Hang on, j. That Mail front page may be in dubious taste, but it's hardly inaccurate, is it?

[Berni]

[Frimmers]

[Maravilloso Marvo]

[Frimmers]

[Brentwood]

It wasn't to murder multiple people like Sutcliffe

[barrybueno]

been knocking kids out for financial gain, he's played and abused the system.

[Berni]

The fact is that this man exploited the system grotesquely for the simple reason that he could. It benefitted him to have more and more children and to create the messed-up situation that led to his actions.

[Frimmers]

significantly reduce the amount of child allowance you received.

[Monty91]

[Brentwood]

He wanted to burn his house down, frame the mother of the kids, so he would have custody and get the benefits

[Bergkamp's Brain]

call it an occupational hazard :hide:

[Berni]

[Brentwood]

just because he said he COULD?

[Berni]

cutting the degree to which it can be accessed.

[Monty91]

Like when anti-war protesters call on politicians to enlist their own children in the army.

Even though you know it's a dumb thing to say, a tiny part of you kinda thinks "actually, yeah, why shouldn't they!"

[redgunamo]

Which is never likely to be very long, in fairness.

Offer free tins of dog food to every puppy born in the UK for life and people will soon start breeding puppies.

Free stuff always tends to run out quickly.

[PSRB]

[Monty91]

whilst keeping it fair and ensuring it doesn't result in people entitled missing out.

Like the idea of means testing free heating allowance for OAPs. As I understand it the logistics would be pretty much unworkable.

[redgunamo]

The department responsible for doling out benefits actually want people to have that money and the more, the better.

Tightening up the system also puts their jobs in danger.

[Frimmers]

He appears to me to be some kind of sociopath who, in your own words, 'exploited the system grotesquely'.

[Berni]

inevitable. Omelettes/eggs, etc.

[Brentwood]

families who have lost their son in Iraq and want to keep the bedroom as a shrine

[Stroller]

... even on benefits.

[Monty91]

car. One of them was drink driving and the other an innocent victim. Do you pull them both out, even though you're saving an arsehole? Or do you leave them both in just so the arsehole has to suffer?

[Berni]

Either way, he wouldn't have had so many kids because there'd have been no financial incentive to do so. The kids were there to kill and the situation existed purely because the opportunity for it to do so was provided by a flabby and mismanaged benefits system.

[Brentwood]

If you had to?

A bowl of porridge costs about 10 pence per day
A packet of dry noodles for lunch costs 13 pence
For dinner, I reckon you could make a vegetarian spag bol for about 2 quid

I reckon you could comfortably feed yourself for about £2.30 a day

[Berni]

And that's the point: the welfare budget is unaffordable. Unless you're happy to pay 50% tax - which you're not.
You can have high taxation and good welfare, public services, etc or low-ish taxation (which we do, believe it or not) and consequently lower welfare provision.

You can't have both.

[Monty91]

[Free SL]

[Brentwood]

[Berni]

The problem is that many of those who most need to know how to cook well and frugally lack the skills or knowledge to do it. That's why Iceland makes loads of money.

[Peter]

Its a cheap shot

[Frimmers]

Unfortunately it's not quite clear how I should vote to ensure this happens.

Not that my vote will make much difference, here in Pob's constituency. :-(

[redgunamo]

Most of it's tax- deductible though, of course.

[Berni]

doing so when it doesn't, surely?

Everyone's selective when it comes to peddling a political viewpoint. :shrug:

[Berni]

Even Labour have finally given up on the idea of trying to win elections by offering to p**s our money up the wall.