Whitestar , I was under the impression the green card scheme ended in 1999 ?

I'll remind you what you posted on page 6 of this thread:



Then on page 8:



There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity to these suggestions. They only way they can be taken is literally.




They were totally short sighted, knee-jerk suggestions made without giving any thought whatsoever to their potential consequences.



See above. You can't blame other people for taking your ideas literally - there's no other way they can be taken. If you say you think people should have to work for 'x' number of years before being eligible for any benefits, how do you suggest people should interpret such a suggestion?



Care to give an example of when an idea as daft as yours has been turned into a workable suggestion?

Not particularly.. I'm not paid to come up with these schemes.

In regards to taking things literally, for example the x years thing i meant that you should have to work for so many years before you can then go and claim a job seekers allowance or something along those lines. Obviously the genuinely disabled people wouldn't come into, but you were putting the whole thing into one group!! Your views are just as short sighted as you think the system is fine and rosey!!! Don't see you jumping on everyone elses back for their suggestions!!

Well, I registered in 1999 through social services and the green card has just been in my purse ever since. I'm pretty sure you can still be registered disabled though.

From Direct gov website:
[i
Registering as a disabled person

If your disability is 'substantial and permanent', you can register as a disabled person with your local council.

It is not necessary to register to get local council services, but it may help in getting concessions such as reduced fares for public transport. It should also help your local council plan their services.

Your local social services department should be able to help you complete the registration form if necessary[/i.

You're not. But you did assert that good ideas can come from silly ones, so I thought you might have an example of when that has happened.



I never once mentioned disabled people. Not once. I said your suggestion that people should have to work for a set number of years before claiming any benefits was stupid. And not for any reason to do with disabled people. So your assertion that it's my fault for taking your suggestion too literally is, quite frankly, nonsense.



I haven't once suggested that the system is 'fine and rosey' (sic). The current system is, however, a good deal better than either of the ones you have suggested.



Show me another suggestion as ridiculous as either of yours and I might do.

No, cos your boring me!! Just give it a rest.. Here's a suggestion, the reason this country is on it's ar5e is because of people like you!!

I'd counter, it's not in an ar5se at all, it's actually doing quite OK if you ignore the media and those under 30.



EDIT

In fact, in order to have a reasoned discussion, lets have two things from all sides of the argument...

5 things that are "in an ar5e" about the UK (and what you would like to see done about it)
5 things that are ACTUALLY worse under the new coalition government (and what you would have done differently)
5 things that are better about the country you'd move to if someone gave you £1m to do so

then we can have a better discussion..... (I have a feeling we belong on The Sin Bin mind)

I dread to think what the countries ar5e would be like if you were PM

Was just thinking the same .....

Ah, that old chestnut. The old "you've pointed out what a fool I am, so I'll just say I'm bored with you" get out. Well done.



People with the capacity for rational thought? That's almost as stupid as your other suggestions.