max Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Didn't there used to be a policy on this forum that these polls, or fishing expeditions, should be accompanied by the original poster's own views? If so, when was it abandoned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 If so, when was it abandoned? I don't know, I contacted the Help Desk to raise this issue, still nothing has happened, so I presume the policy has long ago been abandoned. Either that, or there is one rule for regular posters, and a separate set for ex-admins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 19, 2011 Author Share Posted November 19, 2011 Didn't there used to be a policy on this forum that these polls, or fishing expeditions, should be accompanied by the original poster's own views? If so, when was it abandoned? Nope. How would anyone ask what the police helicopter was doing, about MP3 download sites, or is the Karma Sutra a best seller if that was the case? Anyway, this is quite a nice bouncy thread without any attempts to derail it, so let's get back on topic shall we? Do you know anyone who is claiming benefits who shouldn't be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Nope. How would anyone ask what the police helicopter was doing, about MP3 download sites, or is the Karma Sutra a best seller if that was the case? Anyway, this is quite a nice bouncy thread without any attempts to derail it, so let's get back on topic shall we? Do you know anyone who is claiming benefits who shouldn't be? Yep as I stated earlier, Thatcher the raddled old hag, has claimed £535,000 in 'expenses' in a scheme set up by Major when he was 'PM' for PM's who attend public events etc, however it is well known that the witch rarely goes out in public, do you think she should set a good example and return it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Yep as I stated earlier, Thatcher the raddled old hag, has claimed £535,000 in 'expenses' in a scheme set up by Major when he was 'PM' for PM's who attend public events etc, however it is well known that the witch rarely goes out in public, do you think she should set a good example and return it?So you answer is 'no', seeing as they are expenses, not benefits. If she received them through the benefits agency, your answer could be yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 So you answer is 'no', seeing as they are expenses, not benefits. If she received them through the benefits agency, your answer could be yes. Nit picker! Do you think that in the spirit of 'all being in this together' the £535k should be returned to the tax payer? Funny that I haven't heard a squeak from the 'Tax Payers' alliance on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 19, 2011 Author Share Posted November 19, 2011 Yep as I stated earlier, Thatcher the raddled old hag, has claimed £535,000 in 'expenses' in a scheme set up by Major when he was 'PM' for PM's who attend public events etc, however it is well known that the witch rarely goes out in public, do you think she should set a good example and return it? Putting aside your childish choice of language, it's obvious that a former PM or senior figure requires security. If they are acting on behalf of the state their expenses should also be covered. Beyond that, they pay their own way in my Kingdom. What do you think about the millions that Blair costs the State every year as he travels the world 'earning' his own millions that are then hidden in tax havens? It's funny that we haven't heard a squeak from the Labour Party on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Putting aside your childish choice of language, it's obvious that a former PM or senior figure requires security. If they are acting on behalf of the state their expenses should also be covered. Beyond that, they pay their own way in my Kingdom. What do you think about the millions that Blair costs the State every year as he travels the world 'earning' his own tax haven millions? The payment, as I understand it is for making public appearances of which it does very few being mentally ill or whatever her affliction is (shame it took us 30 years to find out!). I certainly do believe Blair should atleast make a contribution to his security arrangements considering how much he makes for his speeches, talking about his experiences which were obtained in his capacity as a public servant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 To enter into the spirit of this banal thread it is well known that many companies pay their employees such pittances that the employees are forced to claim benefits to bring their income up to a liveable level. Is it not these companies that are the true recipients of benefits in the form of a subsidy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 19, 2011 Author Share Posted November 19, 2011 Well Max, that's what the previous government's policies caused through creating a race to the bottom with the minimum wage and other policies. It's rubbish isn't it? IDS seems to be getting to grips with it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.