to offer a balanced selection but were sometimes hampered logistically - many foodbanks have no facility for handling fresh, chilled or frozen foods. He also admitted that some had asked for "convenience" food but further investigation showed that the voucher holder didn't have the money to feed their meter to cook food.

I'll also try to find a link to Katie Hopkins blog on Huffington Post where she asserts that many female recipients are swapping their jam rags for a rock of crack

Out-smarted once again - why does everyone find it so easy?

What on earth are you on about now fool?

It's especially funny coming from someone who bemoans the systemic abuse of the welfare state, quoting apocryphal examples of hus own family members being involved in such abuse, yet has never reported such abuse to the relevant authorities

[iBloody druggies.[/i

[iLord Elpers wrote




It looks to me that the figure you quoted ie 32809 was for the end of 2011 and not 2010. The coalition came to power in the 2nd quarter of 2010. So was this a misreading of graphs error or a deliberate error to mislead?


rlhttp://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita-ppprl

Ah, but it's only 'Champagne socialists' who Sal expects to abide by any standards – and even then, not their own but the ones that he reckons they have/should have, even though he cannot then lay out those same standards.

So when he does it, it's not hypocrisy of double standards at all.

Speaking of austerity, will be interesting to see how the Financial Conduct Authority's first major fraud trial pans out. The defendants currently cannot get barristers to represent them as no Chambers will agree to act for the reduced legal aid rates. The judge told the defendants in a preliminary hearing that they may need to defend themselves. So will it transpire they'll need to go to trial without representation and thereby formalise the fact that justice will only be open to the mega-rich in future or will, in the name of austerity, hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money presumably already spent in preparing the prosecution case be written off (defence arguing cannot have a fair trial without representation in such a complex case)? Either way is justice served or public money wisely spent?