So despite this ‘last minute’ spend Gordo still hung on to Downing Street as long as he could?

Erm, the Tories slapped a complete ban on the alleged “last minute” Labour spending Lifer (see school buildings etc).

So despite big_n_daft’s ranting, that is pretty much a non-argument.

My concern is that freedom of speech is slowly being eroded.

Dear Editor (of the Daily Mail)…

Kenny – he can say whatever he wants. However some views are incompatible with being in the government or other public positions. Therefore he can resign his public position and say as he wants.

TJ – you are losing your argument mojo, read my posts pls

I don’t really understand your point. Do you think you should be a higher priority that a family with children?

aside from the fact that imo having a family is a lifestyle choice and a disability isnt (unless you are one of those odd people who like to cut bits off of themselves, and i am not ruling anything out in your case :-))

I would be satisfied with the same priority as a family, or single parent with kid.

Because we are lower priority, we have absolutely no way of being housed by the council unless northampton runs out of single parents, and going by my local Asda today that is not going to happen anytime soon.

We were lower priority even when housed in a private let unable to move with damp and mould which we had specialist and occupational health evidence that it was hasten my wifes decline….

But leaving aside my housing history and back to the question I asked which was ,

how is having children whilst on benefits, not a potential means to get a house?

If a child guarantees preferential housing treatment, and if you have a system where all a single parent teenager has to do is get their parent to make them “homeless” with their kid (or write a letter to that effect), and they imediately walk into housing, what do you think they are doing?

To say that teeneagers do not have children to aid their housing and benefits claims is very shortsighted and naive.

And you ask for evidence, what do you expect these kids to do, tell the benefits agencies who compile your oft quoted stats that they kept their kid cos mum said they would get a house?

I claim benefits as a carer, I spend an unhealthy amount of time in the council offices with a wide cross section of people and I know several specific examples of 17 year olds who openly did this.

Given the choice of sitting on JSA at mum and dads or sitting on JSA + child benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc and feeding the kids for next to nothing, explain to me how this is not incentivising “breeding”?

I accept that this is not the norm in your world, but it is far more widespread than you seem to think.

I am far from a right wing Tory when it comes to the usual easy target benefits bashing, but you really could do with coming down my local council offices and talking to some people who are actually in this situation before you comment.

Bournemouth BNP? I thought it was Bournemouth UKIP?

Make up your mind, FFS!

Also, if you’re going to sling around accusations of racism, at least try and find some supporting evidence. I’m amazed you haven’t been snapped up for your own Guardian column. I bet you could churn out gems like this in your sleep:

‘OMGZ! Racism towards meercats!!!1one!!eleven!!1’
http://tinyurl.com/ntbbub

# The teenage mothers came from a wide variety of educational and social backgrounds and were not the deprived group of popular mythology.

# Few of them expected to end up as lone parents, in council housing or dependent on social security benefits.

There was no evidence to suggest that women became pregnant to get council housing or social security benefits. Most of them had known little or nothing about housing policy or benefits before becoming pregnant and the little they had known was usually wrong.

http://www.psi.org.uk/news/pressrelease.asp?news_item_id=37

Kenny – he can say whatever he wants. However some views are incompatible with being in the government or other public positions. Therefore he can resign his public position and say as he wants.

I agree to an extent in that they have to think about the actual language they use (in this case, when you read what he actually said rather than the headlines, he expressed a perfectly valid view; my own opinion is that the world is over-populated and that everyone should be encouraged to breed less).

However I also think they are entitled to express any opinion they like, regardless of their position; “think the unthinkable” as is often quoted. The problem is that there are certain views that automatically trigger a knee-jerk reaction from the media and other politicians, and so any debate on the matter becomes almost impopssible.

That said, the debates on here, if they don’t descend into silly name calling, are often much better and more intelligent than ones in the media in that people do tend to be able to exress controversial opinions without the risk of a public backlash. There have been quite a few times I’ve had my thoughts on a subject altered by things people (sometimes yourself TJ) have written.

Damilola Taylor’s dad was just on Radio5 and said what he thought was the problem with Afro Carribean boys today. Nicky Campbell pointed out that anybody white person who dared to say what he’d just said would have been pilloried as a racist. Mr Taylor said, yes, but I just said what was really happening.

I’m not known for my tact and sensitivity, and I too think it’s ridiculous that you can’t say what you’ve seen with your own eyes without being branded a bigot.

TJ i have had a ponder on what was said last night and to be honest with you i would like an explanation from you on something.

Prey tell – whos side does she fight on? Let me guess. its not the claimants side is it.

you see the thing is mate this sort of nonsense is spouted by total fools that watch to much telly and fall for media spin.
now i know that you could not possibly fall into this category so can only assume that its purpose was to insult.

i am sure you will set me straight.

TJ:

The research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) as one of 17 projects in the Population and Household Change programme . It is based on in-depth interviews with 84 women who had had their first babies in 1995 when aged between 16 and 19, and with 24 fathers and 41 grandparents of the babies. The study took place in Hackney, Leeds and Solihull which were selected to represent areas with high, medium and relatively low teenage pregnancy rates.

So, tiny sample and based on things that happened under the previous tory government… hardly backs up your point does it?

what he said was a total nothing blown out of all proportion by the media

the views of the raving left on this thread are disgusting for the level of side tracking, rabbit holing, pointless pedentry and speed to resort to baseless insults

still its not a surprise, you are/were all allowed to vote

Nonk – I can see why he reached that conclusion.

BigJohn, what have you seen with your own eyes? If you’re worried that people might find it bigoted then ask youself why.

Zulu – its the only bit of actual objective evidence on this thread. It may be poor quality in your view but its a darn sight better than the unsubstantiated rantings that most are using to back their argument.

lifer
do tell.

Zulu-Eleven

So, tiny sample and based on things that happened under the previous tory government… hardly backs up your point does it?

Nothing to counter it except hyperbole and heresay though?

no explanation tj?
thought not.

Nonk

You were very unclear as to what your wife did. From the limited information I had I assumed she was working to fight benefit appeals or a similar role.

You were quoting here with what appeared to me to be a very partial and biased view.

Given more information then obviously my assumption is wrong

your assumtion was based on nothing at all.

Lifer – Member

Nonk – I can see why he reached that conclusion.

My assumption was based on what you had posted.

As TJ, from what you posted.

TJ, Lifer

It wasn’t me who claimed that there was extensive evidence otherwise – see Big_N_Dafts post on p4 for details 😉

TJ’s claimed that research has comprehensively demolished the claims, but cant produce any!

the views of the raving left on this thread are disgusting for the level of side tracking, rabbit holing, pointless pedentry and speed to resort to baseless insults

eg?

no if you go back and read it you will see it works the same if she was defending the claimant.

your assumtion was based upon your need to win the argument not the facts.

Nonk – I can see that now.

However with the info I had at the time it seemed a reaswonable assumption.

Nothing to do with “winning he argument”

ok we shall leave it at that then.
if you can see that thats fine.
it would have been better had you know her role from the start.
shakes hand wanders off.

as we slide down the post-peak oil-production graph, we will need more poor people to do the menial work that used to be done with machinery.

unfortunately, these poor people will need feeding.

soylent green anyone?

we will need all the poor people we can get…

(has anyone read brave new world?)

Nae worries Nonk