The UK Babe Channels Forum

(07-03-2016 06:05 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]^ Why are you so intent on pointing out that people that disagree with you are being "rather silly"? I'd rather let readers judge for themselves who qualifies for that title on this thread.

I don't think people who are disagreeing with are are silly, I think those attacking me for basically agreeing are silly. I think those people attacking me for NOT reading post and being uninformed about those post are silly when i have read them. I think people swaying the debate away from Europe into some form of anti thatcher and poverty in the UK thread are silly when we are in Europe and whave been 40 years. I think people adopting an personal manipulative attacking tone are silly, introducing words like unempathetic. I think people creating a post just critisizing people for using the word silly are very silly.

I don't think we have anything else to say to one another; that would be silly.

I agree let fair minded objective people be the judge, that is not silly.

^If you must continue this...

I see how it is now: I was 'attacking' you for the the small points we agreed on. I should be chastised for thinking that you had not read a post when you took so little notice of it first time around that you initially thought you hadn't read it also! You are allowed to introduce and preach about sweeping somewhat off-topic generalisations but no-one can challange you on them because they are off topic! I am the one using the personally manipulative attacking tone whilst it remains perfectly valid for you to basically use this thread as your own personal soapbox to shout anyone down that disagrees with you. You are allowed to pontificate on your own poor but noble background but wont allow that anyone in a similar situation today is anything but a loafer and I musn't say you lack empathy in any way!

And I'm the silly one - especially for objecting to being called that for expecting any of these things to be any other way.

I also absolutely agree with your last sentence.

Quote: is anything but a loafer and I musn't say you lack empathy in any way!

I haven't called any one a loafer, this is your problem, you THINK I have said these for your straw man arguments, or more likely invent them. Please go back and show me via a cut and paste where I have remotely claimed this. I have stated that most poor are honest and that being poor is not necessariley a reason for crime, and that I fail to see what it has to do with Europe any way. I have taken issue with the claim of poverty and stated by and large poeple per head are a lot better off now than they were. I'm sorry if you have a problem with this fact, but it just happens to be a fact.

Seriously what post are you actually reading? becasue they certainly are not mine.

So any way, exactly why would trade stop between Britian and other Europian countries if she left?

I'd rather be out. Dictated to by Brussels and forced to pay out billions of taxpayers money for what ?... To house and shelter more freeloaders who know how to rape the system ?
Enuff is enuff... we are an island which should be self sufficient instead of our government making shit decisions to sell off our precious resources for a quick buck (backhanders) for ministers ...argghhhhhh

Quote:I remember the 70's I was 12 at there close, I remember the stuggle my mum had, I remember how much better things got thoughout the 80's and have stayed that way. People today typing on computers saying how terrible it has got really do not know what poor means. It's not not having the latest iphone, or driving down to the local food hand out becasue it's better than paying for them. it's having to eat baby food to feed themselves like my mum had to because what money she did get went first on us. So you really have no need to talk to me about the poor of today.

The whole implication of this paragraph is that the kids of today don't have it tough 'like in my day'. That having to go to food banks is some kind of lifestyle choice! That 'everyone' has an iphone so they can't in anyway be having it tough. You imply that no one has the same problem that your mom had feeding her family unless they neglectfully put other things ahead of this priority.

We are of comparable age btw just to be clear.

(07-03-2016 20:03 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]The whole implication of this paragraph is that the kids of today don't have it tough 'like in my day'. That having to go to food banks is some kind of lifestyle choice! That 'everyone' has an iphone so they can't in anyway be having it tough. You imply that no one has the same problem that your mom had feeding her family unless they neglectfully put other things ahead of this priority.

We are of comparable age btw just to be clear.

And this is your problem in a nut shell not reading things properly, or willfully not doing.

I have watched documenteries and watched news items about the poor. In most cases (I assume deliberately so) the camera tends to sweep to the LCD tv, the children on their phones and ipads and parents smoking. I also stated 'it is not about having the latest iphone' I didn't say they had them but poverty means not having food to eat or clothes on your back, not luxury items. Before you start, I never classed us as in poverty, we wasn't, but it was more of a stuggle then as now. The typing on the computers meant the likes of you, not the poor.

I would like to see your evidance of this poverty you speak off, other than one lousey graph that stated it was all relative with absolutely no facts and figures on it.

Unless there is some form of neglect, abuse or uncaring home life then, 'Children do not have it as tough these days 'as in mine' (something also i never stated). I never stated I had it tough, I said it was tough for mum. I have provided you with what a couple with two children get to live on via benefits, being well over £500 per calander month, ALL people with children not working are entitled to it. It's one of the major attractions for imigrants who probably have known REAL poverty.

Are you an american? Because nobody of 'comparable age' with me would ever use the word 'Mom' or spell it that way. young people do to try and appear trendy.

Also why does this cause you no concern?

Quote:Sadly the are plenty of parents will buy themselves a packet of fags rather than new clothes for the children? If they cant afford both and want/need the fags/booze/betting/drugs then dont have the kids!

Why then do you feign out rage when I put something similar but not has strong?

To repeat, where is the cut and paste of my calling these people loafers?

You know what, this is like the forum of old, where someone like you steadfastly refuses to get the thread back on track despite others trying to. Resorting to manipulations and out right lies to create and continue negativity. I have tried numerous times to move on past this and and get the thread back on the Europe track. It's now clear you have ulterior motives, may be you did all along, or are to stupid to understand what is being said to you.

My patience now in trying to explain to you what you are not understanding and has been spent.

(07-03-2016 19:26 )Clit Eastwood Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather be out. Dictated to by Brussels and forced to pay out billions of taxpayers money for what ?... To house and shelter more freeloaders who know how to rape the system ?
Enuff is enuff... we are an island which should be self sufficient instead of our government making shit decisions to sell off our precious resources for a quick buck (backhanders) for ministers ...argghhhhhh

in a nutshell

(07-03-2016 20:39 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]...I have watched documenteries and watched news items about the poor. In most cases (I assume deliberately so) the camera tends to sweep to the LCD tv, the children on their phones and ipads and parents smoking. I also stated 'it is not about having the latest iphone' I didn't say they had them but poverty means not having food to eat or clothes on your back, not luxury items. Before you start, I never classed us as in poverty, we wasn't, but it was more of a stuggle then as now. The typing on the computers meant the likes of you, not the poor.

I would like to see your evidance of this poverty you speak off, other than one lousey graph that stated it was all relative with absolutely no facts and figures on it.

Unless there is some form of neglect, abuse or uncaring home life then, 'Children do not have it as tough these days 'as in mine' (something also i never stated). I never stated I had it tough, I said it was tough for mum. I have provided you with what a couple with two children get to live on via benefits, being well over £500 per calander month, ALL people with children not working are entitled to it. It's one of the major attractions for imigrants who probably have known REAL poverty.

Are you an american? Because nobody of 'comparable age' with me would ever use the word 'Mom' or spell it that way. young people do to try and appear trendy.

Also why does this cause you no concern?

Quote:Sadly the are plenty of parents will buy themselves a packet of fags rather than new clothes for the children? If they cant afford both and want/need the fags/booze/betting/drugs then dont have the kids!

Why then do you feign out rage when I put something similar but not has strong?

To repeat, where is the cut and paste of my calling these people loafers?

You know what, this is like the forum of old, where someone like you steadfastly refuses to get the thread back on track despite others trying to. Resorting to manipulations and out right lies to create and continue negativity. I have tried numerous times to move on past this and and get the thread back on the Europe track. It's now clear you have ulterior motives, may be you did all along, or are to stupid to understand what is being said to you.

My patience now in trying to explain to you what you are not understanding and has been spent.

TV documentaries - the source of all wisdom and completely free from manipulations of their own of course.

Your actual quote was 'It's not not having the latest iphone' - the double negative changes the meaning quite significantly. But if you're saying that was a mistake I concede your intent may have been garbled by it. However, you yourself provide the overall tone of your statements with the better example you quote further down. You are doing my job for me! The bit I picked out had merely stuck in my mind that's all.

I knew perfectly well who you meant with the 'computers' comment hence I never mentioned them.

"Unless there is some form of neglect, abuse or uncaring home life then..." What? That's some pretty decent tucking out the way there!

Evidence - there's plenty more at your finger tips. Does this have more figures to your liking for example: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/...gures-show " Including the choice fact... those in "absolute poverty" (not 'just' relative): 2.6 million.

You again ignore the argument about EU migrants providing a net benefit to this country's GDP in favour of demonising migrants as just after our benefits.

My motives in this were merely to point out the generalisations in your current rose-tinted vision of this country and some of the assumptions you are making in how it might somehow be bettered by its leaving the EU.

But I agree completely this thread had best move on.

You know what ShandyHand, whatever it is you are rambling on about now, I have no idea becasue I really cannot be bother with you any more.

Suffice to say, I never brought up the issue of poor and poverty in the first place, that was doddle, you then was waffing a stupid graph around about poverty thinking it was the be all and end all on the subject. Nor did I bring up the subject of thatcher, that too was other people.

I question what either had to do with Europe.

I didn't manipulate anything anybody said, wrote down and out lies about what they had written, called someone unempathetic.

So knock your self out kid, enjoy yourself.

So i have had a look at the be all and end all of these two gaurdian links.

On poverty

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/...gures-show

Quote:Alan Milburn, chair of the government’s child poverty commission, reacts to figures showing the number of children in relative poverty was 2.3m in 2014

I see that word RELATIVE again, this is not real poverty. To use the word poverty when you mean poor is quite disgraceful, in the same way somebody saying the are starving when they mean hungry.

Quote:“Two in three children in poverty have at least one parent in work.

Wait, what?

Quote:The current definition of child poverty is that a child lives in a household with an income less than 60% of the national average, meaning the number can go down when average incomes are lower in a recession..... as was the average household income after housing costs at £386 per week.

Assuming rent benefit a child is in poverty in this country if the household has 60% of £386/w. This is £231/w this is £70 more than a couple on the dole with two kids live on, and I considered that poor not poverty.

REAL poverty:




Second link.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/...-ucl-study

This deals with European migrants, not immigration as an whole, it is therefore a selective view point.

According to this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/i...eport.html

Quote:Immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s, totting up a bill of more than £140 billion, according to a new report.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

Quote:When we do that, we see that between 1995-2011, on average each EEA immigrant put about £6,000 more into the public purse than they took out.

Non-EEA immigrants each took out about £21,000 more than they put in during that period.

The above also highlights that older generation on imigrants will be needing care and benefits has they become older.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/bri...gration-uk

Quote:The evidence suggests that the fiscal impact of migration in the UK is small (less than +/-1% of GDP) and differs by migrant group

So it would seem there is a little truth in European migration, but it is not especially significant; 20 billion head lines just look more impressive than it actually is.


Also a poster on this thread point something out about that.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...pid1842104

Quote:Mind you, the UK economy is growing, may be all those imigrants are contributing after all.

Doh it was me, how embarresing