 | |
Re: Old transport cafe as a cannabis coffee shop
Miscellaneous UK car topics Other UK car topics (uk.rec.cars.misc)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#291
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: OT: Re: Old transport cafe as a cannabis coffee shop -
05-15-2005
, 05:16 AM
|
Uno Hoo! wrote: I'm sorry Dave but you are way off the mark here. There are thousands of people on benefits who admit quite openly that it is simply not worth their while going out to work because they would be worse off financially. Would you like to post a creditable source for this? My sister in law for a start who gets £1600 a month in benefits...more |
Plenty on the news about the scandal. Shown that a single parent on
benefit in rented accommodation has about £400 more in benefits than
the takehome pay of a couple on £24k.
--
Conor
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
#292
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ben Blaney wrote: AndrewR wrote: But tobacco doesn't create a cost burden upon society, it makes a net profit - and quite a large one - thanks to taxation. That's before you consider the benefits it brings in killing people off young so that the state doesn't have to supply them with a pension and free health care as they grow old. Trouble is, it also kills off wage-earners, whose families then need to be supported by the state. I very much doubt that you can prove to me that tobacco creates a net loss for the government, but if you'd like to try then you go for it. |
costing, there are other factors you did not take into consideration.
--
Ben Blaney
#293
| |||
| |||
|
|
I'm sorry Dave but you are way off the mark here. There are thousands of people on benefits who admit quite openly that it is simply not worth their while going out to work because they would be worse off financially. The idle beggar who we saw on that wife-swap prog was a perfect example. He and his wife were taking home more in benefits than the couple they swapped with who were both working. Because of various 'illnesses' with their kids they could claim all sorts of benefits totalling £36k a year - absolutely outrageous. Their home was full of very expensive electronic equipment like widescreen plasma tv etc. - all paid for by people in work, many of whom earn a damn site less than £36k a year. You have a very dim view of the Daily Mail - but your view of UK society today seems totally at odds with reality. |
Kev, go down your local job centre and ask what benefits you'd get if
penniless. Think you'll be in for a surprise...
--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *
Dave Plowman dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
#294
| |||
| |||
|
|
Plenty on the news about the scandal. Shown that a single parent on benefit in rented accommodation has about £400 more in benefits than the takehome pay of a couple on £24k. |
housing payments and see what you're left with.
But perhaps you'd prefer the kid(s) to be sleeping rough?
--
*There's no place like www.home.com *
Dave Plowman dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
#295
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <MPG.1cf123d1318e0d89989b60 (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>, Conor <conor.turton (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Plenty on the news about the scandal. Shown that a single parent on benefit in rented accommodation has about £400 more in benefits than the takehome pay of a couple on £24k. That's due to the lack of council accommodation. Take away the private housing payments and see what you're left with. But perhaps you'd prefer the kid(s) to be sleeping rough? |
children they can't afford to raise, while at the same time prevent
children from living in poverty. The situation Conor describes is
clearly unjust, and the "lack of council accommodation" is irrelevant; a
benefit in kind is still a benefit.
There's very little excuse for breeding a horde of kids at the
taxpayer's expense when neither parent works or has any intent to do so;
sure contraception is fallible, but it isn't *that* unreliable.
--
Steve Walker
#296
| |||
| |||
|
|
That's due to the lack of council accommodation. Take away the private housing payments and see what you're left with. But perhaps you'd prefer the kid(s) to be sleeping rough? It's an intractable problem; how do you discourage people from having children they can't afford to raise, while at the same time prevent children from living in poverty. The situation Conor describes is clearly unjust, and the "lack of council accommodation" is irrelevant; a benefit in kind is still a benefit. |
parents couldn't afford them? People die and couples split up.
Quote:
|
There's very little excuse for breeding a horde of kids at the taxpayer's expense when neither parent works or has any intent to do so; sure contraception is fallible, but it isn't *that* unreliable. |
And those single parents I meet could *not* be described as living a
comfortable life - in at least my terms. True they will have a TV, video
and satellite dish, but so what?
Like I said to Kev, get yourself down to your local Job centre and find
out just how much you'd get if unemployed. It won't make Daily Mail
headlines. Nor would it pay the weekly wine bill for most.
--
*There's no place like www.home.com *
Dave Plowman dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
#297
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <MPG.1cf123d1318e0d89989b60 (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>, Conor <conor.turton (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Plenty on the news about the scandal. Shown that a single parent on benefit in rented accommodation has about £400 more in benefits than the takehome pay of a couple on £24k. That's due to the lack of council accommodation. Take away the private housing payments and see what you're left with. That was actually in council accommodation. Council rents around here |
Quote:
|
But perhaps you'd prefer the kid(s) to be sleeping rough? Or the parents to actually get a job. |
--
Conor
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
#298
| |||
| |||
|
|
You're gainsaying that those children were born at a time where the parents couldn't afford them? |
house and you're set for life.
Quote:
|
I spend a fair amount of time, work wise, on some pretty rough estates. And those single parents I meet could *not* be described as living a comfortable life - in at least my terms. True they will have a TV, video and satellite dish, but so what? And they blow £40 a week on fags too. |
Quote:
|
Like I said to Kev, get yourself down to your local Job centre and find out just how much you'd get if unemployed. |
months I'd get £190 a month towards mortgage too.
--
Conor
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.
#299
| |||
| |||
|
|
Questions (AT) forgotten (DOT) what.this.was.now.com> wrote in message Apparently on date Wed, 11 May 2005 11:20:07 +0100, "Uno Hoo!" I don't doubt that members of rec.drugs.cannabis also pick out the bits that support their case and ignore the rest. Have a look at your statement there. Starting with an assumption or belief, and then discarding all the evidence that works against that assumption in order to strengthen the belief by finding evidence that bolsters it, is absolutely futile. It is guaranteed to I take no issue with anything that you have said above - although it does have some fundamental flaws. Basically, hardly anyone can have an opinion about anything because they do not know enough about 'it'. |
opinions. My shock was about defending an approach that devalues the resulting
opinion, by saying everyone else is doing it. Even if they were, it would still
be a very bad approach.
Quote:
|
their stance - but most certainly there *are* medical research papers that report on the ill-effects of cannabis use and these are notable by their absence. The mere fact that cannabis smoking involves abusing the lungs by using them to extract noxious substances from smoke - instead of oxygen from fresh air - means per se that cannabis use *must* be detrimental to health. Unless you can argue that breathing smoke is good for you? |
that's up to them, none of my business and if the law says they're not allowed
to that's not my business either, I really don't care. Burn anything in a rizla
and you breath in concentrations of carbon monoxide that will eventually kill
you if something else doesn't get you first.
The Communists reason the other way. The worker "belongs" to the communist
party and must not harm what is therefore their property, instead must remain
fit and able and productive for the party to benefit from. Hence laws that
forbid taking risks, wearing yourself out for personal pleasure, taking
substances that might damage you for enjoyment, etc.
#300
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <4d6b7a4c80dave (AT) davenoise (DOT) co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) says... You're gainsaying that those children were born at a time where the parents couldn't afford them? In alot of areas its the done thing. Have a kid, get given a council house and you're set for life. I spend a fair amount of time, work wise, on some pretty rough estates. And those single parents I meet could *not* be described as living a comfortable life - in at least my terms. True they will have a TV, video and satellite dish, but so what? And they blow £40 a week on fags too. Like I said to Kev, get yourself down to your local Job centre and find out just how much you'd get if unemployed. About £200 a week dole, |
Quote:
|
after 6 months I'd get £190 a month towards mortgage too. |
--
Ben Blaney
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.