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? 😉
