DJKillaQueen

Aye I think we will have to pull together and share more as well.

Yes the government says that only 15% of recipients will be affected, not me. I haven't actually given a view on what I think the cut off point should be, responding only to the idea that benefit should not be given for children at all with a view that it should be means tested.

This is an intersting discussion..and I see Quids point...get them profitable again and the enconomy motoring and then regulate.

However, you're letting your desire to show 'compassion' overwhelm your attitude to child benefit. If you read my posts, I am in favour of reforming CB so that those that need it most, get it. I have also argued that it should be reduced with each child as a disincentive for those few that have never worked and do take no responsibility but I also make the point that the majority of parents do NOT fall into this catagory. So please tell me just what is wrong with my attitude there? You on the other hand have a view that only if people exhaust the goodwill of their families and friends should they be given state support. That's just niaively unrealistic and I've given reasons why.

I've simply never talked about an exception have I? Fair enough, I conceed that. All I've said is that I can't see a reason why suuport should be offered on the grounds that you've had a kid. No but you have said that people who need help should look elsewhere, including 'friends' before turning to the state. This just isn't realistic. We live in a country were a 30K salary isn't enough to meet the living costs of a family..esp in London and most people don't earn anything like that. Ok so people cut costs...but we have an economy that depends on debt and people spending money so we are in a self defeating system really. Now I agree that it is probably sensible to means test all benefits. But there's only so much that can be taken away. We have a burden beause we have so many unemployed and sick and no jobs for them to do. We further have a third of the workforce in need of some kind of benefit (usually HB ) to make ends meet. Unless we address THAT inbalance in our economy, taking away a payment from 15% of families is going to do little to change anything for the better.

because many of us are only a few paycheques away from the homelessness and destitution. Exactly. And I find the lack of compassion for those that do fall on difficult times by some dismaying. I thought we'd evolved from that a long time ago.

not a be treated as just another source of income as a reward for getting yourself up the duff. But that is the not case for the overwhelming majority of people that have children H. You are being completely disrespectful to the majority of parents. I take it you have no children (apologies if I am wrong) but you may feel different if you did.

The probelm is H that in this country Mum Dad, siblings are struggling to make ends meet too (and Mum and Dad already are helping out their children, especially with regards to first time buyers). But you gave a very interesting discussion on the different attitudes in Singapore on this in the 'equality' thread in the drawing room and I found many of those points very interesting. It would take a massive cultural shift in the UK to get anywhere near to that though. And we are all so locked into the high cost of living here and our economy depends on us living beyond our means too so it's not a simple thing to address. Family can only support each other if they have the means to do so. I agree with Zeban that you sometimes think every counter example to your arguement is the 'exception'. I'm afraid it's not. One of the reasons why I have such strong views on poverty and unequal opportunity is because I see examples of how that holds people back every day....and these are not irresposible people, with poor attitudes...there are people are trapped in a layer of society they will never get out of without some investment. Job creation for example is one of those things that comes from people starting businesses, or existing companies expanding. Why aren't we facilitating that? All governments have been bad in this country at investment in that respect...in the belief it is always the job of banks to lend. You only have to look at how little help the LTU actually get for example to see that. The government is not helping people to help themselves (and the banks aren't interested in the unemployed for obvious reasons). And until we change that in a dedicated manner, we'll continue to have at least five people unemployed for every job vacancy. You just can't wrtie off millions of people's lives like that.......but that is what the UK economy and government do. In America, backruptcy lasts for one year. Henry Ford went bankrupt three times before he got into car manufactering. He'd never have got off the ground in the UK. Anyway going off topic there...... :)

that 'fair society' is often a disingenuous dinner party rationalisation of 'punish the rich'. The very fact that 'bankers' have been mentioned so much in this debate demonstrates that it's really nothing to do with the 'poor' at all. It's about envy. That's an unfair dismissal of the debate. The only reason why banks are getting so much criticism is because of the part their practises have played in the recent catastrophe. And it's a pretty global view on just what part they played (not some dinner party rationalisation) by many economic experts some of whom were ringing alarm bells long before the crisis. The banking community were designing products with ridiculous risk attached and seeing the profit and bonuses before the risk they were putting their own companies at. No one can argue with that. Had there been another underlying reason for the crisis then the criticism would be different and lobbied at different organisations. It's nothing to do with envy at all. We don't want it to happen again.....we want stable banks with practises that both serve the economy (in wealth creation) but at the same time don't lead us down the same road we've just gone. It's not a difficult thing to solve. They did it after the Wall Street crash for example. With regards to a fair society, I and others are arguing for fairness of opportunity, especially for young people. That means closing the gap between state and public school education for a start. Some of you mention entrpreneurs...well if you want to set up a business that requires money, and if you are from a poorer background with no assets you are not going to get that investment unless you have some great unique idea and then only at a high price. The dice is always loaded so that you will get less return for the work you put in if you try, and you'll only get to fail once (because of our stupid laws on banckruptcy in this country that lock people out for seven years). This discussion is not about making everyone millionaires anyway (that could never happnen). Most people just want to be able to make ends meet and provide for their family. That's not too much to ask. But HAL is absolutely right in how the current system is designed to enslave everyone in masses of lifelong debt. Capatialism has other forms. It's doesn't have to be so debt ridden. I don't have all the solutions for what we do to level the paying field but there has to be some recognition that the playing field isn't level and that there are some things that can be done for those that truly would benefit and use the opportunities given. But to pretend there are no other options for a healthier, more stable and fair economy, is just nonsense.

or for their forcible removal if you can't feed them That's a ridiculous comment to make. People's circumstances change. And as IV pointed out she has both worked and at other time's found herself in need of state help. Are you suggesting H that the moment a person beomes unemployed (often through no fault of their own) the state should take away their kids if they can't feed them? Take them away from loving parents and put them into the cruel world of state children's homes which incidently cost more to run per child than giving benefit to the unemployed parent so that they can feed their child. Even you must agree there's a distinction between the kind of parent that finds them self in that position and the large family where both parents have never worked and clearly are not taking any resposibility for their lives. Ant even in the latter, a reduced level of benefit per child would probably suffice as a disincentive.

Yeah I can't see how anyone can complain about being turned away. And criticising the organiser doesn't make sense either. The fact the event is sold out suggests nothing less than a well organised great event to me. The Goose events are well advertised in advance and often do sell out, so the moral is to get a ticket early and avoid disappointment. Have no idea what the Nazi comment is all about either.

Yep it Friday night alright lol. There's a very good reason why the 900 or so kids from the school don't use the park.....because there aren't the facilities there to accomodate either the frequency of sport or range of sport they do. That's why they hire dedicated sports grounds, swimmimg pools and other facilities, which are maintained as such. Take football for example. Football boots damage grass, which is why football pitches have to be maintained (non maintained pitches can be dangerous otherwise). Peckham Rye currently has one sports field out of use because it needs new seed to grow and has a water logging problem on the North part of the common. The rest of the park is just that, a park, and NOT a sports ground. It might be an idea to read the thread before posting insults at posters Craig and Paul.....as you'll see all the answers are already in the thread as to what the school does and why.

Mad rant? I'm sick and tired of people exonerating some of the behaviour of banks (MP in his earlier posts described exactly how banks had moved goalposts (after lobbying for deregulation) to maximise their profits with no regard for the stresses and risk they put on the economy). They need regulating...end of. And no-one is against wealth.....to argue for a fairer society isn't anti-wealth either. But there is a problem with any society where the cost of living is kept so high (housing being one example) that too many people struggle to afford it.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...still your rants keep me amused if i'm in my > Jesus mood....ask Narnia/Declan That's no rant.....it's not even A4 !!!! ;-)

Emerson Crane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Bob* Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But of course they didn't get around to doing > it > > before they had children or mortgages either. > > > Nonetheless a sweeping and lazy generalisation, > which seems to hold up those that have made the > gamble as superior beings worthy of puting up on a > pedestal, and something we should all aspire to. And of course most people that do set out on the road of entrpreneur fail. If we all followed that road who would drive the buses, or nurse the sick, or teach our kids? Again we have a problem im his country where only wealth is deemed to have worth or be any kind of measure of success.

Just to go back a few pages (sorry haven't kept up with the debate).... This is the benefit of having a successful financial services industry in the uk. Ask those with poor performing pensions just what a successful financial services industry has done for them...check out last weeks Panorama for the details of the scam going on there...and oh then there's the mis-selling of PPI and insurance. In fact one industry insider told me that charges and mis-sold PPI is where the banks made most of their money. This so called finacial services inducstry has serviced those at the top of it most and left the rest of us bankrupt.....there can be no argument with that.....and were banking not given the special treatment it were they'd be non-existent now...relegated to the dustbin of bankrupt companies. That's what people, are angry about (especially the poor who don't have loans and mortagaes in the first place), and rightly so.

Must have been a monster poo by that fox then backed up by a hoeard of monster moths.......

lol Waynetta.........that's some troll fest you got planned. Did one really have a ten year affair?

I were an astronaut! And you?

I promise not to tell ;-)

They are and they are open to use but not everything is free. Commercial organisations and sponsored groups pay for use of certain facitlities at the park....like sports facilities. A school I assume would come under that banner, just like the circus. And if nothing else, PR doesn't have anything like the required level of facilities needed to serve the school.

And society has an obligation to ensure that they have an acceptable standard of living, and decent opportunities in life. Morally I think society does, because it is a sign of a civilisated society and because why should an accident of birth afford privilege to some while others never get any opportunity. Childern can not choose their parents, so we should do what we can to give them the opportunity to make a btter life for themselves and that means spending money from elsewhere I'm afraid. We don't get to choose how our taxes are spent. We trust those we elect to spend them on our behalf responsibly. I have no children...should I resent my taxes being spent on anything child related, inculding schools and childcare? That's not how taxes work. Hardly a necessity these days. On that I agree. Child benefit is not an absolute necessity for the majority of those in receipt of it. Just lets stop encouraging it by handing them money for it? Most people do not have children to get benefits. Some do yes but you'll find that most unemployed with children for example were not unemployed at the time they had children. Also take a look at the figures for mothers who lose their jobs and become less employable because they have children or become pregnant. This is a such a complex area that blanket statements that poorer people with children on shouldn't have them is simplistic and niaive. Circumstances change and it is absolutely right that we do what we can to prevent child poverty in this country whilst at the same time not giving money to those who don't really need it.

I think if we can't let someone who is talented have a chance at winning a TV show then what kind of miserables are we. Now if it was Cher we were talking about....it would be no visa for me...;-)

Some will, some won't. The sort of Mailbait person this discussion is about will keep having kids whether they can afford them or not - benefits or not. And if those kids grow up neglected or in poverty as a result then your Libertarian is making those children take the hit for their parents' decisions (or lack of them). And that is the dilemma in the debate. We have to decide at what point any measures would push a child into unnacceptable poverty. But no amount of legislation would do very much about irresponsible parents or parenting...so there has to be something that aims to break the cycle of that too.

If you can choose not to have kids, how can you say that having them is anything but a choice? Only a man would say this. For many women there is a real biological urge to have children. It's hormonal to the point the it becomes their sole aim - why else do couples spend thousands on IVF etc? It isn;t a take it or leave it option. It is a part of life and a genetic design of us as a species. I personally, like PR, have never had that urge...but I know plenty of women that have. Little girls don't grow up thinking life is about getting a good enough job to be allowed to have children. They grow up hoping to marry and start a family (I'm generalising I know). The point is that procreation is as imprtant to humans as eating. It's a necessary part of life. And whilst we live in such an unfair and messed up civilisation to which most of us are enslaved I think the right to follow our hormonal instincts is one that most women would like to keep.