Reply to: Free access to online pornography

[BrilloPad]

You think many of them don't have mobiles?

I don't think they should be provided any - I mentioned mobiles because delivery is cheap and hardware is more than likely to be deployed.

Failing that they can go to a free library and use internet access there.

Sorry I should have added the emoticon.

I suspect that Liebour will try to bribe the voters. As long as its targeted at poor people only (who will vote Labour anyway) then fine. AB vote Tory. DE vote Labour. Its the C1 & C2 who decide who gets into power.

[AtW]

So we have have to provide them with mobile phones too?

You think many of them don't have mobiles?

I don't think they should be provided any - I mentioned mobiles because delivery is cheap and hardware is more than likely to be deployed.

Failing that they can go to a free library and use internet access there.

[BrilloPad]

Those grades could have been sent via SMS messages - most phones these days have web access as well.

So we have have to provide them with mobile phones too? No doubt they cant operate this equipment while sober and we have to give them free booze too....

[RichardCranium]

Then the laptop is no good without an internet connection. Does that have to be paid for too?

Only for the first year.

[AtW]

Those grades could have been sent via SMS messages - most phones these days have web access as well.

[BrilloPad]

No, this is not a vote buying exercise. The government want to offer more of their services online (it's cheaper and should be faster) so offering people 'free' laptops is not altruistic. Many schools now require that parents are online so they can pick up reports on their kids.
The question is - how can we ensure that the minority of irresponsible idiots don't flog them?

Then the laptop is no good without an internet connection. Does that have to be paid for too? I guess the government will if it gets more votes.

Certainly no-one with a car or who smokes should get any assistance.

I came from a poor family - well it was fine until my father died. After that it was free school meals and lions club days out. But I was determined to do well for myself via hard work. I dont need any help from anyone. Dont these people have any self respect?

Though I could do without the evil scum family courts kicking me at every opportunity and disadvantaging my kids as they support the mother every chance they get. f**kers.

[RichardCranium]

Many schools now require that parents are online so they can pick up reports on their kids. The question is - how can we ensure that the minority of irresponsible idiots don't flog them?

Once upon a time, long, long ago in a land where small Dickheads grew, there used to be a thing called The School Report.

Little Dickheads were given these to take home and at the bottom was a tear-off slip. This slip had to be signed by a parent and returned by the little DickHead within a certain number of days.

I do not believe that system cost quite as much as £1,111 per household, even when costed across the full nine years of primary and secondary education.

Faults with the paper system:
- parents who didn't care didn't read the reports but just signed the slip;
- bad parents didn't even care if little DickHead signed the return slip himself;
- some little DickHeads didn't give the report to the parents and if the parents didn't care then they didn't question its absence.

The paper-based system partly failed those children whose parents didn't care.

The laptop-based (why laptop and not cheaper netbook or desktop, FFS?) system will also fail those children whose parents don't care in just the same way as the paper system did.

[AtW]

In Nigel Lawson autobiography there is a large amount of words on confusion between tax collection and welfare distribution.

Since you've read it, can you please tell here in a few words what's this confusion Mr Lawson is talking about?

[Zippy]

No, this is not a vote buying exercise. The government want to offer more of their services online (it's cheaper and should be faster) so offering people 'free' laptops is not altruistic. Many schools now require that parents are online so they can pick up reports on their kids.
The question is - how can we ensure that the minority of irresponsible idiots don't flog them?

[BrilloPad]

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.

What I object to is Gordon try to bribe voters.

[ASB]

Poor people should not be presented with a choice which makes it more sensible to them to take on benefits rather than get a job (no matter how crap it is). Current tax system does exactly that - very low tax free threshold, and even 10% tax buffer got removed (thanks Brown).

In Nigel Lawson autobiography there is a large amount of words on confusion between tax collection and welfare distribution. Over the years our govenrments (of both colours) have seriously confused them. That's a large part of the reason we are in this mess in my view. It's an interesting read.

[BrilloPad]

Is Gordon going to start spraying money around like a fireman's hose as we approach the election?

He will do whatever it takes.

[AtW]

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.

I am not against poor families - our family (back in USSR) was certainly not rich, maybe poor would be wrong word (back then) as in USSR officially there were no poor or rich, but we certainly were closed to the former rather than latter.

Poor people should not be presented with a choice which makes it more sensible to them to take on benefits rather than get a job (no matter how crap it is). Current tax system does exactly that - very low tax free threshold, and even 10% tax buffer got removed (thanks Brown). It's also grossly unfair to pensioners and people with otherwise low income: personal allowance MUST be increased to something sensible like £1k per month (can you live on that in London?).

Benefits given should be reviewed - anyone who is healthy and young enough to work should have them withdrawn unless they take on voluntary or low paid work, there are always things to do even if it's making sure streets are perfectly clean.

Frankly, anyone who gets benefits should expect to work for them - at least 20-25 hours per week, with time off for interviews (real ones).

When I started working in this country (over 10 years ago now) I was pretty chuffed to get £7 per hour part time job.

[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.

[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!