Forum menu
Regardless of whether he's right or wrong, I see no problem with someone expressing their views. The way the country is going it's soon going to be impossible to express any sort of opinion at all because of the now standard response of "I find that offensive".
The bloke expressed an opinion. You may agree or you may not. You may not like his language, but equally you may enjoy the fact he's been so blunt.
thats an interesting post mrs toast. (poet doesnt know it etc)
Tj i just put the actual figure question to the mrs as she walked in the door.
she reckons i might have to give a bit in you direction but not that much as she has just been dealing with a mother this very day who is in the poo because she has three kids that are registered as disabled
(kerching) who clearly have nowt wrong with em. 😆
Ah yes, of course. Say whatever you want. It's the eejits who get offended who are the ones with the problem. I must say, I sort of find it strangely relieving when some Tory knob comes out with something like this. It serves to remind us all...
I see no problem with someone expressing their views.
I agree. I am quite frankly disappointed that Cameron has censured him and forced him to apologise.
What we need is politicians to be far more honest about their views and beliefs.
Specially Tory ones.
[i]What we need is politicians to be far more honest about their views and beliefs.
Specially Tory ones.
[/i]
Agreed, apart from the Tory part. I'd like to see all politicians being quite blunt/open/honest about what they think/believe.
[i]It's the eejits who get offended who are the ones with the problem[/i]
Genuine question. What actually happens when you get offended? Is it a physical thing? Does it make you ill? What is it about someone else expressing an opinion you don't like that causes this "offended" thing?
"I'm offended by..." is an oft used phrase these days, so I'm curious to hear someone describe their actual physical reaction when they are "offended".
TJ
I know people who had children specifically as it meant that they immediately got a council house, it happens, its disgusting but i would imagine it happens a lot.
In my experience (rather than what i have read) this is the case.
In Northampton where i live, if my disabled wife and i had had a child we would have been housed immediately, rather than waiting for 3 years, we would have had access to 2 bedroon houses (rather than 2 bedroom flats and bungalows which radically reduced the available properties) we considered shaving our jack russell and putting it in a pram but it kept chewing the dummy.
People have kids to get houses, it happens, quite a lot.
Nonk - so your wife who "works in family law" can tell that a child not disabled even tho they are registered as disabled. Did she do a full medical and psychological examination of them? Or merely rely on her common sense?
Says a lot.
So this parent had 3 disabled children to claim extra benefits?
Agreed, apart from the Tory part
Surely you can't exclude the Tories from this ? 😕
Specially as they are the ones most likely to have a hidden agenda.
Which brings me neatly to.........has anyone mentioned yet why this new Tory lord, Howard Flight, was deselected as a Tory MP ?
it would seem so tj yes.
ever heard of expert witness?
she just fights the case tj.
So she is an expert on child disability and can tell that they are not disabled? Full medical and psychological exam? What is her qualification to do this? Is she a consultant paediatrician?
Prey tell - whos side does she fight on? Let me guess. its not the claimants side is it.
Genuine question
No it's not, it's an entirely bollocks question, followed by more patronising tripe (which I could find "offensive", but by your tone, I can tell it wouldn't be worth it).
You think it's fair enough, as a (prospective?...I'm not sure) peer, say, to express any view you want? Tell me, where would you draw the line at the language used. CallMeDave even seems upset by it. Just wondering where your limits are?
tj she is a family barrister, sometimes she fights on behalf of the council sometimes on behalf of the claimants. she fights with the evidence that is presented to her.
So she is an expert on child disability and can tell that they are not disabled? Full medical and psychological exam? What is her qualification to do this? Is she a consultant paediatrician?
she does non of this and i never said she did.
because she has three kids that are registered as disabled
(kerching) who clearly have nowt wrong with em
So your wife can tell the children are not disabled despite them being registered disabled? I wonder how she knew?
tj she hasnt even met the kids you moron this is the evidence she is being asked to present.
Right - so she has one side of the case, presenting evidence that they are not disabled., presumably there is evidence on the other side of tha case, the facts are to be decided in the court.
Now you don't get registered as disabled without strong evidence.
So actually what you said was a load of baloney.
three kids that are registered as disabled
(kerching) who clearly have nowt wrong with em
Right.
maybe shall i let you know how it settles?
My wife and I both pay a lot of tax, but if/when we have kids we certainly won't be able to afford more than 1 or 2. If nothing else we wouldn't be able to afford a big enough house (we can't even afford a 2/3 bed room house in Woking).
If we were on benefits and had four kids we'd get a 5 bedroom house - surely this means the incentives are misaligned?
The guy used the wrong language but his point seems fairly uncontraversal to me, same as the guy who said people had never had it better the other day - what he said was perfectly true for a lot of people. e.g. I've been up for redundency twice in the last three years, but I didn't get the sack, my company now has more work than it can handle, I got a pay rise (after a two year pay freeze) and the mortgage on my flat is on a very low SVR. Most of my mates are in a simular situation - except those in the public sector - they're just taking the pain the private sector has already suffered over the last three years.
So neither you or your wife have seen these kids, you have heard some of the evidence for one side of the case, you decide that the kids clearly have nothing wrong with them.
If we were on benefits and had four kids we'd get a 5 bedroom house - surely this means the incentives are misaligned?
Balderdash
If we were on benefits and had four kids we'd get a 5 bedroom house - surely this means the incentives are misaligned?
You've checked with the council on this? Would it be a five bedroom house on the street where you live now? Tell you what, why don't you find out where it would be and do us a Location Location Location style report on the area.
oh tj come on man.
we have decided nothing i am just trying to get you to understand the stuff we see every day.
Now you don't get registered as disabled without strong evidence.
and you dont get to court without it either.
as i said i can let you know how it pans out 🙄
Edric64. Without counting, that's about your tenth (poor) effort at a troll. Aren't you getting tired of if yet?
I'm not trolling
bbc are stirring a bit but its indicative of out of touch mps in general
funny to see pickles saying how outraged he was - anyone else remember him on question time at the height pf the expenses scandal telling a newcastle audiece mps needed a 2nd home in london because they had to get from the outskirts to westminster for 8-30am
same old torys
Specially as they are the ones most likely to have a hidden agenda.
Despite Dave's protestations, we all know what the tories are about. New Labour however...
There were several families including recent immigrants being housed in very upmarket houses at a bloody fortune to the nation .What's wrong with being pissed off by that when people who were born here and in genuine need have been waiting for years?
Edric 64 - MemberWhy do you see benefit claimants renting huge houses in London at thousands a months then and it's usually bloody immigrants
HOUSE!
[i]Surely you can't exclude the Tories from this ?[/i]
I wasn't. I was meaning all politicians, Tories included. I love when old fashioned Tories come out with stuff like this. Equally I love when old fashioned Labour politicians come out with some of their stuff. It's the bland "I want to please everyone" types I can't be bothered with.
LOL@ Lifer.
Tj
I am awaiting your response on my point that as a housing benefit claimant i am disadvantaged by not having children?
Well?
You've checked with the council on this? Would it be a five bedroom house on the street where you live now? Tell you what, why don't you find out where it would be and do us a Location Location Location style report on the area.
Well according this:
http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/money/benefitsandtax/housingbenefit
This:
http://www.woking.gov.uk/housing
And a bunch of other sites it seems to say that if I could claim housing benefit up to the total value of my rent. If I had four kids, and a five bedroom house, that's the rent that would be paid (up to 30th percentile of local rents). As for whether it'd pay for a house in the street I live, then I'm sure it would as I live in the crappy bit of woking as I can't afford the nice bit...
difficult one that tim i think he will just ignore you.
Well I suggest you get yourself and the missus made redundant and start breeding then if you think it might get you a better life.
😆
But seriously, what way are you disadvantaged?
*Oops...edited. Misunderstood nonk's post.*
In fairness, Ewan does make a reasonable point. It's the "We'd be better off on benefits with a litter of kids" sentiment that goes with his first point that I disagree with.
Tim - I don't understand how you are disadvantaged. You get offered an appropriate property to your needs. I get offered **** all. Am I disadvantaged?
Why do you want a property greater than your needs? properties aere in short suply since the sell off of council houses so must be allocated on a basis of need.
Ewan - not the same thing at all.
If you have the house, lose you job then you might get the benefit, you have no right to a house of that size. Waht you quote does not say
If we were on benefits and had four kids we'd get a 5 bedroom house
[i]No it's not, it's an entirely bollocks question,[/i]
I don't care whether you believe me or not, but it was a genuine question. I'm curious as to why people find some things offensive, and exactly what happens when they get offended. I'm more interested in the freedom of speech being maintained than anything else.
[i]CallMeDave even seems upset by it.[/i]
I suspect he isn't, however in todays political climate he has to be seen to be offended by it.
[i]Tell me, where would you draw the line at the language used.[/i]
Difficult one, and really only answerable on a case by case basis. However if I was asked to give a rough definition I'd say that telling a blatant untruth is unacceptable (eg saying that someone stole something when they clearly didn't) but that expressing an opinion, however much some people dislike it, is acceptable.
For example, you are free to dismiss my opinions as "tripe" and "patronising". I'd prefer it if you were able to debate on a more mature level, but more importantly I'm pleased that you're able to express your opinion.
i am somewhat pants at making myself understood though i will give you that much.
He can say what he likes. However it is clearly inappropriate for some things to be said by our representatives.
Therefore he has a choice - tone down his comments or leave the government.
Would it be acceptable for him to say " send all teh fuzzy wuzzies home" ?
as i see it the term breeding is the offensive bit its a word assosciated with livestock or corgis
when a member of the aristocracy starts talking about 'the poor' in such terms it sounds even worse
Well, the stuff in those links around the housing register seems to indicate that with a bunch of kids we would be in a 'housing priority' band that would result in a getting a decent house as opposed to the one bedroom flat I have now... it might not be imeditate but we'd get something eventually.
The welfare state as it is at the moment basically says 'don't worry about your life choices, we'll sort you out'.
I don't have the answer but some how a bit of responsiblity needs to be injected, e.g. don't have 5 qids unless you earn 100k a year and can actually afford to support your family, or, don't eat junk food all day long and smoke fags unless you can afford the tripple bypass you're going to need.
So anyway........................no one has mentioned why Howard Flight was deselected as the sitting Tory MP for Arundel and South Downs then ?
Probably best to mention it then................he was deselected (by the Tory leader) for saying that the Tories in government, could make more spending cuts than they were promising in their election campaign.
Which doesn't seem like a very serious misdemeanor to me.
Yeah OK, the guy was lying............perish the thought that a Tory government should carry out swingeing spending cuts which they had failed to mention before a general election......but still 😕
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8489966.stm ]No swingeing cuts in first year, says David Cameron[/url]
Quote :
[i][b]"A Conservative government would not make "swingeing cuts" to public spending during its first year, party leader David Cameron has said."[/b][/i] January 2010
as i see it the term breeding is the offensive bit its a word assosciated with livestock or corgis
when a member of the aristocracy starts talking about 'the poor' in such terms it sounds even worse
To be fair, the bloke used the word 'breeding' in relation to the middle classes, and never even said the word poor. Besides he's only a member of the aristocracy as of this week...
Full quote is this:
"We're going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it's jolly expensive."But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. Well, that's not very sensible."
For example, you are free to dismiss my opinions as "tripe" and "patronising". I'd prefer it if you were able to debate on a more mature level, but more importantly I'm pleased that you're able to express your opinion.
I have to apologise here as I'm using a phone to post so can't quite take your post to pieces in the manner I'd like to. It'd take all night. I'm still detecting a patronising tone there; you might want to work on disguising that.
Are you getting mixed up between a statement of "fact" (or a possible porkie) and a "view"? I think there exists legislation on telling lies, be they written or spoken. Come to think of it, there also exists legislation to reign in the language used by people when given a public platform to express their views. I wonder why. Is it just to upset people like you who'd have any old nutter say whatever he wants?
Why do you think CallMeDave censured Flight on this one? Because he knows that it was unacceptable language to use.
So let's clear this up again. You think it's fair enough to express any old opinion you want in public? As long as it's not a porkie pie?
when a [s]member of the aristocracy[/s] [b]BBC report quoting an Evening Standard headline[/b] starts talking about 'the poor' in such terms it sounds even worse
Fixed it for you.
[i]as i see it the term breeding is the offensive bit [/i]
Surely though the aristocracy use "breeding" when talking about themselves too?
Tory gaffe: MP uses a phrase which some find offensive.
Labour gaffe: PM takes the country into an illegal war where thousands are killed.
Your point caller?
[i]Would it be acceptable for him to say " send all teh fuzzy wuzzies home" ?
[/i]
If he did say it then I would regard him as an unpleasant person and not someone I'd ever go for a pint with. However I think it should be acceptable that he be allowed to say it.
kennyp - MemberSurely though the aristocracy use "breeding" when talking about themselves too?
They absolutely do.
You think it's fair enough to express any old opinion you want in public? As long as it's not a porkie pie?
Personally - as long as its not illegal (eg. breaching the laws of incitement to racial hatred, violence or public order laws), then yes, I see no problem at all! after all, thats why we have those laws, to draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not.
Howard Flight has committed the biggest sin in C21st British politics. He has said what, deep down, we all know to be true!
Labour gaffe: PM takes the country into an illegal war where [b]hundreds of[/b] thousands are killed.
Fixed.
[i]So let's clear this up again. You think it's fair enough to express any old opinion you want in public? As long as it's not a porkie pie?[/i]
I apologise if I'm coming over as patronising. I honestly don't aim to be, no matter what you think. Insult me if you like, but I assure you you're wrong.
However I do think that yes, it's acceptable to express any opinion as long as it's not a lie. I regard the right to freedom of speech/opinion/expression to be very important.
[i]Why do you think CallMeDave censured Flight on this one? Because he knows that it was unacceptable language to use.[/i]
No, it's because he's a professional politician.
TandemJeremy - Member
Nonk - rubbish - there is research done on this and this myth is comprehensivly demolished
TandemJeremy - Member
It really does not happen apart from very rarely. This is the fact. <Much research backs this
TandemJeremy - Member
Nonk - and all the experts in social policy and research I have read but cannot find now show that this does not happen ( apart from perhpas very occasionally)
TandemJeremy - Member
nice backpeddle there.Its a tiny amount. Not a reasonable basis to make policy on.
I'm still waiting for the research to back previous assertions, or are they internet statistics? 😉
as long as its not illegal
Probably won't be many times I say this, but I'm in agreement. I have no problem with Flight saying what he said. As I said, I find it comforting to hear a Tory talk in such language.
I would have a more serious problem with freely expressed language to incite racial hatred. It seems as if kennyp doesn't though. Fair dues.
Yeah OK, the guy was lying............perish the thought that a Tory government should carry out swingeing spending cuts which they had failed to mention before a general election......but stillNo swingeing cuts in first year, says David Cameron
Quote :
"A Conservative government would not make "swingeing cuts" to public spending during its first year, party leader David Cameron has said." January 2010
maybe they didn't realise the extent of the problem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor
"Unfortunately, when I opened it, it was a one-sentence letter which simply said: 'Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left,' which was honest but slightly less helpful advice than I had been expecting."
Nonk - rubbish - there is research done on this and this myth is comprehensivly demolished
bigndaft that top quote is the exact reason i had to take tj up on this,he uses it for every debate he takes part in and it bores me to tears.
No, it's because he's a professional politician.
Ergo, it was unacceptable language to use [i]as a politician[/i]. If I heard a bloke talking like that in the pub, I'd think to myself "not my type of person" and be on my way. If I heard my MP saying it, I'd let her know what I thought of her for doing so.
TJ I hope you answer this.
Tim - I don't understand how you are disadvantaged. You get offered an appropriate property to your needs. I get offered **** all. Am I disadvantaged?
Why do you want a property greater than your needs? properties aere in short suply since the sell off of council houses so must be allocated on a basis of need.
the point was that we werent offered a property for 3 years, and then only a private let that we have to subsidise by use of the Discretionary Housing Payment (ie they dont pay our full rent)..
we were assesed as having a need for a two bed property, as my wife has noisy breathing aids and i occasionaly need to sleepmmmm
a single parent family with a child (for example) are given preference for 2 bed houses (i have been told by a council official that we would not ever get a house as these were always (and as council policy), given to families with children). and when you consider that northampton council have lots of two bed houses and virtually no 2 bed bungalows/flats then.....
having a child gets you a house free from the council in northampton.
So answer me this TJ
In northampton, how is having children whilst on benefits, not a potential means to get a house?
put this in one of your graphs....
disabled wife - 3+ years wait and nothing
1 kid, immediate housing at highest priority..
nonk - Member
bigndaft that top quote is the exact reason i had to take tj up on this,he uses it for every debate he takes part in and it bores me to tears.
I ask because I'm apparently an intellectual coward or something like that
I can feel the internat slowing down as the desperate search of online research goes on 😉
big_n_daft - Membermaybe they didn't realise the extent of the problem
Rubbish, Cameron and Clegg used it as a stick to bash Labour with during the election.
I just wish they'd stop apologizing after the fact. Just once I'd love to hear them say, "yes, I said it, and I damm well meant it, now either do something about it or shut the hell up". Labour, Liberal or Conservative I'm not arsed, just say what you really think!
rubbish, if they had been given this before the election even GB would have been at the job centre instead of taking money under false pretences whilst writing his new book
"Unfortunately, when I opened it, it was a one-sentence letter which simply said: 'Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left,' which was honest but slightly less helpful advice than I had been expecting."
Tim - not to make light of your wifes illness but the council has a series of criteria to decide need and allocates houses on the basis of need, I don't see anything wrong with this.
I don't really understand your point. Do you think you should be a higher priority that a family with children?
Big and daft - I couldn't find the research - I did provide some quotes from people who actually know about this stuff and I have read reports on the research but I could not find it.
NO one has actually come up with any decent evidence that people do have children to get more benefits. Just a load os f stories and tabloid trash.
maybe they didn't realise the extent of the problem
Ah......the Tories hadn't understood the state of the UK economy.........that's the reason !!!
And they only realised, according to you, when they found a "one-sentence letter" ! 😀
So why was that big_n_daft .......weren't they paying attention ? The state of the economy isn't a state secret you know, and Tories were in parliament, sat on Select Committees, etc.
They really should pay more attention.....what were they doing for goodness sake ?
Anyway, we digress........why was Lord Flight sacked/deselected by the Tory leader, for claiming that a Tory government could make more spending cuts than they had promised in an election campaign ?
Big and daft - I couldn't find the research - I did provide some quotes from people who actually know about this stuff and I have read reports on the research but I could not find it.
well tj acording to your very own rules of debate that my freind is not worth a toss then is it?
TandemJeremy - Member
Tim - not to make light of your wifes illness but the council has a series of criteria [b]to decide how they prioitise need[/b] and allocates houses on the basis of [b]that assessment of need[/b], I don't see anything wrong with this.
fixed it for you
Big and daft - I couldn't find the research - I did provide some quotes from people who actually know about this stuff and I have read reports on the research but I could not find it.
ahhh the old absence of evidence is not evidence of absence defence 😉
but hold on....
NO one has actually come up with any decent evidence that people do have children to get more benefits. Just a load os f stories and tabloid trash.
so you haven't seen any then? how extensively have you researched this subject, which academic journal databases have you scoured?
If someone finds a paper will you eat your fedora? 😉
ernie
So why was that big_n_daft .......weren't they paying attention ? The state of the economy isn't a state secret you know, and Tories were in parliament, sat on Select Committees, etc.They really should pay more attention.....what we they doing for goodness sake ?
they were in opposition, no red boxes filled nightly by civil servants for them. No details of the last minute "spend everything" labour irresponsibility etc etc
[i]I would have a more serious problem with freely expressed language to incite racial hatred. It seems as if kennyp doesn't though. Fair dues.[/i]
To be honest, yes I do. I think the principal of being able to express an opinion is more important than the opinion itself, no matter how objectionable it may be.
Where's Elfin?
Not like him to miss the liberal knicker wetting outrage bus? 😛
[i]Ergo, it was unacceptable language to use as a politician. If I heard a bloke talking like that in the pub, I'd think to myself "not my type of person" and be on my way. If I heard my MP saying it, I'd let her know what I thought of her for doing so.[/i]
In the current climate yes it is seen as unacceptable. What I'm saying is that I think the current climate is wrong and that it should be acceptable. Not everyone agrees with that which is fair enough, but it's my opinion.
Kenny - as a private person you can express any idea you want - as an elected representative you are rightly limited. Free speech still exists. He could have insisted he was right and would have had to resign to do so
politicians over the years have done this.
they were in opposition, no red boxes filled nightly by civil servants for them.
But according to you, a joke one-sentence note left by a departing Labour comedian, was all that was needed 😀
And you obviously didn't bother reading the link I posted ......... in it, Cameron appears to have a very good grasp of the scale of the government debt. Despite that, he promises no "swingeing cuts".
Of course some cynics might suggest that Cameron only promised no swingeing cuts because he wanted to win the election, and he knew damn well that voters would not back swingeing Tory cuts.
Do you think there could be any truth in that ?
Or do you think it's out of the question ?
as an elected representative you are rightly limited.
Howard Flight is not an elected representative though!
What TJ said. I'm finding the brick wall quite sore on my head now. The free speech argument has been done over and over again. We rightly limit the language that can be used in public. If you don't like that law, write to your MP. With any luck it'll be a Tory one. They seem to like saying fairly offensive shite. Including taking the piss out of dwarves too.
they were in opposition, no red boxes filled nightly by civil servants for them. No details of the last minute "spend everything" labour irresponsibility etc etc
So despite this 'last minute' spend Gordo still hung on to Downing Street as long as he could?
Condems will not be able to use the 'Oh but it's because Labour blah blah blah' bull for very much longer.
Howard Flight is not an elected representative though!
Gosh..............that's a relief.
[i]as an elected representative you are rightly limited. Free speech still exists[/i]
But surely TJ, those two statements contradict each other? I think elected representatives should have the right of free speech (lies excepted). If the majority disagree then they won't be re-elected. My concern is that freedom of speech is slowly being eroded.
Edited. Thought Z-11 was quoting me but it was TJ.
[i]The free speech argument has been done over and over again.[/i]
Only because it's a principal worth defending. It's not defending the actual views expressed.