Sid Umpley Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Indeed. And I dare say these girls are very vulnerable. With such a low income they are easy targets for people with a bit of money to exploit. . so explain why so many get pregnant to unemployed wasters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 not all young women/girls are vulnerable, come off it quite a few have proper boyfriends the world isn't just about the rich exploiting the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Indeed. And I dare say these girls are very vulnerable. With such a low income they are easy targets for people with a bit of money to exploit. There are people out there that exploit these girls. Put a bit of money on the leccy card in return for sex, or perhaps a bit of food or some cigarettes. It seems the girl in Rotherham was being abused by her boyfriend, and that she came from care. She has to make out she is 'tough' just to get by. And considering the record of how children in care are left to fend for themselves in Rotherham, I'm surprised she wasn't carrying a blade for her own safety! http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/24/police-failed-to-act-on-rotherham-child-sex-grooming-for-years/ These people need jobs, what is the government doing to replace the industry it has forced overseas via high housing costs, so that people can work and earn an honest wage, and be better off for doing so! Yet some of the least worldly wise, poorest and disadvantaged women in our society are being forced to work for free, and becoming targets for sexual exploitation. That's a pretty low post that. Have you any evidence that the majority of young single girls are preyed on by property owning nerdo wells or paedos. If it was the former they'd be forking out child support right ? I'd bet most of the fathers are equally uneducated, hoody wearing teens, stinking of lynx, teenage desperation with a bottle of white lightening hoping for a bit of hows-yer-father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 14, 2013 Author Share Posted January 14, 2013 That's a pretty low post that. Have you any evidence that the majority of young single girls are preyed on by property owning nerdo wells or paedos. If it was the former they'd be forking out child support right ? I just said that there were people who did. And the people preyed are disproportionately the poorest! I'd bet most of the fathers are equally uneducated, hoody wearing teens, stinking of lynx, teenage desperation with a bottle of white lightening hoping for a bit of hows-yer-father. That's your opinion. ---------- Post added 14-01-2013 at 21:49 ---------- not all young women/girls are vulnerable, come off it quite a few have proper boyfriends the world isn't just about the rich exploiting the poor. Granted, but some are vulnerable, particularly the poorest, and there is a lot of exploitation in this world. ---------- Post added 14-01-2013 at 21:50 ---------- so explain why so many get pregnant to unemployed wasters? Unemployed people are not wasters. Many people have found themselves unemployed and unable to gain a job in the first place due to a lack of jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 exp;oiters of vulnerable girls quite a few are probably members of the socialist worker party too reading that other post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I just said that there were people who did. And the people preyed are disproportionately the poorest! That's your opinion. ---------- Post added 14-01-2013 at 21:49 ---------- Granted, but some are vulnerable, particularly the poorest, and there is a lot of exploitation in this world. ---------- Post added 14-01-2013 at 21:50 ---------- Unemployed people are not wasters. Many people have found themselves unemployed and unable to gain a job in the first place due to a lack of jobs. Are really suggesting your theory is more plausable ? Thats a bit of claim. A sick and slightly twisted claim to back your regular anti landlord, anti home owner, 40 acre and mule argument. Id see someone if I were you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 14, 2013 Author Share Posted January 14, 2013 in 85 3.57 was worth 9.03 by 1988 it had dropped to 7.89. I remember it well £3.79 in 1985 is equivalent to £9.42 as of 2011 (even more in 2012). £3.79 in 1988 is equivalent to £8.33 as of 2011 (even more in 2012) The £8 a day the under 25s today are on is £8.03. (edit to add; to allow for fair comparison- the 2011 rate of under 25s dole would be £7.64) but chemist thinks the 80's was just one big tea party with council houses for all. I don't. There were problems, just not as bad as today. And council houses were much easier to get, and property to buy was much more affordable. the strikes and mass unemployment for the whole decade and more were just a big laugh>>>>>>>> They weren't and nor is the unemployment or strikes of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Umpley Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 ---------- Post added 14-01-2013 at 21:50 ---------- [/color] Unemployed people are not wasters. Many people have found themselves unemployed and unable to gain a job in the first place due to a lack of jobs. word twisting! i did not say ALL unemployed people where wasters. you implied that weathly people where preying in these girls i asked why so many got preggers to unemployed wasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Having watched the first bit of the first one growing up into a revolting violent little waste of oxygen would have been a better title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 14, 2013 Author Share Posted January 14, 2013 Are really suggesting your theory is more plausable ? Thats a bit of claim. A sick and slightly twisted claim to back your regular anti landlord, anti home owner, 40 acre and mule argument. I didn't mention landlords, home owners, 40 acres or a mule. I just said that poor people are vulnerable and more likely to be exploited, I did not label any specific group. Id see someone if I were you. I can see that your trying to put words into my mouth and twist my posts. Please don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.