Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Staggerlee_BB
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 62
Bisexual Female, 64
0 miles · Widdrington Station

Forum

Quote by Bluefish2009
To date .... my Mother has died 3 times my Father 4,my non existent elder daughter has been pillaged by a hoarde of marauding vikings whilst they performed the blood eagle on me,and the dogs have killed several neighbours leaving us to dispose of the corpses
I always think it best to be both honest and not too elaborate with ones excuses

You missed off the number of times you've also died Staggers!! lol
I blame his script writers
I think you'll find no-one survives the blood eagle
Quote by starlightcouple
If she wants a boat let her buy her own

can you show me anywhere at all where she has said she wants a boat?
i am sure that if she wanted one that badly she could indeed afford her own boat. it is merely a way of showing the coutries gratitude for 60 years of service to it, call it a royal gold watch.:thumbup:

So what's wrong with a gold watch ??? Why in these times of austerity (we're all in this together remember) spend 60 million when 60 quid would do .... it's the thought that counts after all
Quote by Bluefish2009

I feel people should live where they can afford to live. As many of us have too. That should leave more money in the pot for people who really need the benefits

why peeple cannot see that simple logic bluefish, i do not know.:thumbup:
or can peeple see it but choose to argue the opposite just because they can dunno
No it's because it is not that simple .... whilst they spend time bemoaning the break up of communities and the loss of social responsibility the government introduces a seemingly endless array of policy that can only exacerbate the situation .... why oh why can some people not seee this
I feel it is very simple, if you can afford to live in an area then live there, if you can not, then find some where you can. I do not see that the tax payer should fund those who can not live within there means.
You're wrong Blue ... even as far as your assessment of this policy .. people do not live in places they cannot afford (not for long) they can't afford it you see ... limiting the assistance available to them may well in many cases mean they can no longer afford their homes.
So ... some questions
1: what effect will the sudden demand for lower rent properties do to the rents of those properties ??
2: What effect will the sudden availability of higher rent properties do to their value ??
3: Who will benefit/profit from these changes ??
4: Who will lose out ??
Quote by starlightcouple

I feel people should live where they can afford to live. As many of us have too. That should leave more money in the pot for people who really need the benefits

why peeple cannot see that simple logic bluefish, i do not know.:thumbup:
or can peeple see it but choose to argue the opposite just because they can dunno
No it's because it is not that simple .... whilst they spend time bemoaning the break up of communities and the loss of social responsibility the government introduces a seemingly endless array of policy that can only exacerbate the situation .... why oh why can some people not seee this
Quote by Bluefish2009

Now is the time brothers and sisters rise up against your southern oppressors .......FREEEEEEDOOOOMMMMMM !!!!!!!!

Eee by gum!
A classic southern stereotypical misrepresentation of the northern idiom oo and indeed ar back at you
No pirates in Dorset, its the home of your union friends
What !! not even the occasional dvd ???
Quote by Bluefish2009

Now is the time brothers and sisters rise up against your southern oppressors .......FREEEEEEDOOOOMMMMMM !!!!!!!!

Eee by gum!
A classic southern stereotypical misrepresentation of the northern idiom oo and indeed ar back at you
Quote by Bluefish2009
If she wants a boat let her buy her own


No thanks Blue I'll save my donations for those who need them
Quote by Bluefish2009

I could not afford to buy where my family live as I can not afford to, so had to move away. Why should the state/taxpayer subsidize those that rent?
Why not rent
Because I did not wish to dunno
So owning your house was more important to you than living near your family etc. The bit in bold not strictly true then ..... you pays your money...

Now is the time brothers and sisters rise up against your southern oppressors .......FREEEEEEDOOOOMMMMMM !!!!!!!!
Beer should be mandatory .... how else can anyone be expected to sit through 90 minutes of dull shite without recourse to the rope
Quote by Bluefish2009
It's worth remembering how it is that the current state of affairs came about, it being a direct consequence of previous Conservative govt policy in the 80s. The govt effectively decided that state-funded social housing ran contrary to their free market / personal responsibility ethos, and so they decided they would sell off social housing to those living in it at tax-payer subsidised prices, preventing councils re-investing the take in new housing, invite housing agencies to take some of it off their hands, and incentivise the private sector to pick up the slack by abolishing rent controls. Fine.
Now they find that 20 years later, thanks to a sustained housing boom in large part encouraged by govt policy, the free floating market rents they said were what they wanted are actually quite a bit higher than they maybe envisaged at the time, verging on unsustainable so what do they do? Punish tenants, like they're the ones responsible. Sorry, you might have lived here all your life with all your family and friends around you but I'm afraid you're gonna have to move to an area miles away from London or wherever cos unfortunately we've decided we don't want to pay what your landlords charging. It's not the landlord that's charging too much, it's not the fault of policies we put into place, it's yours, cos you were unfortunate enough to be born in an area that we're now intending be available only to better folk who can pay for the privelege out of their own pocket.
It's fucking outrageous. The govt are desperately trying to tell us the number affected will be minimal, but what it means is that families are gonna be forced to areas they don't know, with no familial support around them, and that can only lead to an increase in the kind of social isolation and exclusion that lies at the root of so many of the social problems everyone gets up in arms about. Course, any problems that arise won't be the govt's fault either will it, it'll be the fault of the individuals affected, and we'll do what we always do: beat 'em with the Criminal Justice stick when shit happens.

I could not afford to buy where my family live as I can not afford to, so had to move away. Why should the state/taxpayer subsidize those that rent?
Why not rent .... I'd suggest a council property, oh hang on, no, bugger
To date .... my Mother has died 3 times my Father 4,my non existent elder daughter has been pillaged by a hoarde of marauding vikings whilst they performed the blood eagle on me,and the dogs have killed several neighbours leaving us to dispose of the corpses
I always think it best to be both honest and not too elaborate with ones excuses
I just take them out and shoot them .... better for everyone in the long run
And as for profiles don't get me started on profiles specially those with just a couple of cryptic lines .... the bastards
Often it's a not a case of what you wear but how you wear it ..... judging by the pictures in the link (and I suspect they are deliberately unflattering )this woman just doesn't pull the look off ...though a bit of a smile might help
Quote by browning
What annoys me is that she has come over here and started claiming.
It really p*sses me off.

I don't doubt she came here with the idea that she'd get a job and earn her fortune .....looks like everyones illusions get shattered
A masterpiece of misinterpretation Rob....I'm fully aware of the fact that most employers deal fairly with their employees ,and this legislation I'm sure has had no effect on them, the key word is MOSTsome employers are (and I know this will be a shock to you)unscrupulous and will do their utmost to exploit their employees,it is these workers this legislation given that most employers are not effected by this legislation,can you think who may profit from it's repeal and how ??
Quote by Bluefish2009
Is it time to loose the max 48 hour week?

Why ?? what possible sensible reason could anyone give for allowing employers to impose a longer working week on their staff ?? ..... perhaps you should merge this thread with the health and safety one
Quote by Bluefish2009
They are football fans going to a football match, these are not farming fans coming to support their local farmer, quite the opposite.
I would hazard a guess many farmers will do the job themselves, hence the required protection

Or you could say they are members of the public gathering to cause trouble .... fits both groups under these circumstances,you can wriggle as much as you like Blue but we both know the truth
Quote by Bluefish2009
To be fare, this is not a subsidy, this is the estimated cost of policing or protecting the farmer from animal rights extremist's. The money will go the police not the farmers!

Who pays for the policing of football matches ???
It is a subsidy to allow the farmers to sort out a problem that exists in their industry
Why would animal rights protesters be the problem of farmers??
very cute ...nice sidestep there,do you play rugby ??
And why would (using your logic) hooligans be the problem of football clubs ??
As you well know I meant Badgers (the problem) ...are farmers having to pay the full cost of the cull btw or are funds available.
Quote by Ben_Minx
Happy Birthday Baby Jesus.

I think you'll find that was in September Ben ..... better late than never though
Quote by Bluefish2009
To be fare, this is not a subsidy, this is the estimated cost of policing or protecting the farmer from animal rights extremist's. The money will go the police not the farmers!

Who pays for the policing of football matches ???
It is a subsidy to allow the farmers to sort out a problem that exists in their industry
Quote by starlightcouple
do these classes still exist in modern 2011 britain?
i think
the class system was outdated about 25 yeers ago now :thumbup:

The class system has been outdate for a damn site longer than that .... it is still alive and well though
Quote by Max777
Go on then Blue I'll tell you the real reason..... rural areas are more inclined to vote tory ...tory M.P's are more likely to benefit from any subsidy paid to farmers ... no party will end farm subsidies the Tories want to keep the vote and Labour want to win it.... simples

I still think the subsidies have more to do with the EU and the CAP
The ones from Europe certainly do Max .... but the topic here is a massive subsidy to rid farmers of a problem that, if it threatened engineering,for instance,would be dismissed as something that industry should take responsibility for ... some are left to sink,others it would appear are offered first class accommodation on the nearest luxury liner
Quote by Bluefish2009
Go on then Blue I'll tell you the real reason..... rural areas are more inclined to vote tory ...tory M.P's are more likely to benefit from any subsidy paid to farmers ... no party will end farm subsidies the Tories want to keep the vote and Labour want to win it.... simples

It may have some bearing, why would other industry's not have the same clout?
Most other industry is centralised around working class areas and are peopled by the working classes...The Tories have no real hope or ambition to win this vote and Labour abandoned it in favour of buttering up the middle classes in the late 80's
Merry Xmas to one and all.....xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Star you mean winterval ..... look it up and find out the truth about it ... it was in Birmingham
Go on then Blue I'll tell you the real reason..... rural areas are more inclined to vote tory ...tory M.P's are more likely to benefit from any subsidy paid to farmers ... no party will end farm subsidies the Tories want to keep the vote and Labour want to win it.... simples