|
That is pretty impressive actually. They screwed over the legal system handily there.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
Anyone who can do so, jump ship now.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
While we are "better than lot of countries" we are hell bent on throwing ourselves on a poo poo slide further down the Neo Liberal rabbit hole. The future projections look fairly bleak. Granted there isnt probably many, or any, places much better. If they are they are on the same course as us in any case. Lest I remind everyone. We are currently in the process of privatising the NHS (and almost everything else - selling them usually below their true value), student loans are being hawked out to private interests, University fees are being allowed to rise and rise, we have cut legal aid so people cannot get the funds to go to court and receive a fair trial, we also have scarecely any interest in building any more homes for people so renters can continue to benefit from the fact we dont have enough. We are (on the whole) content with enriching the already haves at an alarming rate and saying gently caress the poor very loudly when our politicians think they can get away with it (a lot recently). A decent proportion of people are not getting a living wage, businesses can (with the help of Government) keep you on their books and literally not give you any hours so they have to pay you very much, this counts as work so you dont receive as much benfits. Our benefits system is being changed to pay as few people as they can get away with, and people with disablities are treated as surplus to requirements. We want to cut Green energy and frack the ever living poo poo out of our countryside. The stand out good thing we have gotten recently, that I can remember, is that gay people have the right to get married now. This is a good thing, but I think the list of genuine good things is way waaay shorter than the bad. Ive probably missed a few off of mine I admit. Yes I may be a pessimist, but saying we have it good is only relative to how bad other places are. We have it ok, we could do a lot lot better. But we wont. Touchdown Boy fucked around with this message at 19:05 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
That attitude extends down to people I know who are on 40k a year etc. I mean its almost as if no one thinks they earn enough and always find a way to spend it on something. There is probably a solution other than putting these sorts of people up against a wall, but Ill be damned if I can think of it right now. He doesnt get to eat out? His kids education costs more than some households earnings combined? What hardship! For anyone who cant tell, 120k is an awful lot of money. If you spend it all and want more I dont think you have any right to complain, especially when you try to use it to justify tax cuts for yourself at the expense of people who really do have it tough.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
There was another thing like that doing the rounds in the US. In fact I think I found it - http://money.msn.com/tax-planning/down-and-out-on-250000-dollars-a-year-the-fiscal-times I find these things hilarious considering they take into account practically ever possible thing you COULD pay for, not realising that most people dont have room for things such as "savings" or "private insurance" "boarding schols" on a much less generous wage. If its a universal right for them to be able to afford these things, why isnt it for everyone? As I say people will almost always find a way to spend their money, and always moan that they dont get paid enough. These sorts of things are not relevant to a serious discussion because personal bias will always come into play. If someone on 100k a year thinks they are poor, they should try 10k a year and get back to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:These articles are click bait, the premise is that they know 100k, 120k, 250k is an 'absurd' amount to be saying 'we're poor' with, they want you to be outraged that someone could be so out of touch, and thus click on the link, then share it with all your friends. Possibly true, but I dont think the guy they interviewed cares a jot about clickbait, even if the newspapers do. I reckon he really does think he is hard done by.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
"But there will be no obligation for local councils to put this out to private bidders" */cuts the funding of local councils*.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Although Farage is a old racist arsehole you cant spent time echoing his position (albeit in a softer form) then turn round and say "that guy has valid concerns, but dont vote for him vote for me because hes a racist and Im not".
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I don't get it! Been registered at the same address for nearly 5 years, voted in the general and London mayoral elections and now I'm mysteriously erased from the register. They know what you said about Thatcher!
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:One thing I keep seeing from David Cameron today is his statement of 'The Conservative party does not do pact or deals!' He let Clegg sit at the big boys table as long as he didnt say too much and did what he was told.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
All I see is two pictures of lots of police.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
A Sloth posted:Wow, the denial. I never said purely a South Asian problem, but those who heavily abuse the weaknesses tend to be so. You must be an idiot to put these two things in the same sentence.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
The types of people who rely on pushing Britishness tend to define it by what it isnt, not whatever technical or factual term you can come up with for what it is.
Touchdown Boy fucked around with this message at 20:26 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
I guess a better question would be 'Why cant the Government tell the rail companies they will be nationalised. The shareholders can either play along and cut a deal, or they will lose out by resisting it'? I mean its not an unpopular position for the average joe. I doubt they would care as long as it continued to run and wasnt more expensive. People with vested interests will obviously hate it, because somehow the world is set up for them to make more money and nothing should hinder that.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
ronya posted:the government presumably has to pay the shareholders for their shares, where do the funds come from? We grow some more money trees like we always do? This sort of question that presumes the Government has no money, and no way to get more, and worse any spending is completely wasted as soon as it happens. There would be a return on the investment because its not as if the railways make no money (because if they didnt then there would be no private investment would there?).
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 12:26
|
|