Free access to online pornography

[RichardCranium]

How about increasing tax free threshold instead to something more reasonable: £12k pa. To make up for shortfall in taxation reduce benefits accordingly - this way working would be viewed as more beneficial.

Because then the civil servants and politicians involved wouldn't get their huge backhanders.

[TykeMerc]

How about increasing tax free threshold instead to something more reasonable: £12k pa. To make up for shortfall in taxation reduce benefits accordingly - this way working would be viewed as more beneficial.

As the others have said it's far too rational, cheap to implement and administer, plus of course everyone would benefit so it wouldn't be "fair" for the better off in society to get the same as the poor.
It's a perfectly good idea that's been kicking around for years and it would be popular with people who actually want to work for a living rather than live off benefits.

[Durbs]

Large numbers of these laptops are surely not going to get fenced down at Estate Pubs within days of being issued?

Yeah but at least they aren't burgling your house when they are busy winking to TheHun.

[NickFitz]

I find it depressing that so many on here equate "being on a low income" with "being dole-scrounging workshy bastards". Still, perhaps many of you have been spoiled by your middle-class lifestyle and don't actually know any poor people.

I personally know a lot of people who are very badly off - and yes, many of them live on council estates - who work hard and claim no benefits beyond whatever they may be entitled to, such as the child benefit (or whatever it's called now) that the bourgeoisie save to subsidise Claude and Jessica's skiing trips, and free school dinners - which they often don't claim despite being entitled thereto. Such families would benefit (no pun intended) from such a scheme.

They and their children are truly disadvantaged by struggling on low incomes. It's not uncommon for one or both partners to hold down two or more jobs just to make ends meet. They do that because they aren't the workshy chavs so many of you like to picture them as while you open the third bottle of wine and disparage them at your delightful dinner party in your lovely dining room, with your guests laughing merrily at whatever charming witticism you've concocted about them. They do it because they're poor, but they have pride and they work hard in the hope that their children might get something better out of life than they did.

Those of you that decry schemes that will benefit many by making the oh-so-clever assertion that a minority of scum will take advantage of said schemes are, frankly, too clever for your own good, or for the good of society.

If you want to justify the fact that you would willingly deny opportunity to others for the sake of maximising the amount flowing in to your own pockets, then just have the guts to say outright that you think those who have less money than you - and their children - should be left to rot. Then we can see what measure of a person you are.

You make a rod for your own back if you insist that the poor must remain poor to cut your tax bill. The next generation will also be poor and, having seen that their parents' efforts produced no result because of the greed of such as you, will see little point in striving similarly for their own offspring. There will always be many in each generation who will nonetheless work hard to live decently, but such sneering garbage as is represented by this thread does nothing to benefit our society, and the attitudes it embodies are one of the most destructive blights on our political landscape.

[Board Game Geek]

I find it depressing that so many on here equate "being on a low income" with "being dole-scrounging workshy bastards". Still, perhaps many of you have been spoiled by your middle-class lifestyle and don't actually know any poor people.

I personally know a lot of people who are very badly off - and yes, many of them live on council estates - who work hard and claim no benefits beyond whatever they may be entitled to, such as the child benefit (or whatever it's called now) that the bourgeoisie save to subsidise Claude and Jessica's skiing trips, and free school dinners - which they often don't claim despite being entitled thereto. Such families would benefit (no pun intended) from such a scheme.

They and their children are truly disadvantaged by struggling on low incomes. It's not uncommon for one or both partners to hold down two or more jobs just to make ends meet. They do that because they aren't the workshy chavs so many of you like to picture them as while you open the third bottle of wine and disparage them at your delightful dinner party in your lovely dining room, with your guests laughing merrily at whatever charming witticism you've concocted about them. They do it because they're poor, but they have pride and they work hard in the hope that their children might get something better out of life than they did.

Those of you that decry schemes that will benefit many by making the oh-so-clever assertion that a minority of scum will take advantage of said schemes are, frankly, too clever for your own good, or for the good of society.

If you want to justify the fact that you would willingly deny opportunity to others for the sake of maximising the amount flowing in to your own pockets, then just have the guts to say outright that you think those who have less money than you - and their children - should be left to rot. Then we can see what measure of a person you are.

You make a rod for your own back if you insist that the poor must remain poor to cut your tax bill. The next generation will also be poor and, having seen that their parents' efforts produced no result because of the greed of such as you, will see little point in striving similarly for their own offspring. There will always be many in each generation who will nonetheless work hard to live decently, but such sneering garbage as is represented by this thread does nothing to benefit our society, and the attitudes it embodies are one of the most destructive blights on our political landscape.

Good point well made NF

There are some families and children out there who are struggling, and if this provides opportunity for some to "better themselves", then I see no problem with that.

Imagine the scenario where some child is living in a nightmare household, with abusive and unsupportive parents, who take advantage of this scheme.

The parents couldn't give a toss about the kid, but the appeal of a computer means that he can spend more time in his or her room, out of their hair, so they get a PC and internet package.

Little kid spends more time on the PC, away from abusive parents, and potentially gets an interest in a subject that could lead to him or her lifting themselves out of the mire. Perhaps a love for maths, astronomy, physics, or a passion for just about anything worthwhile.

The PC is that child's link to another world, and who knows, it may be the stepping stone they need.

Yeah, it's easy to say "Nah, they'll just squander it on MySpace, Games, or Pron."

Some may. Some may not.

The point it, it's more criminal as Nick says to deny opportunity than provide it.

Although it's easy to sneer at the sink estave chav scum and their out of control offspring, and I'll hold my hands up and say that I've done that myself, I realise that as I get older, I'd rather there wasn't an underclass in the first place.

I was raised and educated in a class obsessed family, but it was impressed upon me that the class distinctions were not there to subjugate, but to motivate others to move "up" and to give them something to "aspire" to and that the class "above" had obligations to their fellow man in either direction (up or down).


The more people we can motivate and improve their lives, or at least give them the opportunity to improve, surely the better we make life for all of us ?

[Paddy]

Good point well made NF

There are some families and children out there who are struggling, and if this provides opportunity for some to "better themselves", then I see no problem with that.

Imagine the scenario where some child is living in a nightmare household, with abusive and unsupportive parents, who take advantage of this scheme.

The parents couldn't give a toss about the kid, but the appeal of a computer means that he can spend more time in his or her room, out of their hair, so they get a PC and internet package.

Little kid spends more time on the PC, away from abusive parents, and potentially gets an interest in a subject that could lead to him or her lifting themselves out of the mire. Perhaps a love for maths, astronomy, physics, or a passion for just about anything worthwhile.

The PC is that child's link to another world, and who knows, it may be the stepping stone they need.

Yeah, it's easy to say "Nah, they'll just squander it on MySpace, Games, or Pron."

Some may. Some may not.

The point it, it's more criminal as Nick says to deny opportunity than provide it.

Although it's easy to sneer at the sink estave chav scum and their out of control offspring, and I'll hold my hands up and say that I've done that myself, I realise that as I get older, I'd rather there wasn't an underclass in the first place.

I was raised and educated in a class obsessed family, but it was impressed upon me that the class distinctions were not there to subjugate, but to motivate others to move "up" and to give them something to "aspire" to and that the class "above" had obligations to their fellow man in either direction (up or down).


The more people we can motivate and improve their lives, or at least give them the opportunity to improve, surely the better we make life for all of us ?

PC and Laptop don’t last more than a few years. There are PCs at schools and libraries. What kids are short of are books!

[mrdonuts]

Support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

un f ucking believable

[TykeMerc]

Good point well made NF

There are some families and children out there who are struggling, and if this provides opportunity for some to "better themselves", then I see no problem with that.

Imagine the scenario where some child is living in a nightmare household, with abusive and unsupportive parents, who take advantage of this scheme.

The parents couldn't give a toss about the kid, but the appeal of a computer means that he can spend more time in his or her room, out of their hair, so they get a PC and internet package.

Little kid spends more time on the PC, away from abusive parents, and potentially gets an interest in a subject that could lead to him or her lifting themselves out of the mire. Perhaps a love for maths, astronomy, physics, or a passion for just about anything worthwhile.

The PC is that child's link to another world, and who knows, it may be the stepping stone they need.

Yeah, it's easy to say "Nah, they'll just squander it on MySpace, Games, or Pron."

Some may. Some may not.

The point it, it's more criminal as Nick says to deny opportunity than provide it.

Although it's easy to sneer at the sink estave chav scum and their out of control offspring, and I'll hold my hands up and say that I've done that myself, I realise that as I get older, I'd rather there wasn't an underclass in the first place.

I was raised and educated in a class obsessed family, but it was impressed upon me that the class distinctions were not there to subjugate, but to motivate others to move "up" and to give them something to "aspire" to and that the class "above" had obligations to their fellow man in either direction (up or down).


The more people we can motivate and improve their lives, or at least give them the opportunity to improve, surely the better we make life for all of us ?

That's all well and good, but in the case of abusive and chavscum parents you know perfectly well that the kit would be sold and not given to the child.

No matter what utopian desire you have to see people better themselves this is a bloody stupid idea which stands no chance of achieving the stated aim.

[Ardesco]

How about increasing tax free threshold instead to something more reasonable: £12k pa. To make up for shortfall in taxation reduce benefits accordingly - this way working would be viewed as more beneficial.

I find it depressing that so many on here equate "being on a low income" with "being dole-scrounging workshy bastards". Still, perhaps many of you have been spoiled by your middle-class lifestyle and don't actually know any poor people.

I personally know a lot of people who are very badly off - and yes, many of them live on council estates - who work hard and claim no benefits beyond whatever they may be entitled to, such as the child benefit (or whatever it's called now) that the bourgeoisie save to subsidise Claude and Jessica's skiing trips, and free school dinners - which they often don't claim despite being entitled thereto. Such families would benefit (no pun intended) from such a scheme.

They and their children are truly disadvantaged by struggling on low incomes. It's not uncommon for one or both partners to hold down two or more jobs just to make ends meet. They do that because they aren't the workshy chavs so many of you like to picture them as while you open the third bottle of wine and disparage them at your delightful dinner party in your lovely dining room, with your guests laughing merrily at whatever charming witticism you've concocted about them. They do it because they're poor, but they have pride and they work hard in the hope that their children might get something better out of life than they did.

Those of you that decry schemes that will benefit many by making the oh-so-clever assertion that a minority of scum will take advantage of said schemes are, frankly, too clever for your own good, or for the good of society.

If you want to justify the fact that you would willingly deny opportunity to others for the sake of maximising the amount flowing in to your own pockets, then just have the guts to say outright that you think those who have less money than you - and their children - should be left to rot. Then we can see what measure of a person you are.

You make a rod for your own back if you insist that the poor must remain poor to cut your tax bill. The next generation will also be poor and, having seen that their parents' efforts produced no result because of the greed of such as you, will see little point in striving similarly for their own offspring. There will always be many in each generation who will nonetheless work hard to live decently, but such sneering garbage as is represented by this thread does nothing to benefit our society, and the attitudes it embodies are one of the most destructive blights on our political landscape.

Hate to say it but AtW has a very valid point here. Why not spend all the money they are wasting on this scheme to reduce the amount of tax that these people pay, they would probably be much better off in the long run and then they can actually use the money for something useful. As useful as the computer will be to some, to others it will be a waste of space.

This scheme is a blatant attempt to buy votes for Nu Liemore no matter what they say, I personally am sick to the back teeth of things like this. If you want to make life better for the lower classes you give them tax breaks so that less of their hard earned cash is taken off them in the first place. It builds a work ethic, makes sure that people aren't encouraged to sit at home and do nothing (and I'm not saying all do, but there is a significant minority that do like it or not) and allows them to choose what to spend their money on. You don't throw useless trinkets at them (that will probably break inside 6 months anyway) in an attempt to look generous while screwing them over with stealth taxes and making sure that they stay where they are.

IMHO this is another example of how bad this country has got and why Nu Liemore needs to go now!

[ASB]

I find it depressing that so many on here equate "being on a low income" with "being dole-scrounging workshy bastards". Still, perhaps many of you have been spoiled by your middle-class lifestyle and don't actually know any poor people....

Stop it. Sense and reasonable views are not allowed here. Whilst there are undoubtedly workshy scrounging people they are not the normality.