BS: No longer Great Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:57 AM

So you're happy that thousands of civil servants and local authority workers are to be robbed of their livelihoods in order to pay off the huge debts brought upon us by the greed and criminal recklessness of highly-paid people in the financial sector? Those same people in the financial sector who are still being paid huge bonuses - some of those being individual bonuses which are more in one year than a local-authority clerk could make in a lifetime?

Not 'The Politics of Envy', John - more 'The Politics of Laying The Blame Where It Belongs And Punishing The Real Culprits Rather Than Shafting The Easy Targets', methinks.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:58 AM

Sorry, forgot to switch of the underlining which should only have applied to the word 'still'.

Oh for an Edit facility.............

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:59 AM

Off, not 'of'.

Fer God's sake, give us an Edit facility, Max.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 05:03 AM

'GUEST, Gentle Giant' have you ever stopped to wonder why you are so obsessed with the alleged misdeeds of those who you consider to be your social 'inferiors'? I don't doubt, for one minute, by the way, that 'benefit cheats' exist but their misdeeds pale into insignificance compared with those of the 'higher ups' - the tax dodgers (non-dom and those who can afford to employ devious accountants), reckless, greedy bankers and business leaders on obscene salaries, who have brought our economy to the brink of disaster; not a word about them - why not?

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Gentle Gaint
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 05:34 AM

Shimrod, it's "Gentle Gaint" not Giant, I understand my handle may look like a misspelling.

You are right in pointing out the salaries of senior bankers, if you don't pay the wages you don't get the staff. Some of these guys turn profits by 100%. There is a big difference in a well educated guy turning the fortunes of a company around and a thick little leech breeding "beer tokens" to gain a party house.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 05:56 AM

'Gentle Gaint/Giant' whatever - but the grossly overpaid 'staff' f**ked up big time, didn't they? And we taxpayers are supposed to pick up the tab, while the 'staff' continue to be paid their mega-salaries. This should make any reasonable person much more angry than the petty fiddling of a few social inadequates - aided and abetted by incompetent welfare authorities, I might add (and no doubt the idiots in charge of welfare payments are also grossly overpaid).

I contend that all of these problems come down to snobbery and social exclusion. You focus your rage on people you consider to be your social inferiors, while those at the top of organisations, like banks, invent spurious 'competencies' in order to pay themselves and their cronies immense salaries; dishonest and recklessness at the 'top' of the social ladder is richly rewarded whilst that at the 'bottom' is condemned.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:25 AM

single mother who deliberately gets pregnant

I think Gaint actually means "the single mother who fails to have an abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Gentle Gaint
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:40 AM

Shimrod, there is a difference in an appointment at board level by a bank or company seeking to improve it's profits or rewarding an individual for doing so, and a layabout too lazy to look a job and provide for their family or a thick little girl without morals living a promiscuous lifestyle and demanding the taxpayer pay her rent, council tax provide beer money and God knows what else her for lying on her back with every Tom, Dick or Harry.

The benefits system in this country needs a drastic overhaul, it's too easy to opt out of employment. I provided for my family, I paid my dues I still pay a mortgage, I see young women and men claiming, scoffing and abusing the system on a daily basis. In my local they boast, they exchange advice what to say to doctors, they know the colour and number of every Social Security form. Sadly too many here still live in the days of protest songs and hold anti establishment views.

Cameron will nudge them into the 21st century.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Gentle Gaint
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:43 AM

No McGrath, an abortion doesn't prove weekend beer money. They need a birth certificate to get the big dollars !

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:56 AM

MtheGM , you are no stranger to pedantic attention to detail so may I please request that you read my post of 15 Aug 10 - 08:09 PM
If you do so you may notice that the 'predicament' I quoted was that of J K Rowlings the author of the Harry Potter books as reported by her in an article in The Times (source to complete article provided)

"No fresh ideas, just the recycling of old dogmas, statistics, and quotations"

- Well sometimes the use of verifiable statistics and quotes from reliable informed sources is preferable to the ignorant, Mail inspired bigoted attitudes hawked by Gaint who I'm sure we have met in previous incarnation here

I have no idea what twisted bitter motives inspire Gaint to denounce people who are disabled, severely physically or mentally ill as 'scroungers' or to depict single parents as binge drinking, promiscuous 'thick little leeches'
However it appears he has found a happy hunting ground on this forum to propagate his calumnies against some of the most vulnerable in our society

So what is the appropriate response?

To allow such ignorant opinions to pass without either moderation or challenge and stand as the 'facts' he would have us all swallow?

What proportion of girls under 16 get pregnant each year?
Well if you believe the kind of stuff that the likes of Gaint, in this or his other incarnations, regurgitates you may be surprised to know that the actual figure is 0.8%
Still too high? - yes, of course

WHAT IT IS NOT!

As quoted in a recent Tory document - "In the most deprived areas, 54% are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18 compared to 19% in the least deprived area"

It is difficult to know if these figures are an attempt to play on the most disturbing public stereotypes of young women living in deprived areas or merely the fact that someone does not understand basic maths and realize the original DCSF is quoting figures per 1000 population not percentage!!

The fact that teenage pregnacy is however higher in the most deprived areas however requires a seperate study of causes of its own


Lone parents spending benefit cash on booze and fags?

FACT!

Recent social research also undermines this populist suspicion propagated in the more rabid media

Looking at aspects of social exclusion Jane Waldfogel et al studied the spending patterns of low-income families and concluded that single parent families spent just £2.32 a week on alcohol and tobacco, compared to over £8 a week by couple families out of work. When their financial support was increased through tax credits in 1999. these parents didn't spend the extra resources on alcohol or tobacco, but on their children and on household necessities.
I for one do not want to go down the road suggested by John Redwood that single parents should be denied state support until they had first tried to give their children up for adoption

What next - compulsory sterilization for all the unemployed mothers divorced wives etc?

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 07:54 AM

Gentle Gaint, what would you have an unmarried mother or mother to be do ? starve to death homeless, you should get your name down as a tory candidate, you are ideal material, not a spark of compassion in you and worships mammon.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Gentle Gaint
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 08:01 AM

If Emma expects people to believe her manufactured figures and spin in this day and age when the facts are there to be found on the web then she is living in cloud cuckoo land. Everyone on this forum if they are honest,knows of several people who claim benefits when in fact there is sod all wrong with them, we see them in pubs, we see them in our areas, we see the cases of abuse in the media. There is no point in beating the feminist lib, drum or requesting my factual posts be removed, that is just childish and acceptance of defeat.

Cameron sees it, the government sees it and I see it, matter shortly to be dealt with accordingly.

Thank you

Derek

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Lox
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 08:02 AM

Emma B,

Once again you make a huge impact on the debate in a wholly positive way.

You are the only person on this discussion who has provided actual information.

The rest of the discussion is about discussing prejudices ad preconceptions.

Some support those prejudices and some condemn them.

If I were to get sucked in, I would condemn them.


But thankfully there is no need because you are so good at providing the actual information so that the lies and misconceptions have no tenure.

Well done and thanks for providing the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Lox
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 08:07 AM

Gentle Gaint,


Show us where your information comes from.


You can't can you.



That is because you are a BNP stooge telling lies.



Hey ... remind me ... how's the Barking and Dagenham council coming on?


Oh you don't know? ... because you've lost all your seats?


Never mind - your NOT missed.


Now be a good little twat and fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 08:09 AM

"Everyone on this forum if they are honest,knows of several people who claim benefits when in fact there is sod all wrong with them"

Unfortuinately, I don't. I know several people who struggle to get the benefits to which they are entitled. I also know quite a few who, as a former manager, I would describe as unemployable (and some of them have jobs).

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 08:22 AM

I'll second Dave on that.

I'm even more fascinated by the guest twat's assertion that only the rich are allowed sex lives.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Gentle Gaint
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 08:33 AM

Lox, I do not support the BNP, I voted Conservative. As you say, you have nothing to offer this debate, Cameron will deal with it, your words or the words of others will not chance his course.

Derek

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 08:45 AM

"Welfare and tax credit fraud and error costs the taxpayer £5.2bn a year." or the cost of more than 200 secondary schools or 150,000 nurses David Cameron stressed in an article for the Manchester Evening News, 10 August 2010

BUT…..
THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS ESTIMATES BENEFIT FRAUD COSTS £1bn A YEAR ie 0.7% OF TOTAL SPENDING

The taxman reckons fraudulent claims for child and working tax credits cost the public purse £460m in 2008-9 bringing the total still to about £1.5bn

The rest of the shock horror scare headline is accounted for by errors
The DWP says half of the £2.2bn benefit errors are made by claimants simply making a mistake in filling in the forms and half are made by officials or the 'system' i.e. mistakes in the computer

Nevertheless Cameron has declared war on benefit fraudsters in a bid to cut billions from the welfare bill and has won the approval of the tabloid headline-writers by calling in credit check companies to pursue benefit swindlers.
Has anyone actually costed this?

SO……..

The OFFICIAL figure for criminal defrauding the welfare system is £1bn

This compares with the cost to the public purse of illegal tax evasion of £15bn
(This figure of course does not include the unknown billions estimated to be lost to the public purse from tax avoidance)

A recent answer to a Parliamentary Question (from Katy Clark MP) revealed that:

'HM Revenue and Customs spent £633,284 (excluding VAT) on advertising for the purposes of preventing tax evasion last year. There was no expenditure in the previous two years'.

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department budgeted for advertising tackling benefit fraud in each of the last three financial years

Chris Grayling:
'Budgeted expenditure for advertising tackling benefit fraud

2007-08 £6.5 million
2008-09 £6.0 million
2009-10 £5.0 million
Note: Includes media costs, PR, production and research costs. It excludes VAT.'

SO.....
over three years tackling tax evasion of £15bn was worth just £633,000 but tackling benefit fraud of £1bn was worth £17.5 million.?

Perhaps the headline should be -

"Benefit fraud is 624 times more serious than tax evasion" as reported on the Tax Research UK Website



















But…..
Department of Work and Pensions estimates benefit fraud costs £1bn a year i.e. 0.7% of total spending

The taxman reckons fraudulent claims for child and working tax credits cost the public purse £460m in 2008-9 bringing the total still to about £1.5bn

The rest of the shock horror scare headline is accounted for by errors
The DWP says half of the £2.2bn benefit errors are made by claimants simply making a mistake in filling in the forms and half are made by officials or the 'system' i.e. mistakes in the computer

Nevertheless Cameron has declared war on benefit fraudsters in a bid to cut billions from the welfare bill and has won the approval of the tabloid headline-writers by calling in credit check companies to pursue benefit swindlers. Has anyone actually costed this?

SO……..

The OFFICIAL figure for criminal defrauding the welfare system is £1bn

This compares with the cost to the public purse of illegal tax evasion of £15bn
(This figure of course does not include the unknown billions estimated to be lost to the public purse from tax avoidance)

A recent answer to a Parliamentary Question (from Katy Clark MP) revealed that:

'HM Revenue and Customs spent £633,284 (excluding VAT) on advertising for the purposes of preventing tax evasion last year. There was no expenditure in the previous two years'.

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department budgeted for advertising tackling benefit fraud in each of the last three financial years

Chris Grayling:
Budgeted expenditure for advertising tackling benefit fraud

2007-08 £6.5 million
2008-09 £6.0 million
2009-10 £5.0 million
Note: Includes media costs, PR, production and research costs. It excludes VAT.

So over three years tackling tax evasion of £15bn was worth just £633,000 but tackling benefit fraud of £1bn was worth £17.5 million.?

Perhaps the headline should be -

"Benefit fraud is 624 times more serious than tax evasion" as reported on the Tax Research UK Website

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 08:49 AM

Don't quite know what happened with that posting; will a mudelf please sort out the mudgremlin

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Gentle Gaint
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 09:08 AM

I don't know what happened either Emma, I fell asleep reading it, there is no requirement for such long winded responses, the facts are on our streets today, in post offices, off licenses and pubs.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 09:12 AM

So, Steamin' Willie [I gather you to be above GUEST coming back at me], if Ake asserted that the Earth goes round the Sun, or that 2+2=4, you would disagree on principle would you? Oh, come now. And that really was all I meant: as I said before, I agree with much that you have said on this thread; but assertions of a completely closed mind are surely not going to advance anybody's cause.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 09:29 AM

"the facts are on our streets today, in post offices, off licenses and pubs."

Thnks for the clarification Gaint - I suspected your 'facts' came from equally ignorant mates down the offie and pub rather than official figures that contradict your bigoted deliberate slurs on vulnerable idividuals and expose your offensive calumnies.

Now please be a good Gaint (definition provided by the Urban dictionary) and go back to sleep on your couch

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 09:59 AM

""Not 'The Politics of Envy', John - more 'The Politics of Laying The Blame Where It Belongs And Punishing The Real Culprits Rather Than Shafting The Easy Targets', methinks.""

What would you suggest BWM?

Take away their bonuses, reduce their salaries by 90%, then stand by as as they happily decamp to pastures new, and the whole banking system collapses because there is nobody left to run it?

Then pal, you can starve to death, safe in the knowledge that you stood by your Socialist principles.

And so can the rest of us!

How do you propose we get our money back from the banks by crippling and bankrupting them?

I hate the bastards as much as you do, but I'm not into cutting off my nose to spite my face.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:11 AM

OK Don, I understand what you're saying, and you have a valid point.

So what would you suggest - that is, apart from throwing thousands of workers, who are innocent of any wrongdoing, out of work while the Tory Toffs' and their mates continue to behave like the greedy pigs they are, burying their snouts in the trough and getting away with their vile behaviour scott-free?

Surely even a Conservative can see something seriously wrong with punishing the weak, the poor and innocent while the crimes of the strong and rich are ignored? Isn't that what Nazi Germany did in the middle of the last century?

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Gentle Gaint
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:19 AM

A great example was screened recently on Channel 4 in which wives spend time with different families. Call centre worker Emma Spry who swapped places with Lizzie, was shocked to learn how much the family got. The mum of two and husband Colin, an Exeter restaurant boss who works 70 hours a week, are on £10,000 LESS. Emma said, "I am really pleased their benefits are being checked. The Bardsleys are only the tip of the iceberg." Lizzie said it was only right taxpayers should foot the bill for her brood and the £70 a week she blows at bingo.

What they receive:
CHILD BENEFIT         £4,747.60 per year (£16.05 for son Elliott and £10.75 for each of their other children)
CARERS' ALLOWANCE         £5,691.40 (For Marky-Jay, who has chronic asthma)
INCOME SUPPORT         £13,710.84 (For Mrs Bardsley and the children)
INCAPACITY BENEFIT         £4,446 (For Mr Bardsley who has had depression since his father died six years ago)
DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE         £5,051.80 (For Marky-Jay)
DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE         £3,754.40 (For Vienna, also registered as a chronic asthmatic)
LIZZIE'S WAGES         £1,000 (She gets £20 a week from a job answering the phone for a taxi firm)
TOTAL         £38,402

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:58 AM

For anyone who may not have a clue who 'Lizzy' is.....

Mark and Lizzy Bardsley and their eight children appeared in an episode of the first series of the Channel 4 'reality' programme 'Wife Swap', which was aired on 7 October 2003.
They caused controversy by claiming £37,500 a year in benefits while the other family in the 'swop' had 2 children and an income £10,000 less after tax

In November 2004, Lizzie Bardsley was accused of failing to inform the Department for Work and Pensions that she had earned money from TV and media appearances and was accused of being overpaid £4879.87. She denied the allegations and claimed that all the money she earned had been given to various charities and her sister.
On 27 September 2004, Bardsley was found guilty of benefit fraud and sentenced to 80 hours community service and ordered to pay £2400 costs. She was also told to pay back the money.

In addition Lizzy Bardsley has been charged with 10 counts of child cruelty for alleged offences between 1996 and 2005.

This appears to be a highly dysfunctional family, guilty of criminal actions disgracefully and, IMO, chosen for their 'entertainment' and 'shock' value by a cynical TV show.

However they are not representative of the number of families on benefits any more than the numerous people who pay taxes on their earned income are the same as those CEOs whose tax 'mitigation' ensures they pay less tax than their cleaner

Subsequently Mark Bardlsey who had been made jobless two years before, said, "I've never said I want to stay on benefits. I want to go out and work."

Reporting his remark one website stated
" If ever there was a strong case for compulsory castration this must be it."

(Now THAT does sound familiar!)

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Lox
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:59 AM

Emma,

I just looked up "Gaint" in the urban Dictionary.

The definition was "loss of blood to the brain due to overly large erection."

I suspect that the word Gaint may be an inappropriate name at this point as our lying friend clearly has no dick, much less anyone who is affected by that fact besides himself.

Hence his hatred of imaginary promiscuous teenagers.


By the way "limp dick", if you want people to believe anthing you say, you should at least try to quote figures that are less than 5 years old.

I would love to be directed to this documentary as it clearly wasn't on recently and on that basis it seems likely that it never existed in the first place.

But then I've already asked you to back up your claims to no avail.

Anychance of an accredited source?

No?

I didn't think so.

Stupid Gaint!

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:10 AM

So EmmaB provides citable facts as evidence and Gentle Gaint provides populist reality TV as counter-evidence. I think that says it all.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:27 AM

Case Closed, M'Lud.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: leeneia2
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 12:14 PM

Perhaps someone else covered this, so I apologize if I repeat.

There will be a Great Britain for many millions of years, because Great Britain is the name of an island. It is the mass of land with England & Cornwall on the bottom, Scotland on the top and Wales sticking out on the west edge.

If every human there were wiped out, it would still be Great Britain. If the glaciers bury it, it will still be Great Britain. It's not a society, it's a place. It's limestone, marl, volcanics, gneiss, etc, emplaced on a base of granite.

One way or another, it will be around until the sun envelops and vaporizes it, far, far in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Gentle Gaint
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 12:16 PM

"Lox,Lox, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor, wherewith shall the earth be salted? The salt shall be thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men".

Oh dear some people don't like losing the debate, it pleases me to see such comments from those with nothing to offer, not to worry I won't rub salt into the wounds of October when David's review kicks off.


Labour had a teenage pregnancy strategy which fell hopelessly short of its aim to cut rates of conception by half. Figures show that there were more pregnancies among girls under 18 in England in 2008 than there were in 2001. Pregnancy rates among girls under 16 have been virtually unchanged in six years.

The failed Labour party admitted that their target set in 1999 of halving under-18 pregnancy rates by 2010 was out of reach. That was rich of them, at the current pace of progress, it would take another 25 years to get close to it !

Nutty Labour even suggested putting condom vending machines in colleges and schools ! Did they not see these girls go out to get knocked up so they could become professional scroungers ? David Cameron certainly has their ticket marked. So in truth, the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, set down by Tony Blair in 2001, was supposed to halve under-18 pregnancy rates in England between 1998 and 2010, it failed, so the taxpayer has to fork out for their weekly visit to the hairdresser,their slap of fake tan,cheap tarty clothing and booze to they can go on the pull every weekend.

Anyway, I wrote to my MP a few weeks ago and gained an assurance that this group of scroungers are to first on David's list for an overhaul.This pleases me along with all right thinking individuals with morals, self respect and dignity.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Stu
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 12:25 PM

Yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:25 PM

"Shimrod, there is a difference in an appointment at board level by a bank or company seeking to improve it's profits or rewarding an individual for doing so, and a layabout too lazy to look a job and provide for their family or a thick little girl without morals living a promiscuous lifestyle and demanding the taxpayer pay her rent, council tax provide beer money and God knows what else her for lying on her back with every Tom, Dick or Harry."

GG you still haven't given a satisfactory explanation as to why you are so fixated on belabouring those at the bottom of the social scale. You are a snob, aren't you (most Tories are, in my experience)?

And you forgot to mention that many of those appointed "at board level by a bank or company seeking to improve it's (sic) profits" failed miserably and dropped us all in the sh*t. But still they are massively rewarded and haven't suffered one iota for the chaos that they have caused (apart from slightly dented egos, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:31 PM

Setting unrealistic targets may drive people to achieving better results but are probably ultimately counter productive

Before the recent election the previous government admitted that it was highly unlikely to meet its 1999 pledge to halve teenage pregnancies in England by 2010.

FIGURES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES SHOW RATES IN ENGLAND WERE DOWN BY 13.3% FROM 1999 TO 2008.

(quoting figures for one single year is deliberately misleading as I'm sure Gaint is well aware)

Reacting to these figures Gill Frances, chairwoman of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group, said it also welcomed the teenage pregnancy strategy being back on its long term downward trend.
Simon Blake, national director of the sex and relationships advisory group Brook said: "It is good news that the teenage pregnancy rates have decreased"

Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the UK has the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Western Europe; among OECD developed countries, the United States has the highest level of teenage pregnancy although these figures represent the age of the mother and NOT her marital or partnership status


The debate concerning teenage pregnancy has become symbolic of the electioneering slogan 'Britain's "broken" society.'

In a recent publication**, Simon Duncan, professor of social policy at Bradford University and one of the book's editors argues that

"Teenage mothers and fathers not only do no worse in terms of their future employment or income than any of their peers, in many cases, they do a bit better
They generally become more purposeful and responsible, get more connected to their families and community, try to get better training and a good job, and give up some of their bad habits."

"Overall, however, it should be noted that teenage parenting is a very minor social issue – in fact, it's lower now than it ever was in the 1960s or '70s. The truth is, it's not the teenage bit that's the problem, it's the socioeconomic disadvantage of the parents that's the problem."


For most of history teenage pregnancy has not been perceived as a problem atall

It is a medical fact that physiologically 18 is a better age to begin child bearing than 35 but according to a UNICEF report -

"Teenage births are today seen as a problem   because they are strongly associated with a range of disadvantages for the mother, for her child, for society in general and for the taxpayer in particular

Specifically giving birth as a teenager is believed to be bad for the young mother because the statistics show that she is more likely to drop out of school, to have low or no qualifications, to be unemployed or low paid to live in poor housing conditions to suffer from depression and to live on welfare'


I have posted earlier that it is necessary to look deeper by the explanation of the existence of higher rates of teenage pregnancy in the UK other than the lame claims of the likes of Gaint

An examination of socio-economic deprivation in sections of the UK population has shown that a higher degree of deprivation is associated with a higher frequency of teenage sexual activity
The concentration of social inequality in certain areas of the UK has created a culture of hopelessness in which there is little to lose from teenage parenthood
From - Contextual Effects on the Sexual Behaviour of Adolescent Women published in The Journal of Marriage and the Family


**Teenage Parenthood: What's the Problem? is published by Tufnell Press

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Lox
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:19 PM

Gaint,

There is no debate.

There is you making unsubstantiated claims and trying to present them as fact.

And there is Emma providing us with the actual figures and telling us where she got them so we can go and see for ourselves if we want.


So now you say have have some more figures ... ?

... source please ...

oh but you don't have one ... just the BNP party info pack.


Well Gaint, it gives my great pleasure to inform you that I am a single parent, who is also a student and I am in receipt of top up benefits to supplement my grant and student loans.

And Camerons plans for october will not be ffecting me in the slightest.

So before you start posturing as a tory spokesperson of any sort, you might wish to inform yourself of their actual plans.

You are unlikely to find these in the BNP manifesto.

You stupid Gaint!

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: MikeL2
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:46 PM

hi gaint

I have just a quick question for you to ponder on and then answer honestly...

Who do you think created the recent recession in the UK ???

Was it -:

a) The teenage mothers..?
b) The greedy banks and their even greedier executives who put personal greed before anything else.?

Most sensible people will know the answer to this; even you but I doubt very much if you will agree.

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:47 PM

Gentle Gaint, a few years ago there was a TV programme about a [ failed ] tory MP, Matthew Paris, spending a week existing on what a single unemployed man got paid, his conclusion at the end of the week was that it was impossible to survive on, but he wouldn't recommend changing it, and this after he spent a week with working class people who were very kind to him, buying him drinks and food, you get your name down lad, you'll be in good company.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:50 PM

Gaint has comprehensively lost the debate in the face of actual information, but still he trots out his prejudices - and again and again he returns to his fetish - the horrid thought that the poor might have sex lives.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:54 PM

I know 2 people not including me who could and probably should claim incapacity but don't. One the wife has worked full time for the last 15 years to support husband who is on oxygen. Lungs damaged by exposure to asbestos while on the job.

The other works half time apart from 6 months off for cancer treatment to supplement family income. Her partner an engineer has Dupuytren's contracture in his drawing hand. Has had several surgeries and was told he can only work part time. The company he had worked for for 12 years went bankrupt and the owner protected all the assets be giving the to his son before 12 months prior to bankruptcy was declared. So workers received no redundancy pay. Dis this family claim any benefits? No!

Oh just remembered another. An over 60 widow with severe rheumatoid and osteo arthritis was told she cannot have her blue badge reinstated, since she purchased the leased motability car provided in her benefits. This happened right after her husband died. He was her carer and often her driver when disease was so bad even the special car was difficult to manage.

I don't see very many teen mothers in various areas of Essex. I would say by and large most I see preggers and pushing prams are between 23 and 26. I presume they have working partners and in the early part of the family making. These women seem to congregate in town shopping centres, especially around Starbucks and Costa. Are you sure you are seeing teen mums GG or are you of an age that even twenty something looks like teenage?

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:41 PM

I just wish that any one who supported New Labour was NOT called a Socialist ! New Labour dropped ALL reference to Socialism in the 1997 manifesto , and in fact the Tony Blair Cabinet , overall , was more Right Wing than John Majors Tory cabinet !

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:07 PM

One of my sons lives in a small town about twenty miles from me, he informs me that there are many teenage single mothers in that town.

Apparently the rationale amongst the teens is that it is "uncool" to live with mum and dad, so the best option is to become pregnant and "homeless".....this spirits them directly to the top of the housing list and opens the door to the benefits culture.

They have a home and an income overnight and the move takes the financial weight off mum and dad.

I'm not trying to make any political point here, everyone as far as I can see, is working the system for all they are worth....the system is rotten why should it only be the rich who are allowed to use it to their advantage?

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:16 PM

Ake, I beg to differ. That is a pretty terrible thing to say.



Now, why aren't Joe and Clones all over this anon 'personal attack' against a LOT of un named members?














Oh, right...teen pregancy and welfare/dole are just a Brit problem.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:26 PM

Don't understand that post, I'm quite relaxed about you disagreeing, but what's all the rest about?

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:36 PM

Well, it just appears that some nutter has come in ONLY for the point of stirring the pot and pretty much attacking personally a lot of un named members....anyone who has welfare benefits, is disabled, etc.

Was just wondering why the Clones are on this was all.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: GUEST,Gentle Gaint
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:46 PM

I am a great admirer of Ian Duncan Smith. He has done some wonderful work in his "Once-in-a-generation" welfare reform package.

As he so rightly pointed out, "Thanks to years of Labour incompetence people are now better off claiming benefits rather than working in a job paying £15,000 a year or less".

He also said "Those who come from a family living off benefits are most likely to claim benefits also as all you can see when you think about work is risk". How very true Ian.

Ian used a great term when he described scroungers on incapacity benefit, He said they are "parked" there. Well part of Ian's plan is to call the buff of whose 2.5 million recipients, they face a strict status review in the coming months, so now is the time to blow the whistle on those you know that are fit and able to do a days work. Yes hard to believe 2.5 million, most of them living in housing estates or ghettos.

These type of people basically get parked on this benefit and forgotten about. Those that have been on this benefit for more than two years, are likely to die on it !

If you want true facts, read the recent Government report that shows that 1.4 million people in the UK have been on state handout benefits for nine or more of the last 10 years.It also reveals that income inequality in the UK is now at its highest level since comparable statistics began in 1961.

The research shows that social mobility in Britain is worse than in the USA, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Canada, Finland and Denmark, and a higher proportion of children grow up in workless households in the UK than in any other EU country.

The proportion of people parked on inactive benefits has almost tripled in the past 30 years to 41% of the inactive working age population. As Ian said, "We must not underestimate the challenge ahead. One of the biggest problems is that for too many people think work simply does not pay."

These are the facts, like them or not, dislike Ian if you like, but you are just going to have to swallow your medicine, he's in the job, Labour failed drastically and we now have a new government that favours those with principles that work for a living and will come down hard on loafers, layabouts, con artists and young girls that think society owes them a debt for their promiscuous lifestyles, some inherited from their mothers.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:48 PM

Oh sorry, I thought you were objecting to my post on the grounds of "personal abuse"

I do agree with you, this has become...along with other threads, very nasty indeed, but much of the personal abuse is coming not from the "nutter" but from the usual abusive members.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 05:28 PM

Admire the quiet man who lost his voice rather than debate?. Blood pressure twat, your "facts" are simply Daily Wail or worse propaganda lies.

The reason that social mobility is low in the UK is disempowerment of th less advantaged. Adding to their difficulties will make matters worse rather than better.

What is going on is simple scapegoating. Can we think of a political party in say the 20s and 30s that was playing that game?

Jest idiot, what is your problem with the poor having sex lives? AOK for Tara Palmer-Tonkinson, but not for little Chardonnay from the council estate? Your game is control, and the time for it is past.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:17 PM

So akenaton is also repeating unsubstantiated rumours, when the lie is more outrageous than the truth, eh !! repeat the lie.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:46 PM

I wonder what the real Derek Shulman, late of "Gentle Giant" and "Simon Dupree and the Big Sound" would think about his identity being used by some wanker with nothing better to do than wind up a few folkies.

Subject: RE: BS: No longer Great Britain?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 07:03 PM

Dont be silly Dave, this is actually happening on quite a large scale...I have the means to prove that to be correct, but I do not wish to do so on an open forum....but what would be the point in me lying about this?

High earners have always used the devices provided by the system to avoid tax, now those a the bottom of the food chain have worked out how to do something similar....before long....now even, the system becomes unsustainable and we reach the end of the line for the capitalist system.....isn't that what you want?