Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

"we're all in this together"


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

You don't really have the answers do you Neil... Why don't you just admit it...

It takes far less than a genius to have better answers than those you're happy to agree with, such as a cut in £1300pa for the disabled. :rolleyes:

(Mind you, that's only about half of the cut they're going to get!!).

But it DOES takes a mind that is able to recognise privileges; it DOES take a mind that is able to see that a £1000 cut for the richest isn't "wrong" but is in fact just the start; it DOES take a mind to recognise that any individual's success is based on another poverty or even death from poverty. Etc, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 633
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

Neil..

Who said I won't be standing for election sometime... It is something I have always wanted to do...

then you'll merely be the moron that backs the continuation with all that's already wrong - as your posts here will show.

And it shows that despite your intellectual denseness you believe yourself to be an outstanding person with good ideas that others should follow - and via that, that you're a better person than others (who you believe to be scum).

You get to confirm the old saying, that the very people who believe themselves to be right for positions of power are the very people who should be disqualified from having it.

FFS. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I don't want to cut peoples benefits... But the money has run out... Increased taxation alone won't fix the problem, in fact it would make it worse given the global economy...

You don't have the answers, you just like a good moan...

which just gets to show what a complete and utter moron you are.

There is absolutely no difference in economic effect on the wider economy between a tax rise and a cut in spending. :rolleyes:

Yet there is a difference in who those different ideas effect - one effects the richest, while the other effects the poorest.

FFS. :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Its a shame Neil... You will get to your death bed and think, what did I achieve, and the answer will be, I called a lot of people c**ts :)

Well done you :)

no, that's very definitely one thing i won't think. I will know that I've achieved some breathing and helped decimate this planet and nothing else.

Exactly the same as you'll have managed, funnily enough. And then we both turn to dust, and no one remembers us.

Why do you think that your "achievements" will stand for anything in human history? :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Like I said though, you have no will to do anything about it...

you just love to show how small-minded you are don't you? :rolleyes:

My will is firmly behind the good ideas - to the extent that I'm 100% happy to suffer the personal losses that come with them (unlike you, who expects a nice house and foreign holidays by the default of your existence) - and against all that are not good ideas.

In the end, the phrase: "we're all in this together" is probably quite true... All c**ts together, fighting over the scraps from Ashcrofts table...

that's certainly the tory version - "don't complain too loudly, else we might make you suffer as badly as those people we should all regard as worthless scrounging scum - like any benefit claimant (but not of course those claiming benefits who earn £44k or more)". ;)

And via that "divide and rule" routine - just as Thatcher did - they get to do all that they want without a wimper. Except when the rich get hit of course, as the last week gets to show. ;)

YOU, oaf, started the the thead about the CB cut, and how it was "wrong" and "bad". Because the likes of you get to lose because of it.

I've started this thread, because the cuts are twice as deep and being made to the most vulnerable in our society, yet there's not a wimper from you or the media. I'm not disabled, and no one in my family is disabled.

You say I'm just as much a c**t as everyone else. Yet care to point out where my personal benefit comes into this?

You say I'm just as much a c**t as everyone else. Spot the difference? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the difference between the two benefits is £25 per week.

I suppose the real question is can a disable person live on the same as an unemployed person ?

Should a disabled person receive more than a unemployed person ? Why do they need the extra £25 per week at all ?

Bear in mind, modifications to someones home is covered by other benefits etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Total lie...

I said it was unfair to implement it in the manner they have done... I was prepared to shoulder the cut...

Apologies, I did lie. It wasn't you who started the CB thread, that was sifi. But you did bang on about all the poor hard done by people who are "struggoling" on over twice the wage of 50% of the population. :lol:

Instead, you started the " Married couples 'to get tax break by 2015" thread, and say how you thought it was an excellent idea.

An excellent idea, despite the fact that it's being paid for (amongst other things) via a £9.2Bn cut to the disabled.

I'm f**king glad I don't have the same idea of what is unfair as you do. Sadly, the country is run by those who think exactly like you. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Yup... But the people being put on JSA will hopefully be on it temporary as well given they can do work (apparently)....

"apparently" .... but who is saying that they can work?

Is it doctors saying that they can work, despite having signed documentation saying that they can't? Nope.

It's only politicians who are saying that they can work, and for the simple minded this means that apparently they can work. Those politicians are clearly in the wrong job, they should be doctors.

And just think how much money the NHS can save by employing any know-nothing moron politician and those who mindlessly back them with "apparently" as doctors.

Doctors clearly don't need that 7 years of training, the likes of oaf can be qualified as quickly as they they can think. :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Their benefits aren't being cut though (at least not at the moment)... The idea is the ones who can work are being moved over...

who is deciding who can be "moved over"? :rolleyes:

Doctors, who have examined and certificated that person - via which those classed as disabled are classed as disabled, or politicians who have plucked it out of the air without regard to anything and have no medical training?

And are they doing this despite nu-Labour having done the same process already within the last few years, and by doing so are over-ruling those doctors for a 2nd time, despite the politicians total absence of medical training?

Another case of a lack of joined up thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things stop being discussions on here and just turn into pages of slanging matches. After a few pages of this it gets to the point where the point of the original discussions have long since gone and everyone else gets bored of reading them Neil. Not remotely trying to make light of benefits being cut to those that need it. What i'm trying to say is yours and Oaf's "discussions" ruin threads for the majority of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I can highly imagine a builder going into the doctors and saying I have had an accident and I can't walk... That person then getting signed up on benefits because he can no longer walk and do his job... When in reality there are still many jobs they can do...

Its all about the implementation of this... The base idea isn't a bad one... Hopefully everyone who needs it will still get it...

As you mentioned you have bad eyesight, if you were told that you couldn't work with computers any more, would you take a job as bog cleaner, as that was all that's available?

You've already given your take on this - you've been to uni, so you feel you "deserve" a greater wage than someone who hasn't, and a bog cleaner doesn't do that. So your answer by default is "no, I wouldn't accept being a bog cleaner".

And that aside, it's one thing saying "go and get a job" if there's near-full employment, and another thing entirely when 10% of the fully fit - and so more productive - are out of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Things stop being discussions on here and just turn into pages of slanging matches. After a few pages of this it gets to the point where the point of the original discussions have long since gone and everyone else gets bored of reading them Neil. Not remotely trying to make light of benefits being cut to those that need it. What i'm trying to say is yours and Oaf's "discussions" ruin threads for the majority of us.

Fair enough from one angle - so tell either him or me that our take is wrong and put us right yourself.

But what's very definitely the case is that you don't flag us up as having a bad discussion by starting a moronic one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Would I have much choice ?

It depends iof you have a brain that's able to process choices. Currently you're demonstrating that you don't. ;)

Where did I say I "deserve" a greater wage ? I went to university because I knew it would help get that greater wage...

Yet if your sight goes it doesn't. You're f**ked.

But by that very line you're demonstrating that you believe that you have a right to that greater wage forever because you did go to uni. The reality is that you're only able to get that greater wage if you're able to utilise the extra skills you leant - no different to the hypothetical builder you mentioned.

Just as that builder wouldn't write himself down lightly, neither would you. So somewhere in there despite your inability to do joined up thinking, you're still doing the same thing and believing it right for you, and so also right for that builder you suggested to be wrong. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I agree it was moronic but was trying to make a bit of a point. In this thread for example, at the time of posting, of the 122 replys, 98 were by either you or Oaf. The real discussions and arguements get lost as most of us haven't got the time or energy to go though so many posts to find out what's really being argued about.

I started a discussion. That means people have to discuss things.

If you opt out so there's only oaf and me, that's who the discussion will be between. It doesn't take rocket science to work that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually make a comment and then spend the next 97 posts replying to questions etc... Other than ignoring posts, which then results in more posts, I don't know what else I can do...

Isn't this just the nature of discussion boards..

It happens with other users.. Worm, Pogo, CoolPhil, Neil and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...