Happy Face

To be fair I do...... Will you be having a jangle on Sunday like? It'd be rude not to. My mate who works for the council always takes his extra big ring of keys with about 60 on there.

To be fair I do......

Actually, I was suprised there were as many as 5 or 6 threads about the Mackems on here. Never been over there, how many more could there be?

Maybe, it's still quite true though. Life's not always fun and game, even for me. It's a bit a strange though isn't it? I mean, if I've followed this right - your principles involved the belief that benefits should only go to those who need and deserve them. Yet, you were in a position where you could have legitimately claimed (so you wouldn't have been going against your own principles anyway) since by that I take it you meant you had a genuine ailment (or whatever) yet you undertook financial and other hardships on the basis that you just thought you should. Have I got that right? Because if I have it fucking reeks of bullshit. Well I had an option for work, which in fairness not everyone would have had in my situation (and without that I would have had less choice in the matter), but I still would have been better off not doing so and taking the benefits option at that time, not only in monetary terms, but also in more general quality of life terms too (and most people told me I should, but then when do I listen to most people? ). I really don't like to sponge or be in debt in any way, it's just how I am, it's not the most intelligent way to live certainly, but it is my way. Not that it has anything to do with the arguments here though, other than "well what do you know", and that I could have milked the system if I'd wanted too, even though I did have other options open too me (and as I said a system like that is bound to be milked on balance). I'd rather have a system that can be milked, than no system at all. I don't know if your story is true or not. I know plenty of people who've refused to ask for benefits they thoroughly deserved though. If you can afford to be proud, good for you. But those aren't the only two possible options; a broken system or no system at all. I'd rather have a system that cannot be milked (or at least is as difficult as possible) than one that is fairly wide open to abuse. Yup if someone doesn't want to take them that's their own fault, but allowing a system that allows those that don't need them to take them is everyone's fault. And I dunno about "pride", it's not always about pride to not take what you don't absolutely need, although it's definitely about honesty not to, but it's just as much dishonesty and theft to abuse the system as it is to shoplift, or pickpocket or credit card fraud or whatever. They are like, unless you're advocating a perfect system? If so, how would you implement that my good man. As usual you hold no truck with anything I'm saying, you're just arguing for the sake of it. You agree the system we have is better than nothing, you know that we'll NEVER stop people taking advantage of a situation when they can and you know a flawless system isn't possible....if not, let's hear it.

Actually if they don't know the system, they do. Utter crap, taxation may seem infinate because of the number involved, but numbers HAVE to add up, no matter how small or large. Nope. Let me give you an example; to get the disabled parking badge (a few year ago anyway, they've tighten things up a bit now I believe), part of the process was a bit where as you were sat in front of the assessor you were asked to walk a few metres. If you struggled across the few metres no matter how obviously difficult it was for you, you could be rejected for the badge. If you just sat there and said you couldn't, then you were fine (even if it was blatantly obvious you could actually walk that far). Those that knew the system would get one in that context, those that didn't may well not. Yet their actual levels of disability could have nothing to do with it. You'd have to be pretty fuckin stupid to try your best and push yourself through the pain barrier to pass a fitness test when you're putting in for disability like.

Maybe, it's still quite true though. Life's not always fun and game, even for me. It's a bit a strange though isn't it? I mean, if I've followed this right - your principles involved the belief that benefits should only go to those who need and deserve them. Yet, you were in a position where you could have legitimately claimed (so you wouldn't have been going against your own principles anyway) since by that I take it you meant you had a genuine ailment (or whatever) yet you undertook financial and other hardships on the basis that you just thought you should. Have I got that right? Because if I have it fucking reeks of bullshit. Well I had an option for work, which in fairness not everyone would have had in my situation (and without that I would have had less choice in the matter), but I still would have been better off not doing so and taking the benefits option at that time, not only in monetary terms, but also in more general quality of life terms too (and most people told me I should, but then when do I listen to most people? ). I really don't like to sponge or be in debt in any way, it's just how I am, it's not the most intelligent way to live certainly, but it is my way. Not that it has anything to do with the arguments here though, other than "well what do you know", and that I could have milked the system if I'd wanted too, even though I did have other options open too me (and as I said a system like that is bound to be milked on balance). One option is to introduce company payments into the healthcare system/welfare per worker or summat... Let's drive business abroad. ...moreso.

Maybe, it's still quite true though. Life's not always fun and game, even for me. It's a bit a strange though isn't it? I mean, if I've followed this right - your principles involved the belief that benefits should only go to those who need and deserve them. Yet, you were in a position where you could have legitimately claimed (so you wouldn't have been going against your own principles anyway) since by that I take it you meant you had a genuine ailment (or whatever) yet you undertook financial and other hardships on the basis that you just thought you should. Have I got that right? Because if I have it fucking reeks of bullshit. Well I had an option for work, which in fairness not everyone would have had in my situation (and without that I would have had less choice in the matter), but I still would have been better off not doing so and taking the benefits option at that time, not only in monetary terms, but also in more general quality of life terms too (and most people told me I should, but then when do I listen to most people? ). I really don't like to sponge or be in debt in any way, it's just how I am, it's not the most intelligent way to live certainly, but it is my way. Not that it has anything to do with the arguments here though, other than "well what do you know", and that I could have milked the system if I'd wanted too, even though I did have other options open too me (and as I said a system like that is bound to be milked on balance). I'd rather have a system that can be milked, than no system at all. I don't know if your story is true or not. I know plenty of people who've refused to ask for benefits they thoroughly deserved though. If you can afford to be proud, good for you.

It's like the current incapacity benefit, it's now got to the stage where the Government may have to do something genuinely serious about it...... and before you say "what do you know", I have actually had a period in my life where I could have quite genuinely and legitimately got the full wack from that and at the time being significantly better off for it if I had, but I didn't, and the irony that I was in fact not only not claiming, but actually still paying for people much more fit and capable than I was then wasn't lost on me. A system that benefits those most willing to milk it helps no one as much as it should and lets down everyone, morally and economically. More fool you tbh. Maybe, I made my choice based on my own principles and lived with it. But if you design a system that benefits the least common denominator the most, then you're basically building a system to fail from the start. It's tragedy of the commons really and it will happen every time until the system is changed. What do you mean by least common denominator? Surely a system should try and benefit the least well off as much as possible. Do you see yourself as the least common denominator? You made the choice not to claim, I assume you could afford not to. Those most open and willing to abuse the system, not those most in need (necessarily). As I said at the time I'd have been better off if I had (and would have had a generally much, much easier and nicer time in a non-financial sense too), and if I'd purely thought of my own selfish benefit the the choice would have been clear. Maybe most people would have and should taken that option, that's up to them, I'm just saying I've been there and am not just theoretically postulating on the realities of it. But it still goes back to it being those most willing to milk the system getting the most benefit (in both contexts) from it, NOT those most in need of the system. I think you live in a dreamworld where the clouds are made of The Daily Mail. Those most in need never get knocked back for their benefit claims. Benefit amounts aren't determined by what's left in the pot, but on what a person needs to live on. Someone looking to milk the system doesn't get any more than an honest trustworthy person in the same position. If you apply for benefit and qualify, you get it. Simple as. You're going on like they're trained to spot the fakers and double their support.

The economy is finite, tax revenue is finite, the amount you can therefore earmark for benefits is finite. The more that is taken out of the pool by people that don't need it (and could be supporting themselves in other ways), leaves less for those that absolutely do need it. As I said it's basic maths. It still the same thing with prison places, there's a finite amount of cash, so there is a finite number of prison places, which leads arbitrary to shorter sentences which have nothing to with justice, rehabilitation or public safety, only lack of £££'s. Now who's being idealistic. It's all borrowing anyway. If you think the crippled mother of 7 living in a boot will be given mansion and toys for all her kids if only all the 16 year olds in Byker would have a pang of conscience you're out your tree.

It's like the current incapacity benefit, it's now got to the stage where the Government may have to do something genuinely serious about it...... and before you say "what do you know", I have actually had a period in my life where I could have quite genuinely and legitimately got the full wack from that and at the time being significantly better off for it if I had, but I didn't, and the irony that I was in fact not only not claiming, but actually still paying for people much more fit and capable than I was then wasn't lost on me. A system that benefits those most willing to milk it helps no one as much as it should and lets down everyone, morally and economically. More fool you tbh. Maybe, I made my choice based on my own principles and lived with it. But if you design a system that benefits the least common denominator the most, then you're basically building a system to fail from the start. It's tragedy of the commons really and it will happen every time until the system is changed. What do you mean by least common denominator? Surely a system should try and benefit the least well off as much as possible. Do you see yourself as the least common denominator? You made the choice not to claim, I assume you could afford not to.

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality. It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides). Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription. Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then. Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system. But that sort of thinking has no place in real life. But people in the situation I've described are getting the benefits they deserve. So it works...at only two thirds of the cost of comparative economies. Do people actually complain they don't get enough benefits? I don't think they do, just people who aren't on benefit call those that are bludgers. I don't actually think they are, especially those that don't know how to milk the system or in fact don't want to milk the system. And it's the people abusing the system that are actually, quite literally, taking the bread from the mouths of those that genuinely DO need and deserve the support. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. No it's just basic maths, there's a finite amount of cash in the pot, the more people take out of it the less there is for everyone. Which quickly becomes the situation where you HAVE to know how to milk the system to get what you need IF you genuinely do need it. The less abuse in a system the easier, more open and more generous that system can be...... as it stands the current system is failing everyone, taxpayers, those that genuinely do need support, and even those abusing the system in a way too. Not really. Prison places is basic maths. There's a finite number of places and the system is failing. I've never heard of anyone that works in Child support being asked to start knocking people back.

It's like the current incapacity benefit, it's now got to the stage where the Government may have to do something genuinely serious about it...... and before you say "what do you know", I have actually had a period in my life where I could have quite genuinely and legitimately got the full wack from that and at the time being significantly better off for it if I had, but I didn't, and the irony that I was in fact not only not claiming, but actually still paying for people much more fit and capable than I was then wasn't lost on me. A system that benefits those most willing to milk it helps no one as much as it should and lets down everyone, morally and economically. More fool you tbh.

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality. It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides). Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription. Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then. Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system. But that sort of thinking has no place in real life. But people in the situation I've described are getting the benefits they deserve. So it works...at only two thirds of the cost of comparative economies. Do people actually complain they don't get enough benefits? I don't think they do, just people who aren't on benefit call those that are bludgers. I don't actually think they are, especially those that don't know how to milk the system or in fact don't want to milk the system. And it's the people abusing the system that are actually, quite literally, taking the bread from the mouths of those that genuinely DO need and deserve the support. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

...and Mark Speight..

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality. It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides). Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription. Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then. Probably better to actually create a system where the baby is actually getting a bath in the first place, and one that is not largely being used as a spar for people that just want to milk the system. But that sort of thinking has no place in real life. But people in the situation I've described are getting the benefits they deserve. So it works...at only two thirds of the cost of comparative economies. Do people actually complain they don't get enough benefits? I don't think they do, just people who aren't on benefit call those that are bludgers. I'm sure some people do abuse the system, but stopping benefits because some abuse them would be like stopping all paid sick leave because some employees abuse it. Why should I miss out on genuine sick leave because Gemmil stops at home every time his nose runs?

The trouble you are clearly having is separating the ideal from the reality. It's like the NHS, absolutely wonderful idea, but that still won't stop it being every more second class to private health care in the UK and likely to continue to be piecemeal privatised itself (only without the superior standards of care that the genuine private sector provides). Benefits are often designed for that very worthy and needed situation, but are in reality are then take advantage of by a vast majority not in that situation..... and again you're not actually "helping" a child (or the parent, or anyone) if the money given for it is actually being spent on booze, fags and a sky subscription. Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater then.

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"? Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart? Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

Spiked were onto it years ago.... http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/324/ Suprised they couldn't come up with a better name than 'Passive drinking' though. Howabout 'Pisshead Permeation'?

Did Macky Dee's not choose to start selling salads to corner the Jamie Oliver market?

Anyone see this on the front page today... Shocking. The image that came straight to my mind was Winston Smith sat in his little room doing fuck all.....as I'm sure those in charge would prefer. I'm sure J69 will be over the moon. Anyone else?

Can't remember the last time I didn't need a pin to use my credit card in a shop. They take days to get sent out though. Cheers then.

Pootin or Pyootin? Blatantly Pyootin.

I've been told to hoy a wireless dongle into my wired PC and that'll allow me to wireless connect my Wii to the internet. Is that right? Why would people buy a router if so? Cheers.

Can I use a credit card in a shop without a pin number these days? Haven't used them in donkeys years.

Who we got playing apart from Rozzy? Anyone?