Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982369)

yup and the tories relaxed the rules as her husband has been mates with david cameron for 30 odd years;)

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 982373)

1 wrong + 1 wrong = not right.

Originally Posted by maxthecollie (Post 982481)

All politicians pee in the same pot

Originally Posted by maxthecollie (Post 982481)

All politicians pee in the same pot

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 982503)

And they sometimes miss Max:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 982559)

And that's why everyone else gets sprayed on ! :(

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982750)

welcome to tory britain Mother leaps to death with baby in her arms after her benefits are stopped | Mail Online

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 982757)

That article is from 2009 , wasn't it Liebour in charge then ?

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982750)

welcome to tory britain Mother leaps to death with baby in her arms after her benefits are stopped | Mail Online

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 982757)

That article is from 2009 , wasn't it Liebour in charge then ?

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982766)

what about this then david cameron telling lies FactCheck: Cameron’s 81p tax giveaway | The FactCheck Blog

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982814)

i dont know if this is true but if any tories can tell me if it isnt ill be happy Concern over plan to withdraw housing benefit from under-25s | Society | The Guardian

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy (Post 982815)

Yet another innocent victim of the Francis Maude blunder.
Francis Maude killed my dog with reckless jerry can comments, claims owner - Telegraph

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 982821)

And your point is ? If people who are working for a living have to stay home with their parents because they can't afford to pay for a place of their own, why the hell should someone who isn't working (and has probably never worked, the article doesn't make this distinction) be given money so they can enjoy that particular luxury ?

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 982825)

And so having a roof over your head is classed as a "luxury" :confused:

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982826)

what happens if they havent got parents:confused:

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 982831)

No, it's a basic tenet of a civilised society. But a place of your own, paid for off the backs of someone elses efforts is.



Most of those concerned will have parents, but due to the "it's my right & I want everything now mentality !" Many would have struck out, with hands held outstretched wanting & the system, gawd luv 'em has doled it out hand over fist.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 982832)

And where will these new homeless sleep?..not sure how it goes in Germany but this is how it will work here.. they will either live on the streets or be moved into expensive "bed and breakfast" and specially in the large cities.. saving money? the people claiming housing benefits in this country are not the ones living in luxury.. it's the private landlords who will reap those benefits.;)

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 982837)

It's guaranteed then is it ? That all those receiving support will in one stroke end up on the street ? Seems a little drastic to say the least, no I can't see that happening somehow.

I'd agree with you on the private landlords issue, some are taking the pish to put it mildly, but then there are others who are playing it straight. I'd say that the responsibility lies with the agencies paying out, they need to look again & get a grip where required.

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 982837)

It's guaranteed then is it ? That all those receiving support will in one stroke end up on the street ? Seems a little drastic to say the least, no I can't see that happening somehow.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 982848)

As we speak we are getting on to almost 3 million unemployed in the UK..around 22% of that figure are under 24yrs old ..over 1 million..what percentage are workshy scroungers you and this government make them out to be?.
From day one this government have had only one aim and that is to make cuts in everything.. that includes any attempt of training our youngsters in the industry we need to survive in a world economy..it's the same old wing on a prayer market forces ideology they have always had ... and it's crap .

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982851)

yep and private firms are defrauding the taxpayers by making up apprenticeships look at morrisons 40% of their staff are on goverment apprenticeships.one firm got 45 million pounds last year zenos

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982851)

yep and private firms are defrauding the taxpayers by making up apprenticeships look at morrisons 40% of their staff are on goverment apprenticeships.one firm got 45 million pounds last year zenos

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 982879)

Ya it should be stopped, another couple of hundred thousand on the dole so you and the drunk can ring your hands in glee and shout nasty Tories , your pair of divvies

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 982886)

Com is correct about private firms defrauding the government n taxpayers n if ya think that should be allowed to carry on yer the divvy.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982888)

unemployment was falling under labour when the tories came in they went up simples;) It's a compliment to be a tax haven, says Francis Maude - Telegraph theres no money lol your having a giraffe

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982888)

unemployment was falling under labour when the tories came in they went up simples

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 982887)

No it shouldn't be allowed to carry on but neither should it be withdrawn, putting more people on the dole, something that Dumb and Dumber would love so they can carry on their tirade against the government, its a poor state of affairs when people are jumping through hoops doing hands stands a cheering when people lose their jobs, most of which was caused by their useless mates in the first place, just so they can gloat, now that really is the pits:mad:

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982920)

you cant read a chart lol credit crunch rises just before election down by not much but coming down no going back up to early nineties lol percentage wise will be different due to rise in population due to europe not one political party.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 982841)

Aw come one.. it's a pretty sure thing that some of those who loose housing benifit will end up on the streets.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 982848)

As we speak we are getting on to almost 3 million unemployed in the UK..around 22% of that figure are under 24yrs old ..over 1 million..what percentage are workshy scroungers you and this government make them out to be?.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 982850)

My mistake ..almost 1 million under 25yrs old.. a slight gliche on my part but still almost a 3rd of all unemployed.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 982850)

My mistake ..almost 1 million under 25yrs old.. a slight gliche on my part but still almost a 3rd of all unemployed :(

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 982954)

3 million, 1 million, a vast difference there Mancie.



And why is that then ? Don't trot out the tired excuse that there's no work out there, I would suggest otherwise. There are enough Eastern Europeans & others who have managed to find work & I'm pretty sure they don't see it as their lifes ambition but being realists they've made a conscious choice to grit their teeth & get on with what's available.

The only difference I see is that some people deem these positions below them (even though they've no qualifications or a basic grasp of a working ethic, fostered by successive Governments policies & their expansion of an even larger dependency culture) & aren't prepared to accept something that doesn't suit them or fulfil their wants.

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth (Post 982982)

It puzzles me how we can have almost 1 million young people who can't find a job but over 1 million Poles and East Europeans can flood in over a very short space of time and walk straight into jobs.
The jobs must have been there in the first place and they must pay enough to be worth doing so why did none of our own people want to take them?
Somebodies got it wrong and I don't think it's the Poles!

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 982983)

That may be perhaps cos yeh have little idea of whats actually happening in the world Gordon? as my nephew discovered a couple of years ago, when the only job he could attain n it was seasonal at "Fine Arts" were he had been fer 4/5 years was not available cos he was told were now employing poles.:mad:

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth (Post 982986)

Yes, cashman, I will be out of touch up to a point, I'm retired but I try to keep up to date with what's going on.
Don't get me wrong-I do think it's a tragedy what is happening to young people today- jobs were so plentiful when I was young.
But you have to ask why do Fine Arts prefer to employ Poles to our own youth, even for seasonal work? Probably nothing against your nephew, just a general preference for foreign workers over our own.Why? Something is wrong.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 982988)

They can pay em less.

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth (Post 982990)

We have a minimum wage- it's not much but it's the minimum.
There must be something else! Attitude, work ethic, give away degrees that are useless? Not applying to all our young ones but enough of them to sour employers against them.
Come on, cashman, you know it's not just pay.

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982992)

what they did in a couple of well known companies in lancashire ,is buy up all the housing ,set up an employment agency in poland ,get them to pay their own way across, employ them, house them and charge them £100 a week with 6 to a house .how do i know ? quite a few polish people told me the same story. so the moral of the story is a wwin win situation for the companies .cheap labour free property and no come back;)

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982992)

what they did in a couple of well known companies in lancashire ,is buy up all the housing ,set up an employment agency in poland ,get them to pay their own way across, employ them, house them and charge them £100 a week with 6 to a house .how do i know ? quite a few polish people told me the same story. so the moral of the story is a wwin win situation for the companies .cheap labour free property and no come back;)

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth (Post 982990)

We have a minimum wage- it's not much but it's the minimum.
There must be something else! Attitude, work ethic, give away degrees that are useless? Not applying to all our young ones but enough of them to sour employers against them.
Come on, cashman, you know it's not just pay.

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982992)

what they did in a couple of well known companies in lancashire ,is buy up all the housing ,set up an employment agency in poland ,get them to pay their own way across, employ them, house them and charge them £100 a week with 6 to a house .how do i know ? quite a few polish people told me the same story. so the moral of the story is a wwin win situation for the companies .cheap labour free property and no come back;)

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 982993)

Seems yer aware of this outrage.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 982995)

What's the main reason why some unscrupulous employers can take advantage of cheaper eastern European labour?

Because we now have an open borders policy, allowing this to happen.

Thanks to our membership of the European Union/United States of Europe.

That's why.

This won't change whilst we still have people like Graham Jones as our M.P.

Who's ever so kindly took the decision for us, thanks to him voting against us having a referendum, even though he said it would settle the issue 'democratically', that this situation is in our best interest.

Although according to our (current) M.P., 95% of his constituents 'don't give a stuff about Europe'.

Which of course is a load of big, sweaty bolo...gnese.

Though like all those blinded by party loyalty, he's unable to see what's actually happening in reality.

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth (Post 982990)

Not applying to all our young ones but enough of them to sour employers against them.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 983000)

That attitude don't help matters at all,:rolleyes: Everyones aware there are dollopers that wish to live off the state, but those people are all yeh read about in the sensationalist media, Telling yeh about all the good hardworking kids that are unable to gain employment, well theres no merit in that, sod all sensational about it, just tough titty. Many people remind me off human dustbins, cos they will take any owd crap the media spout out.:(

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 982887)

No it shouldn't be allowed to carry on but neither should it be withdrawn its a poor state of affairs when people are jumping through hoops doing hands stands a cheering when people lose their jobs, most of which was caused by their useless mates in the first place, just so they can gloat, now that really is the pits:mad:

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 983030)

...and dont care about who they employ as long as they get the profit

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 983038)

Sounds like a lot of people don't care where, or who, their big wads of wonga come from.


Ed Miliband entertained a controversial City tycoon and Labour donor in his private office, just a month after a speech condemning capitalist “predators”.

Ed Miliband entertained tycoon Labour donors in his own home - Telegraph

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iley_blind.gif

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 983038)

Sounds like a lot of people don't care where, or who, their big wads of wonga come from.


Ed Miliband entertained a controversial City tycoon and Labour donor in his private office, just a month after a speech condemning capitalist “predators”.

Ed Miliband entertained tycoon Labour donors in his own home - Telegraph

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iley_blind.gif

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 983044)

hes a bad smell that wont go away.

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth (Post 982986)

Yes, cashman, I will be out of touch up to a point, I'm retired but I try to keep up to date with what's going on.
Don't get me wrong-I do think it's a tragedy what is happening to young people today- jobs were so plentiful when I was young.
But you have to ask why do Fine Arts prefer to employ Poles to our own youth, even for seasonal work? Probably nothing against your nephew, just a general preference for foreign workers over our own.Why? Something is wrong.

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth (Post 983025)

I hope you don't come across too many 'human dustbins' who make you 'puke', you'll be losing weight! My weight has always been constant.;)


Why are they preferring to employ foreigners when(as you say and I agree) we have lots of good hardworking kids wanting these jobs?

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 983053)

Think the truth may be,yeh don't really want to know Gordon?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 982893)

The biggest increase in U.K. unemployment, happened between 2007 and 2009.

When we had a Labour government.

Here's a pretty little graph for you to look at, which clearly illustrates this.

Well, it does to those not wearing blinkers.

BBC News - Unemployment in graphics

;)

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 982898)

Oh G he won't want to look at that...especially if it shows the Labour government in their true colours( a nice flattering heliotrope).

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 983061)

Were you on the sewing machine when you posted this or reading it upside down? the pretty graph shows the lowest rate of unemployment was '07 to '08.. the biggest increase is 2011 to the present.. :)

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 983061)

:)

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 983043)

Son of a stockbroker Prime Minister David Cameron pulled off one of his most spectacular sleights-of-hand on Wednesday when he used his vague Big Society idea to get his City mates involved.

Under the guise of giving a helping hand to charities and social enterprises he launched a £600 million fund claiming the City was going to help tackle our deepest social problems.

But two-thirds of the money - £400m - comes from unclaimed cash from bank accounts dormant for more than 15 years and the rest comes from Barclays, HSBC and state-backed banks Lloyds and RBS - forcing the taxpayers to fork out.

The amount of money that will apparently be available as investments must also be put in the context of billions which the government has stopped giving to charities.

The new fund, called Big Society Capital, will "invest in organisations that provide affordable finance to social projects, which will then repay the money from the income they generate."

Mr Cameron said: "Just as finance from the City has been essential to help businesses grow and take on the world, so finance from the City is going to be essential to helping tackle our deepest social problems."

The money made from these investments will be reinvested in new projects in turn, apparently generating new cash.

But it was confirmed that the banks also have a right to any "surplus."

Chairman of the new institution is venture capital pioneer Sir Ronald Cohen,

Many observers have called the Big Society idea just a smokescreen for the massive cuts which the government has swung into action.

The latest move follows a blow when a county council's decision that 10 libraries should be run by volunteers was ruled procedurally flawed and unlawful.

Surrey County Council had "failed to have due regard to equality issues," a High Court judge said.

Mr Cohen admitted last year the fund would not be able to replace government funding.

No-one was available to answer the question: "Why is this fund needed rather than the government directly giving money?"

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 983087)

Nice the figures make someone smile though.

I bet the millions of hardworking folk who lost their jobs then, weren't smiling.

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 983262)

`now theyve started on the employment rights.what is there next target leisure centres:confused:

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 983075)

Did you look at it? ;)

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 983265)

at least theyve got one growth industry and found a couple of billion Does the Government want to make GCHQ the 'Big Brother' for Europe? - Telegraph

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 983279)

Promises betrayed, and this stealthy slide into Big Brother Britain

Labour governments had a truly chilling disregard for this country’s ancient, hard-won freedoms.

The DNA of more than a million innocent people was stored on a vast official database. Town Halls were given James Bond-style powers to spy on people suspected of putting their rubbish bins out on the wrong day. Plans were drawn up to hold terror suspects without charge for 90 days.

Indeed, it was the desire to reduce the intrusive, liberty sapping powers amassed by the State which helped drive voters into the arms of the Lib Dems and the Conservatives

GCHQ monitoring plans: Stealthy slide into Big Brother Britain | Mail Online




Cut 'n' paste.

Cut 'n' paste.

Easy-peasy fun, this lark.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by annesingleton (Post 983282)

Quite right, I hate this big brother nation that we have become. But I also detest our current government who nobody in the country has voted for. I don't know what the answer could be.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 983289)

Sadly people did vote for the parties who make up the coalition.

Who collectively got more seats than Labour.

I'm, no, I was, a life-long Labour supporter.

Now I'm totally, totally disillusioned with the Labour party, and thoroughly sickened with all the mainstream parties, if truth be told.

From now on I'll be voting for UKIP. As I believe our membership of the European Union is disastrous for the independence of this island nation. Now, and more so in the future.

In elections where I can't vote for a UKIP candidate, I shall attempt to split the vote of political parties, who continue to turn a blind-eye to the British people desperately wanting a say in their own destiny.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 983431)

I have been know to make statements on Accyweb before and have always stuck by them, If I'm still here at the time of the next General Election I will be voting UKIP too Rindi, sadly the party I have always supported have given me no choice in the matter

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 983434)

Good man!

The newbies on here either don't know, or have forgotten, that I was just as much on your case in the past, as I am now with Dick Van Dyke, and Wee Jimmy Krankie, before you saw the light, and threw your blinkers away.

You'll be here by the way.

That vote's needed.

I'll a hire a nurse for you myself, if need be. To keep you going until the election.

:D

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 983437)

Ya can remember the tussles we had back then, think you may have more of a problem with the other two though, as for the nurse Rindi, I've already got one of those:dancedog::dancedog::dancedog::D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 983438)

No worries.

I'll send this one back to the agency then.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...1qyAHtANwDhA7Q

She might have done you more harm than good, thinking about it.

;)

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 983445)

BBC News - Water minister denies tabloid hosepipe ban 'sting' another cover up on his family estate or did somebody else turn the tap on:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy (Post 982815)

Yet another innocent victim of the Francis Maude blunder.
Francis Maude killed my dog with reckless jerry can comments, claims owner - Telegraph

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 983438)

No worries.

I'll send this one back to the agency then.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...1qyAHtANwDhA7Q

She might have done you more harm than good, thinking about it.

;)

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 983464)

I'm sure she could rub my, er, rub my, er ......... fevered brow, yes that's it fevered brow.

Originally Posted by cmonstanley (Post 982814)

i dont know if this is true but if any tories can tell me if it isnt ill be happy Concern over plan to withdraw housing benefit from under-25s | Society | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 983502)

There you go......
The first picture is me as a Student Nurse.......Taken on the old wing at BRI during the summer of 1978 - I was on ENT.

The second pic.......me in the mid 1990's....taken on C2 at QPH.

Maybe you wouldn't want me to tend your fevered brow,now you have seen the pics.:)


Sorry about the speckles...old pictures taken with film cameras

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 983521)

oops my fat fingers....that should have read 1974.........I qualified in 1977 so that would be when I won the prize G....but I don't know what I did to win it.
I didn't ask in case it wasn't me that won and they asked for it back:).