Kiffy

It's a bit of a false economy though, smokers pay far more into the system in the tax on their cigerattes than they cost through the various ailments it courses. Not too mention how much of a strain they take away from the pension and social care budget by being good enough to die before anyone else.

If every smoker actually quite tomorrow it'd fuck stuff right up, so repeatedly hammering them with ridiculous tax hikes seems a little short sighted.

 

I've heard that before, but is it factually true? Sounds like it could easily be one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often it gets accepted as fact.

 

If someone could provide some stats or something, it'd help.

I've heard that before, but is it factually true? Sounds like it could easily be one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often it gets accepted as fact.

 

If someone could provide some stats or something, it'd help.

Treating smoking-related diseases costs up to

It's a bit of a false economy though, smokers pay far more into the system in the tax on their cigerattes than they cost through the various ailments it courses. Not too mention how much of a strain they take away from the pension and social care budget by being good enough to die before anyone else.

If every smoker actually quite tomorrow it'd fuck stuff right up, so repeatedly hammering them with ridiculous tax hikes seems a little short sighted.

Finally, I don't think the term "classic rape" is particularly nice

True, in this day and age one really needs to aim for vintage rape, to my mind.

So if Happ signed up as babylon

There's nothing to prove that.

Would seem rather likely though, no? Who signs up to a wrestling forum to jump into the off topic thread and post about it's scarily left wing bias?

So if Happ signed up as babylon, to whine about how the forums too left wing and despite listening to roots manuva (an actual negro!) his brand of hardcore rightwing insanity didn't go down well (http://ukff.com/index.php?showtopic=121934&st=435&start=435) while he was suspended.

Would that get him a ban?

Where's moo?

Same way everything could be improved, more porn.

If one looks really, really, closely, one can almost sense a subtext in that answer.

Seriously, what's the deal with boydy? Seen much alluded too, nothing said. PM, answer, I'm proper inruiged.

I think it's very hard to say religion's the cause here, hating protestants isn't a pre requisite, or even tolerated by the leaders and preachers of the protestant faith, and the same goes the other way.

It comes down to irish settling in scotland, and the bad blood that that immigration caused, or in ireland the bad blood caused by the english invading and starving the people.

Call it tribalism, old rivalries, football, whatever, I don't think the catholic v protestant thing can really be traced back to their religion, cos there religions nigh on identical and preaches understanding and forgiveness on both sides.

I think the point being made was this is one of various threads that discuss the current political climate, which allows hap to continue his special brand of bizarre incoherent paranoid tabloid ramblings in other areas, which is not as ideal as it should be.

I'm a cocaine liberal, I rather like it

Tricky though, if he's left unanswered you can end up with people agreeing with him, then it's harder to not jump in.

I do enjoy the way you feel any abuse is caused by people being leftist bullying fuckwits, and it hasn't occurred to you that it may be more a reflection of the way you behave on here.

But c'est la vie.

The only way I am behaving on here is putting my points across in a reasonable way. If people can't handle that, it's their problem.

 

The problem is that too many people can't handle their narrow-minded viewpoints being challenged in any way, and throw their toys out of the pram when anyone dares to post something that goes against the liberal line. It seems to be fairly consistent across just about any kind of political forum on the internet, other than those that are strictly moderated.

You just couldn't have illustrated my point any better.

I do enjoy the way you feel any abuse is caused by people being leftist bullying fuckwits, and it hasn't occurred to you that it may be more a reflection of the way you behave on here.

But c'est la vie.

Well yeah, nutrition's important. No-one's denying that.

However, it's not as important as not sexually abusing your child, and one hopes you realise that.

It's also not important enough to send someone to prison for getting it wrong.

See your point that we'd be better off doing that, than having support workers to help poor parents, just seems ridiculous, it would cost more, would rip apart families, it's stuff like that which makes people assume you're trolling. Or mentally imbalanced.

Feeding kids junk is child abuse, jail the parents and take the kids into care.

We hardly have enough room to house the actual criminals in our prisons without throwing parents in jail for buying their kids a big Mac meal.

 

We've got plenty of room, just keep cramming them in.

 

Children should not be eating adult McDonalds meals. An occasional Happy Meal is fine. Parents who feed their kids unhealthy rubbish on a daily basis are guilty of child abuse, I don't see how that can be argued with. They are damaging their children just as much as they would be by violently abusing or sexually abusing them, and it should be treated in the same way.

Have to say, that doesn't really stand up to close examination. If you were to see somebody letting a child eat a big mac, you'd probably go about your business, possibly with a tut tut. Whereas if, on the next table, you saw a chap violently buggering his five year old, one hopes you'd intervene.

This is why people think you're a troll, you suggest that poor nutrition is comparable to sexual abuse. Now you can spell, you can use grammer, you would appear to not be retarded in many ways. So putting that out there as a real opinion.....

People get the wrong idea bout prisons, I know someone who works at broadmoor, I've been to visit a chap in bedford, know other people who've time in a few different ones. They are nasty unpleasant places. The fact is crime doesn't go up or down in relation to how unpleasant prisons are, but how much you invest in keeping people away from that life has a huge affect.

This isn't cocaine liberalism (well I suposse it might be, I like cocaine and I am quite liberal, but that's by the by) this is born out by every study that's been carried out into it.

Happs right in that private education will certainly give your child a better chance, however it doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the schools are an utter joke. Just that you'll get a better chance going through the private system.

Was surprised to see him backing strike action though, seems a bit lefty to me..........

Hmm, well if losing benefits fits your definition better than sucking cock and stealing from friends and family to get a fix, then I guess we have very different definitions of rock bottom. One moral and spiritual, one monetary.

Not entirely surprising.

Sorry, that was meant to be a few quid. I'd say, from addicts I've met, stealing from parents, getting sent to prison, sucking cock for a few quid for a fix, things like that - that's rock bottom. Losing benifits really doesn't come into it, they're such a small percentage of the money one needs for a decent habit it's untrue.

But, of course, in your mind, I imagine one could live quite comfortably with a large scale heroin habit on esa, dla and housing benefit.

I love the idea that a quid in benefits will stop a heroin addict from hitting rock bottom.

In addition to which the massive investment in the banks will pay back a big ol chunk of it, the deficit is artificially high due to the bailout but that was a loan, not a gift, so many people miss this really basic part of the maths.

No to be fair that is a little simplistic.

I'd say there's certainly an ideological element to the way they're attacking the state spending, and I'd say it's unreasonable to slash state spending by such a high amount without actively attempting to close (rather than open new and backdating them) tax loopholes. And the model they're proposing mirrors rather worryingly the model used in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, all of whom had their economies utterly ruined by it. In addition to which the cuts in police budgets (to give one example) mean we will see a reduction in front line officers, according to every set of figures I've seen, and will (and have) certainly affected moral in the forces, all of which will have a knock on effect of a more dangerous and violent society, which is nice of course.

And most economists I've seen interview have suggested the current viewpoint of the government that we cannot run with a deficit is a complete fallacy, that allowing the deficit to continue is fine as long as we are able to service it with no issues. A better option would be slow down hugely the drastic cuts we're seeing, which come just as we show signs of moving out of a recession and will probably push us back into one, and await the next period of steady growth to put the extra cash that creates into reducing the deficit.