Riots in London
08-12-2011, 05:45 PM
#122
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Guildford, UK
Posts: 163
Total Cats: 0
My post on my local forum:
Who or what is to blame for these riots?
1. Certainly not the police shooting of a known criminal with a history with guns.
2. Certainly not the lack of job prospects, teachers, ballerina, law grad, trainee social worker plus many more got nicked. Over 2000 apprentice places available.
3. Certainly not poverty, none were homeless, none were starving and you can't eat a Blackberry.
4. Certainly not education, everyone must enrol in a school.
5. Certainly not parents, they are not allowed to "control" their children for fear of being jailed for abuse.
6. Certainly not teachers, what can they do if no one will listen.
7. Certainly not local government, millions spent in regeneration projects everywhere.
8. Certainly not The Government, everyone is pissed at them but not everyone goes looting.
9. Certainly not the economic situation, nearly everyone's in the crapper there.
So it comes to number 10.
It's got to be the Human Rights Act (maybe) for not allowing teachers to punish, not allowing parents to slap and not allowing police to crack skulls with impunity. Also not allowing illegal immigrants to be thrown out, not allowing the ordinary common working man to say what he likes because he is then labelled racist, fascist, sexist, fatist, ageist.......
This country is turning into a crap hole that panders to sloth, deceit, greed and is intent on destroying what little of it's own culture is left.
What happened to Britains hard working lower class, it go socialised and is now on benefits and is being replaced by foreigners. Mention they wont get more dole money and they go ballistic and tear half the country apart.
Yours, ANGRY from Guildford
Link to full thread:
http://www.planetmx5.com/forum/viewt...b2f01&start=30
Who or what is to blame for these riots?
1. Certainly not the police shooting of a known criminal with a history with guns.
2. Certainly not the lack of job prospects, teachers, ballerina, law grad, trainee social worker plus many more got nicked. Over 2000 apprentice places available.
3. Certainly not poverty, none were homeless, none were starving and you can't eat a Blackberry.
4. Certainly not education, everyone must enrol in a school.
5. Certainly not parents, they are not allowed to "control" their children for fear of being jailed for abuse.
6. Certainly not teachers, what can they do if no one will listen.
7. Certainly not local government, millions spent in regeneration projects everywhere.
8. Certainly not The Government, everyone is pissed at them but not everyone goes looting.
9. Certainly not the economic situation, nearly everyone's in the crapper there.
So it comes to number 10.
It's got to be the Human Rights Act (maybe) for not allowing teachers to punish, not allowing parents to slap and not allowing police to crack skulls with impunity. Also not allowing illegal immigrants to be thrown out, not allowing the ordinary common working man to say what he likes because he is then labelled racist, fascist, sexist, fatist, ageist.......
This country is turning into a crap hole that panders to sloth, deceit, greed and is intent on destroying what little of it's own culture is left.
What happened to Britains hard working lower class, it go socialised and is now on benefits and is being replaced by foreigners. Mention they wont get more dole money and they go ballistic and tear half the country apart.
Yours, ANGRY from Guildford
Link to full thread:
http://www.planetmx5.com/forum/viewt...b2f01&start=30
Reply
0
0
08-12-2011, 05:59 PM
#125
You mean because I wrote "yes you may" after saying nobody uses Gaelic anymore? But ya, I Google'd that. But I do remember my mom teaching me how to say "open the door"; Oscail an doras. (I Google'd that too to make sure I spelled it correctly, however I thought there was more to it then that..)
Reply
0
0
08-13-2011, 06:33 PM
#129
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Also not allowing illegal immigrants to be thrown out, not allowing the ordinary common working man to say what he likes because he is then labelled racist, fascist, sexist, fatist, ageist.......
[...]
What happened to Britains hard working lower class, it go socialised and is now on benefits and is being replaced by foreigners. Mention they wont get more dole money and they go ballistic and tear half the country apart.
[...]
What happened to Britains hard working lower class, it go socialised and is now on benefits and is being replaced by foreigners. Mention they wont get more dole money and they go ballistic and tear half the country apart.
You are saying the hard-working British lower class (assumingly aspiring to the middle class) have been replaced by hard-working immigrants?
If the past few weeks were a useful data set in a vacuum, you should throw out the "lower class" Brits and leave the foreigners (e.g. Sikhs, Turkish Kurds, et al).
Reply
0
0
08-15-2011, 02:21 PM
#130
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
Mother of 13-year-old who smashed up shop blames government
The boy, who cannot be named because of his age, was one of the very few defendants to walk free from court, after receiving a nine month referral order for burglary and violent disorder.
His mother, sitting beside the boy's father, wiped tears from her eyes as the court was told she handed him in after seeing wanted photos of her son being circulated by Greater Manchester Police.
She is on benefits, does not live with the boy's father and has 10 other children, the court heard.
Outside court she told reporters she was ''ashamed'' of her son.
''I didn't know he was in the riot. I went out to look for him. It's wrong I'm ashamed of him,'' she said.
But the woman also suggested her son was not entirely at fault, when asked who she blamed for the looting.
''The government,'' she replied, her son by her side, adding: ''There is f*** all for them to do.''
The boy's father claimed his son suffered ''police brutality'' because his parents appeared to be under the impression when they took him to police on Friday he would be released before going to court.
Instead he was kept in police cells over the weekend.
The boy had been caught on CCTV during the trouble at Salford Precinct spraying a fire extinguisher around before pulling down metal shutters from a Cash Converters shop.
He then crawled inside and used a £100 golf club he had stolen to smash windows. The shop suffered £20,000 in damage.
His mother described him as a ''good lad'' who had never been in any trouble before and had gone out to visit his grandmother when he got caught up in the violence.
District Judge Mark Hadfield, ast Manchester Youth Court, told the youngster had he been 15 not 13 he would be going into custody for many months.
''It is to the credit of your mother, having seen your image, she then arranged to take you to Pendleton Police Station. That is the mark of the standard that she sets at home.
''You have badly let your parents down.''
The boy, who cannot be named because of his age, was one of the very few defendants to walk free from court, after receiving a nine month referral order for burglary and violent disorder.
His mother, sitting beside the boy's father, wiped tears from her eyes as the court was told she handed him in after seeing wanted photos of her son being circulated by Greater Manchester Police.
She is on benefits, does not live with the boy's father and has 10 other children, the court heard.
Outside court she told reporters she was ''ashamed'' of her son.
''I didn't know he was in the riot. I went out to look for him. It's wrong I'm ashamed of him,'' she said.
But the woman also suggested her son was not entirely at fault, when asked who she blamed for the looting.
''The government,'' she replied, her son by her side, adding: ''There is f*** all for them to do.''
The boy's father claimed his son suffered ''police brutality'' because his parents appeared to be under the impression when they took him to police on Friday he would be released before going to court.
Instead he was kept in police cells over the weekend.
The boy had been caught on CCTV during the trouble at Salford Precinct spraying a fire extinguisher around before pulling down metal shutters from a Cash Converters shop.
He then crawled inside and used a £100 golf club he had stolen to smash windows. The shop suffered £20,000 in damage.
His mother described him as a ''good lad'' who had never been in any trouble before and had gone out to visit his grandmother when he got caught up in the violence.
District Judge Mark Hadfield, ast Manchester Youth Court, told the youngster had he been 15 not 13 he would be going into custody for many months.
''It is to the credit of your mother, having seen your image, she then arranged to take you to Pendleton Police Station. That is the mark of the standard that she sets at home.
''You have badly let your parents down.''
Reply
0
0
08-15-2011, 06:54 PM
#131
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Guildford, UK
Posts: 163
Total Cats: 0
You might have lost me here and - full disclosure - I can't be bothered to read the other thread.
You are saying the hard-working British lower class (assumingly aspiring to the middle class) have been replaced by hard-working immigrants?
If the past few weeks were a useful data set in a vacuum, you should throw out the "lower class" Brits and leave the foreigners (e.g. Sikhs, Turkish Kurds, et al).
You are saying the hard-working British lower class (assumingly aspiring to the middle class) have been replaced by hard-working immigrants?
If the past few weeks were a useful data set in a vacuum, you should throw out the "lower class" Brits and leave the foreigners (e.g. Sikhs, Turkish Kurds, et al).
These foreigners come over, are willing to do any sort of work and are usually on minimum wage or less if they are not declared.
Brain, that mother is a professional Social Benefit collector.
With 11 kids, her child benefit cheque is LARGE. Add to that she is unemployed- she gets unemployment benefit. She is also most likely in a council house with at least 6 bedrooms at the cost to taxpayers, with the addition of subsidised gas and electricity. The kids father is not at home which gets her single parent allowance. Her total income could well be in excess of £45000 ($75000), all paid by the taxpayers.
Why the hell should the government give them something to do?
Apart from council run sports centres, swimming pools, youth clubs, there are parks where they can play soccer, cricket or more. With 11 of them that's a full squad.
Failing that, what about games at home with the siblings, Monopoly, Cluedo read a book, watch TV, Playstation ANYTHING!!!
Every year the government personally screws me over with increased petrol, booze and tobacco tax, stealth taxes and new laws that just mean I pay my money in different ways, do you see me rioting? .................................................. ........not yet!
Last edited by Freaky Roadster; 08-15-2011 at 07:04 PM.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 08:38 AM
#133
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
No, she's smart because she knows she can pop out babies and collect the benefits. It's very common practice in England.
Notables:
In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.
The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."
Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.
The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."
Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.
A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian island of Goa. The trip was paid for -- like everything else in her life -- with government benefits.
(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I'm drawing a blank, too.)
While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.
Scarlett's estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: "My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty shitt really)."
(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I'm drawing a blank, too.)
While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.
Scarlett's estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: "My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty shitt really)."
Quick google searches:
Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-benefits.html
As of January 2009, £20.00 per week is paid for the eldest child (including the eldest of a multiple birth) and £13.20 per week is paid per any other children. The same amount is paid without reference to earnings or savings. More than 80% of children are in families also eligible for means-tested child tax credit.
The system was first implemented in August 1946 as "family allowances" under the Family Allowances Act 1945, at a rate of 5s per week per child in a family, except for the eldest. This was raised from September 1952, by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952, to 8s, and from October 1956, by the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956, to 8s for the second child with 10s for the third and subsequent children. By 1955, some 5,000,000 allowances were being paid, to about 3,250,000 families.[1]
It was modified in 1977, with the payments being termed "child benefit" and given for the eldest child as well as the younger ones; by 1979 it was worth £4 per child per week. In 1991, the system was further altered, with a higher payment now given for the first child than for their younger siblings.[2]
The system was first implemented in August 1946 as "family allowances" under the Family Allowances Act 1945, at a rate of 5s per week per child in a family, except for the eldest. This was raised from September 1952, by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952, to 8s, and from October 1956, by the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956, to 8s for the second child with 10s for the third and subsequent children. By 1955, some 5,000,000 allowances were being paid, to about 3,250,000 families.[1]
It was modified in 1977, with the payments being termed "child benefit" and given for the eldest child as well as the younger ones; by 1979 it was worth £4 per child per week. In 1991, the system was further altered, with a higher payment now given for the first child than for their younger siblings.[2]
Polish migrants living in Britain claiming £21m in child benefits for children left behind
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1VCBOsi5K
The "British Josef Fritzl" who raped his daughters and made them pregnant 19 times did it to get child benefit payments, his sister-in-law has claimed.
Last edited by Braineack; 08-16-2011 at 08:49 AM.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 08:50 AM
#134
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 583
Total Cats: -1
It's just r versus K selection theory, a biological strategy. Some organisms have fewer offspring but take care of them more strenuously. Some have many early and let 'em loose for the world to sort things out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 10:37 AM
#137
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 583
Total Cats: -1
Come to Britain…Come to America.
We will pay you to have more and more kids from the random guys you hook up with.
They are not "dumb" enough not to use birth control. They are simply following biological patterns built into their DNA. It's inherent.
Some groups are more "r" and some are more "K". The "Ks" have to pay for the "rs" until the "rs" stop or the "Ks" can't pay anymore.
It is a mistake for "Ks" to believe that the "rs" think like the "Ks". They don't. And we incentivise, reward, and enable them to be extra "r". This is a weakness of the "Ks". "Ks" would not tend to go as wild with it as the "rs" in general, however paying for illegitimate babies increases them in most any population. It is either a mistake based on fundamental misunderstanding or a deliberate strategy to develop social policy promoting the decline of traditional families. And replacing them with the Government as the Father figure.
So what are you waiting for? Be fruitful and multiply!
We will pay you to have more and more kids from the random guys you hook up with.
They are not "dumb" enough not to use birth control. They are simply following biological patterns built into their DNA. It's inherent.
Some groups are more "r" and some are more "K". The "Ks" have to pay for the "rs" until the "rs" stop or the "Ks" can't pay anymore.
It is a mistake for "Ks" to believe that the "rs" think like the "Ks". They don't. And we incentivise, reward, and enable them to be extra "r". This is a weakness of the "Ks". "Ks" would not tend to go as wild with it as the "rs" in general, however paying for illegitimate babies increases them in most any population. It is either a mistake based on fundamental misunderstanding or a deliberate strategy to develop social policy promoting the decline of traditional families. And replacing them with the Government as the Father figure.
So what are you waiting for? Be fruitful and multiply!
Last edited by sjmarcy; 08-16-2011 at 11:40 AM.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 12:32 PM
#140
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 583
Total Cats: -1
Remember that Mother Nature is a bitch. Success = a growing population or subpopulation. Mother does not vote or pledge allegiance to the flag or pander to present politically correct trends.
If you examine the politics vis-a-vis the "welfare classes" it can get interesting and upsetting to some. Nature does not get upset, it just proceeds.
For instance…many might say that the Liberals are trying to help African Americans. And that Conservatives are not. Let's examine this for a moment shall we?
Liberals want more and more assistance, handouts, grants, housing and other perks for the late sleepers on programs. Yet they are staunchly for abortion. So…they want to "help" AAs by giving them handouts. Yet kill off the babies occurring in that setting via widespread and increasing abortion rights. Presently, 52% of all Black Americans are never born!! The party that is "for" them kills them off, literally. And that same group always votes for the Liberals no matter what, so then the Libs can effectively ignore them since they have to do nothing to get their votes.
Meanwhile Conservatives would like to see more and stronger families. Which always seems to result in more kids getting a better upbringing with a brighter future. Not in all cases, I am talking about overall. So…the concept might be that if more folks are marrying and staying married while working steadily and providing for themselves, this is better for both society AND for the individuals. How many folks have you known that felt awful after getting downsized and then feel much better when they get rehired? It feels good to be productive. It feels bad to be just an "eater" with no hope or chance. So why promote sadness and then pay people to raise big families in that setting forever?
In the meantime, Nature does its thing. Differences in groups are advantageous as far as the long run goes. Since as conditions change different talents, tendencies, and behaviors will be preferred survival-wise. For instance if there was a Nuclear War and everything collapsed, many people would die in the aftermath some time later. Not just during the blasts. And some would go on to rebuild. So Mother triumphs in the end.
If you examine the politics vis-a-vis the "welfare classes" it can get interesting and upsetting to some. Nature does not get upset, it just proceeds.
For instance…many might say that the Liberals are trying to help African Americans. And that Conservatives are not. Let's examine this for a moment shall we?
Liberals want more and more assistance, handouts, grants, housing and other perks for the late sleepers on programs. Yet they are staunchly for abortion. So…they want to "help" AAs by giving them handouts. Yet kill off the babies occurring in that setting via widespread and increasing abortion rights. Presently, 52% of all Black Americans are never born!! The party that is "for" them kills them off, literally. And that same group always votes for the Liberals no matter what, so then the Libs can effectively ignore them since they have to do nothing to get their votes.
Meanwhile Conservatives would like to see more and stronger families. Which always seems to result in more kids getting a better upbringing with a brighter future. Not in all cases, I am talking about overall. So…the concept might be that if more folks are marrying and staying married while working steadily and providing for themselves, this is better for both society AND for the individuals. How many folks have you known that felt awful after getting downsized and then feel much better when they get rehired? It feels good to be productive. It feels bad to be just an "eater" with no hope or chance. So why promote sadness and then pay people to raise big families in that setting forever?
In the meantime, Nature does its thing. Differences in groups are advantageous as far as the long run goes. Since as conditions change different talents, tendencies, and behaviors will be preferred survival-wise. For instance if there was a Nuclear War and everything collapsed, many people would die in the aftermath some time later. Not just during the blasts. And some would go on to rebuild. So Mother triumphs in the end.
Last edited by sjmarcy; 08-16-2011 at 12:49 PM.
Reply
0
0
