Discussion:
Benefits/Jobs/Training - Oh Well, That Went Well Then - W*nkers
(too old to reply)
Maria
2010-11-23 10:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live on, and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
harry
2010-11-23 10:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live on, and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
Maria
2010-11-23 10:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live on, and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
tim....
2010-11-23 11:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by harry
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live on, and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
And you think that security work is appropriate?

tim
Maria
2010-11-23 11:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
Post by Maria
Post by harry
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live on, and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
And you think that security work is appropriate?
1) *He* thinks it is, which is the main thing. The job in question was
sitting around in a hut guarding building sites. Mostly left alone, no
loud noises or flashing lights or high pressure.
2) There's not much else he can do - he always worked in warehouses when
he worked, but it's a high pressure environment over a long time, which
is what triggers the fits. Even more high pressure these days -
apparently they get a lot of employees thieving now, so there is tight
security and close monitoring, few if any breaks, and a lot of high tech
gear like headphones with constant talking in your ear.

He doesn't want to stay on the sick, but there are few full-time jobs he
can do. He has applied for DLA twice which would enable him to do some
part-time cleaning or something, but they keep turning him down.
Ophelia
2010-11-23 11:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
He doesn't want to stay on the sick, but there are few full-time jobs he
can do. He has applied for DLA twice which would enable him to do some
part-time cleaning or something, but they keep turning him down.
DLA? Does the 'sick' pay him only £33 a fortnight?
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Maria
2010-11-23 11:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
He doesn't want to stay on the sick, but there are few full-time jobs
he can do. He has applied for DLA twice which would enable him to do
some part-time cleaning or something, but they keep turning him down.
DLA? Does the 'sick' pay him only £33 a fortnight?
Disability Living Allowance - it a lowish payment which is not means
tested, so you can keep it regardless of how many hours you do.
He has been on Incapacity benefit which is 90 a week - the 33 a
fortnight is the emergency payment they give you to live on while your
benefits are stopped for whatever reason.
Ophelia
2010-11-23 11:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Maria
He doesn't want to stay on the sick, but there are few full-time jobs
he can do. He has applied for DLA twice which would enable him to do
some part-time cleaning or something, but they keep turning him down.
DLA? Does the 'sick' pay him only £33 a fortnight?
Disability Living Allowance - it a lowish payment which is not means
tested, so you can keep it regardless of how many hours you do.
He has been on Incapacity benefit which is 90 a week - the 33 a fortnight
is the emergency payment they give you to live on while your benefits are
stopped for whatever reason.
They have stopped his DLA??
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Maria
2010-11-23 11:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ophelia
Post by Maria
Post by Maria
He doesn't want to stay on the sick, but there are few full-time jobs
he can do. He has applied for DLA twice which would enable him to do
some part-time cleaning or something, but they keep turning him down.
DLA? Does the 'sick' pay him only £33 a fortnight?
Disability Living Allowance - it a lowish payment which is not means
tested, so you can keep it regardless of how many hours you do.
He has been on Incapacity benefit which is 90 a week - the 33 a
fortnight is the emergency payment they give you to live on while your
benefits are stopped for whatever reason.
They have stopped his DLA??
No, he doesn't get that - he's been turned down for it twice. He is
supposed to get Incapacity Benefit - that's what has been stopped.
Ophelia
2010-11-23 12:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Ophelia
Post by Maria
Post by Maria
He doesn't want to stay on the sick, but there are few full-time jobs
he can do. He has applied for DLA twice which would enable him to do
some part-time cleaning or something, but they keep turning him down.
DLA? Does the 'sick' pay him only £33 a fortnight?
Disability Living Allowance - it a lowish payment which is not means
tested, so you can keep it regardless of how many hours you do.
He has been on Incapacity benefit which is 90 a week - the 33 a
fortnight is the emergency payment they give you to live on while your
benefits are stopped for whatever reason.
They have stopped his DLA??
No, he doesn't get that - he's been turned down for it twice. He is
supposed to get Incapacity Benefit - that's what has been stopped.
What a disgrace:(
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Partac
2010-11-23 12:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
Post by Maria
Post by harry
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
And you think that security work is appropriate?
tim
The Job Centre obviously thought so.
tim....
2010-11-23 12:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Partac
Post by tim....
Post by Maria
Post by harry
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
And you think that security work is appropriate?
tim
The Job Centre obviously thought so.
I doubt that the person in the JC thought anything at all

tim
Ishvara
2010-11-24 13:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
I doubt that the person in the JC thought anything at all
They're like all state bureaucracies: they do exactly what the state
tells them to do. In this case, their orders are to bully, humiliate and
intimidate citizens until they go away. If anyone asks, it's "helping
people into work".

Jobcentre staff are self-deluded, anti-British morons who wouldn't
recognise "thought" if it fucked their arses with a red hot poker. They
bring shame on the entire public sector.
Ala
2010-12-07 01:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim....
I doubt that the person in the JC thought anything at all
They're like all state bureaucracies: they do exactly what the state tells
them to do. In this case, their orders are to bully, humiliate and
intimidate citizens until they go away. If anyone asks, it's "helping
people into work".
Jobcentre staff are self-deluded, anti-British morons who wouldn't
recognise "thought" if it fucked their arses with a red hot poker. They
bring shame on the entire public sector.
Humor is richly rewarding to the person who employs it. It has some value in
gaining and holding attention, but it has no persuasive value at all.
John Kenneth Galbraith
True Blue
2010-11-23 11:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by harry
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live on, and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
How long had he worked at the company who dismissed him for having fits? Was
the reason given "for having fits"?
Maria
2010-11-23 11:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by True Blue
Post by Maria
Post by harry
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live on, and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
How long had he worked at the company who dismissed him for having fits? Was
the reason given "for having fits"?
It was agency work on zero-hours contract - 90% of the warehouse work
around here is. He was on night shift, fitted and fell down some
concrete stairs badly banging his skull on the way down.
As much as I care for him, I would be wary of employing him, as I would
not be able to ensure his safety and wouldn't want to get sued for
failing to prevent some kind of disaster.
These are the kinds of people that present a problem wrt incapacity and
disability benefit rules. They are often fit and healthy and want to
work, but have episodes where they can't, or are strictly limited in
what they can do without presenting a risk.
Jethro
2010-11-23 11:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by True Blue
Post by Maria
Post by harry
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live on, and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat.  Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
How long had he worked at the company who dismissed him for having fits? Was
the reason given "for having fits"?
It was agency work on zero-hours contract - 90% of the warehouse work
around here is. He was on night shift, fitted and fell down some
concrete stairs badly banging his skull on the way down.
As much as I care for him, I would be wary of employing him, as I would
not be able to ensure his safety and wouldn't want to get sued for
failing to prevent some kind of disaster.
These are the kinds of people that present a problem wrt incapacity and
disability benefit rules. They are often fit and healthy and want to
work, but have episodes where they can't, or are strictly limited in
what they can do without presenting a risk.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anyone with a chronic relapsing-remitting condition is in the same
boat. My wife has MS. How can you employ someone who might wake up
blind one morning (has happened)? Or who sits down, and then can't get
up again because they're paralysed? (again, has happened). Quite apart
from the fatigue (almost like narcolepsy), tremors, and impaired
intellectual ability (mainly memory).
True Blue
2010-11-23 12:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro
Post by True Blue
Post by Maria
Post by harry
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live
on,
and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
How long had he worked at the company who dismissed him for having fits? Was
the reason given "for having fits"?
It was agency work on zero-hours contract - 90% of the warehouse work
.> around here is. He was on night shift, fitted and fell down some
Post by Jethro
Post by True Blue
concrete stairs badly banging his skull on the way down.
As much as I care for him, I would be wary of employing him, as I would
not be able to ensure his safety and wouldn't want to get sued for
failing to prevent some kind of disaster.
These are the kinds of people that present a problem wrt incapacity and
disability benefit rules. They are often fit and healthy and want to
work, but have episodes where they can't, or are strictly limited in
what they can do without presenting a risk.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anyone with a chronic relapsing-remitting condition is in the same
boat. My wife has MS. How can you employ someone who might wake up
blind one morning (has happened)? Or who sits down, and then can't get
up again because they're paralysed? (again, has happened). Quite apart
from the fatigue (almost like narcolepsy), tremors, and impaired
intellectual ability (mainly memory).
This is the problem with government. It is inarticulate. I am conservative
and want huge cuts to benefits. But the people described - your wife and
Maria's friend, are so obviously rightful recipients of benefits in any sane
and caring society, one wonders at the administration of the dinosaur DSS.
Jethro
2010-11-23 12:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by True Blue
Post by Jethro
Post by True Blue
Post by Maria
Post by harry
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up - why? Because they have been giving him 33
quid a fortnight emergency payment. That is what he is supposed to live
on. Nobody in the Jobcentre attempted to throw him out - most people
seemed to be on his side. These benefits people are THICK.
And 33 quid every two weeks? That's to pay for food to 'protect your
health'. 2 quid a day for food protects your health? Not to mention what
happens if you have prepay meters.
He still has no benefits and has to live on 33 quid a fortnight - I have
no idea if they have stopped his HB or CTB.
Just thought I'd let you know, since so many of you
1) don't seem to believe just how little people are expected to live
on,
and
2) *why* people are wary of attempting any move off of long-term benefits.
I can't wait to see how the thick-arsed benefits agency people are going
to deal with the many people they think are deliberately refusing
work/training or whatever. Maybe they should sack their staff and employ
some unemployed people, who seem to understand life better than those
wedged firmly behind their desks.
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty
about? Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
How long had he worked at the company who dismissed him for having fits? Was
the reason given "for having fits"?
It was agency work on zero-hours contract - 90% of the warehouse work
.> around here is. He was on night shift, fitted and fell down some
Post by Jethro
Post by True Blue
concrete stairs badly banging his skull on the way down.
As much as I care for him, I would be wary of employing him, as I would
not be able to ensure his safety and wouldn't want to get sued for
failing to prevent some kind of disaster.
These are the kinds of people that present a problem wrt incapacity and
disability benefit rules. They are often fit and healthy and want to
work, but have episodes where they can't, or are strictly limited in
what they can do without presenting a risk.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anyone with a chronic relapsing-remitting condition is in the same
boat. My wife has MS. How can you employ someone who might wake up
blind one morning (has happened)? Or who sits down, and then can't get
up again because they're paralysed? (again, has happened). Quite apart
from the fatigue (almost like narcolepsy), tremors, and impaired
intellectual ability (mainly memory).
This is the problem with government. It is inarticulate. I am conservative
and want huge cuts to benefits. But the people described - your wife and
Maria's friend, are so obviously rightful recipients of benefits in any sane
and caring society, one wonders at the administration of the dinosaur DSS.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Unfortunately, we live in a binary world ... disabled/able, black/
white, can/can't ... my wife is desperate to work. Now our son is
pretty much self-sufficient, she want's to get away from the daily
grind. She has plenty of employable skills. But at the moment, being
unable to drive, and with anything "local" a joke, there is no way she
could consider even a part time job.

AFAICS the benefits system with regard to less-able people is mainly
designed around the concept that you get ill, you can't work, you get
benefit, you get better, you can work. It has no concept of anything
else, so we live with a classically bad situation, where the users
have to fit around the system, rather than vice-versa.
Ishvara
2010-11-23 23:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro
Unfortunately, we live in a binary world ... disabled/able, black/
white, can/can't ... my wife is desperate to work. Now our son is
pretty much self-sufficient, she want's to get away from the daily
grind. She has plenty of employable skills. But at the moment, being
unable to drive, and with anything "local" a joke, there is no way she
could consider even a part time job.
AFAICS the benefits system with regard to less-able people is mainly
designed around the concept that you get ill, you can't work, you get
benefit, you get better, you can work. It has no concept of anything
else, so we live with a classically bad situation, where the users
have to fit around the system, rather than vice-versa.
That's exactly what happens. If one of the DWP's droids thinks you look
healthy enough to work, they think that you are always healthy enough to
work, therefore you can do any kind of work, and if employers don't want
you it is because of a failing on your part which must be corrected
through punitive action. They have no concept of recurrent illness, or
of variable illnesses: perhaps because these would be too difficult to
assess accurately, they've chosen instead to pretend that they don't exist.
True Blue
2010-11-24 11:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ishvara
Post by Jethro
Unfortunately, we live in a binary world ... disabled/able, black/
white, can/can't ... my wife is desperate to work. Now our son is
pretty much self-sufficient, she want's to get away from the daily
grind. She has plenty of employable skills. But at the moment, being
unable to drive, and with anything "local" a joke, there is no way she
could consider even a part time job.
AFAICS the benefits system with regard to less-able people is mainly
designed around the concept that you get ill, you can't work, you get
benefit, you get better, you can work. It has no concept of anything
else, so we live with a classically bad situation, where the users
have to fit around the system, rather than vice-versa.
That's exactly what happens. If one of the DWP's droids thinks you look
healthy enough to work, they think that you are always healthy enough to
work, therefore you can do any kind of work, and if employers don't want
you it is because of a failing on your part which must be corrected
through punitive action. They have no concept of recurrent illness, or of
variable illnesses: perhaps because these would be too difficult to assess
accurately, they've chosen instead to pretend that they don't exist.
What's *your* illness? Apart from laziness and debilitating envy?
Ishvara
2010-11-24 13:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by True Blue
What's *your* illness? Apart from laziness and debilitating envy?
Every time anyone points out the ways in which idle rich parasites are
destroying Britain, you throw a tantrum, dribbling obsessively about
"envy". What's *your* guilty secret?
Harry Merrick
2010-11-24 17:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ishvara
Post by True Blue
What's *your* illness? Apart from laziness and debilitating envy?
Every time anyone points out the ways in which idle rich parasites are
destroying Britain, you throw a tantrum, dribbling obsessively about
"envy". What's *your* guilty secret?
Oh dear! Does this evasive comment actually mean that you are indeed exactly
as True Blue states? Consumed with debilitating envy and laziness? Is that
your not so guilty secret?
--
Harry Merrick.
Ishvara
2010-11-24 17:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Merrick
Post by Ishvara
Post by True Blue
What's *your* illness? Apart from laziness and debilitating envy?
Every time anyone points out the ways in which idle rich parasites are
destroying Britain, you throw a tantrum, dribbling obsessively about
"envy". What's *your* guilty secret?
Oh dear! Does this evasive comment actually mean that you are indeed
exactly as True Blue states? Consumed with debilitating envy and
laziness? Is that your not so guilty secret?
It means nothing of the sort, any more than True Blue's use of "*your*"
was an evasive comment which actually meant that he has a recurrent or
variable illness of the sort mentioned in the preceding post. It's a
question intended to elicit information.

I might ask you the same question: why the extraordinary sensitivity and
evasiveness whenever the activities of Britain's idle rich parasites are
discussed?
Harry Merrick
2010-12-08 10:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ishvara
Post by Harry Merrick
Post by Ishvara
Post by True Blue
What's *your* illness? Apart from laziness and debilitating envy?
Every time anyone points out the ways in which idle rich parasites
are destroying Britain, you throw a tantrum, dribbling obsessively
about "envy". What's *your* guilty secret?
Oh dear! Does this evasive comment actually mean that you are indeed
exactly as True Blue states? Consumed with debilitating envy and
laziness? Is that your not so guilty secret?
It means nothing of the sort, any more than True Blue's use of
"*your*" was an evasive comment which actually meant that he has a
recurrent or variable illness of the sort mentioned in the preceding
post. It's a question intended to elicit information.
I might ask you the same question: why the extraordinary sensitivity
and evasiveness whenever the activities of Britain's idle rich
parasites are discussed?
OK. I do not actually think that there is *any* "extraordinary sensitivity
and evasiveness whenever the activities of Britain's idle rich parasites are
discussed" at all! Everyone has their own opinions on this and freely
express them. For me, the rich are far from being idle, they are certainly
not parasites, and they cannot be done without due the employment they
provide and the entrepreneurship they practise. For you to be so constantly
sniping at them shows your own lack of intellect and begrudging envy of most
of society becuase, from what you say, most of society is far better off
than you are! True or false? I suspect that you are out of work and doing
damn all about altering that situation.
--
Harry Merrick.
Ophelia
2010-11-23 12:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by True Blue
This is the problem with government. It is inarticulate. I am conservative
and want huge cuts to benefits. But the people described - your wife and
Maria's friend, are so obviously rightful recipients of benefits in any
sane and caring society, one wonders at the administration of the dinosaur
DSS.
Totally agreed!
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Ophelia
2010-11-23 12:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro
Anyone with a chronic relapsing-remitting condition is in the same
boat. My wife has MS. How can you employ someone who might wake up
blind one morning (has happened)? Or who sits down, and then can't get
up again because they're paralysed? (again, has happened). Quite apart
from the fatigue (almost like narcolepsy), tremors, and impaired
intellectual ability (mainly memory).
How awful:( She is not expected to work surely??
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Jethro
2010-11-23 12:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro
Anyone with a chronic relapsing-remitting condition is in the same
boat. My wife has MS. How can you employ someone who might wake up
blind one morning (has happened)? Or who sits down, and then can't get
up again because they're paralysed? (again, has happened). Quite apart
from the fatigue (almost like narcolepsy), tremors, and impaired
intellectual ability (mainly memory).
How awful:(  She is not expected to work surely??
--
--https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Well so far, we haven't had a squeak from the ESA people ... I don't
know what criteria they use, but she was signed onto lifetime DLA in
1993, and since then has had enough medical excitement to last a
lifetime. If they want to see her records, they had better bring a
sack truck - one person alone can't carry them. Currently her eyesight
is not good enough to drive, or use a computer for anything non-
trivial, and there's an ongoing relapse which means she needs the
wheelchair, and about 16 hours sleep a day. There are other
complications MS brings on too, which would make "going to work" a
daily challenge - for the employer too. I have a feeling they have a
subtly prioritised list, and she's just a long way down on it.

Now within all that, there *are* jobs she could do. Anything home-
based, with a phone would be possible, especially given her wonderful
telephone voice. But we live in an age when - despite the "work from
home" bullshit the glossy tech mags would have us believe (he says,
homeworking :-) ) is everywhere, very few employers seem equipped to
deal with it.

Can anyone explain why we have "call centres" ? Surely 90% of the work
involving a system and a phone could be done just as well from a
home ... these buildings aren't cheap to run.
Ophelia
2010-11-23 12:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro
Well so far, we haven't had a squeak from the ESA people ... I don't
know what criteria they use, but she was signed onto lifetime DLA in
1993, and since then has had enough medical excitement to last a
lifetime. If they want to see her records, they had better bring a
sack truck - one person alone can't carry them. Currently her eyesight
is not good enough to drive, or use a computer for anything non-
trivial, and there's an ongoing relapse which means she needs the
wheelchair, and about 16 hours sleep a day. There are other
complications MS brings on too, which would make "going to work" a
daily challenge - for the employer too. I have a feeling they have a
subtly prioritised list, and she's just a long way down on it.
Now within all that, there *are* jobs she could do. Anything home-
based, with a phone would be possible, especially given her wonderful
telephone voice. But we live in an age when - despite the "work from
home" bullshit the glossy tech mags would have us believe (he says,
homeworking :-) ) is everywhere, very few employers seem equipped to
deal with it.
..and even fewer managers willing to give up their control.
Post by Jethro
Can anyone explain why we have "call centres" ? Surely 90% of the work
involving a system and a phone could be done just as well from a
home ... these buildings aren't cheap to run.
See above. My husband works in IT. Last week he couldn't get into work so
he worked from home for the whole time. He supports people all over the
world and with his (works) Blackberry and laptop he missed nothing. In fact
he worked longer because he didn't have to waste 2 hours a day (and
£10)travelling .

You are quite right; employers could save a fortune if they didn't have to
provide officies with all that entails.
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Peter Crosland
2010-11-23 22:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro
Anyone with a chronic relapsing-remitting condition is in the same
boat. My wife has MS. How can you employ someone who might wake up
blind one morning (has happened)? Or who sits down, and then can't get
up again because they're paralysed? (again, has happened). Quite apart
from the fatigue (almost like narcolepsy), tremors, and impaired
intellectual ability (mainly memory).
How awful:( She is not expected to work surely??
--
--https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Well so far, we haven't had a squeak from the ESA people ... I don't
know what criteria they use, but she was signed onto lifetime DLA in
1993, and since then has had enough medical excitement to last a
lifetime. If they want to see her records, they had better bring a
sack truck - one person alone can't carry them. Currently her eyesight
is not good enough to drive, or use a computer for anything non-
trivial, and there's an ongoing relapse which means she needs the
wheelchair, and about 16 hours sleep a day. There are other
complications MS brings on too, which would make "going to work" a
daily challenge - for the employer too. I have a feeling they have a
subtly prioritised list, and she's just a long way down on it.

This tells you the criteria.

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/f25.htm


Peter Crosland
Ophelia
2010-11-23 11:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
Maria, could he not get some kind of benefit because of that? I don't know
the term but I think you will understand.
Could his doctor not help?
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Maria
2010-11-23 11:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
Maria, could he not get some kind of benefit because of that? I don't
know the term but I think you will understand.
Could his doctor not help?
He's been on incapacity benefit for 2 years - he's on their little list
of people to get off it, but he wants to get off it anyway because he's
bored stiff. It's finding the appropriate job that's the problem, and
then getting it.
Ala
2010-12-08 02:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ophelia
Post by Maria
He's epileptic. He was sacked after having fits in the workplace.
Maria, could he not get some kind of benefit because of that? I don't
know the term but I think you will understand.
Could his doctor not help?
--
Once there was a little kid named Benefit
Walked around town with a frown, face down, lookin bent
Had problems inside, his little sister just died
Keep your head up little man, all you got is your pride
He said 'the world doesn't want me, and neither does my daddy
He'd rather get drunk and puff blunts then have a family'
That's real, and ain't nothing realer then that
The world is much colder then the steal of a gat
But yet he moved on, he fought to stay strong
In this cold world, to stay warm he put a jacket on
Made of 100 percent pain--My Story, Benefit
Big Les Wade
2010-11-23 11:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Tax payers money. Why didn't he get a job when there were plenty about?
Idle twat. Think, Consequences.
Shut your ignorant face, you stupid, worthless cunt.
--
Les
Anyone regularly attending or organising protests should expect to be of
interest to the state.
Ishvara
2010-11-23 11:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up
Your friend is being punished by the state because he is poor, and he is
being punished again because he is not healthy enough to satisfy the
demands of employers. Until people *do* smash up the "Jobcentres", and
the other tools of state oppression, nothing will change for the better.
Andy
2010-11-23 11:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ishvara
Post by Maria
Following discussions a month or so ago, I advised my friend who is on
the sick but could work part-time, to apply to the scheme that pays for
some training to help you off benefits. He had had an interview to see
if there was any work he could do, and he agreed that (being unskilled),
security work might suit because much of it is part-time and he would be
able to cope with that.
The security company offered him work if he could get the training and
SIA badge - he approached the benefits people to arrange these things,
and they said they would only pay if it was to lead to a permanent job
and the employer would confirm this by letter. They also said they would
not pay for the badge, only the training, so he told them he wou because
he would not go ahead because he would not be able to pay for the badge
and the employer would not pay for it. His benefits were stopped
immediately, and he had no idea why - he has not even received a letter.
He has been phoning the benefits people to try and find out what's going
on for weeks - they promised to send a letter explaining, but said it
was in connection with the training thing.
That was 4 weeks ago - today finally they told him they have stopped his
benefits because he refused training - he was on the phone to them in
the Jobcentre and they just kept saying 'but you turned down training,
but you turned down training' - he just kept repeating that the training
would not lead to the job because he could not afford the badge part,
and they said 'but at least you'd have the training'. He ended up almost
smashing the Jobcentre up
Your friend is being punished by the state because he is poor, and he is
being punished again because he is not healthy enough to satisfy the
demands of employers. Until people *do* smash up the "Jobcentres", and
the other tools of state oppression, nothing will change for the better.
The sad truth today is:

not "The Poor Man Is Disabled", but "The Disabled Man Is Poor"

The unemployment rate for those with disabilities is 50%. Shameful.
And all the tabloids seem to care about is the benefit bill, not the
far more important issue of the huge waste of talent.

Let's say a person with arthritis or bipolar (same true for epilepsy
or any other recurring illness) could work 9 months of a year but
would require around three months off work due to illness- there are
just not the job opportunities.

How the state could help is by not stopping benefits on taking a job,
instead getting the claimant to pay a higher tax rate whilst working.
This means no-one would lose a penny by taking work when they are well
enough. Changing the business tax rules to encourage overmanning
rather than discouraging it would be a boon for the disabled. The
capitalist economic system inherently discriminates against "non-
standard" people, who might not be able to do all the things that
ordinary people can do, but have talents in other areas.

That poor lass who got kicked off the X-Factor for being mentally
unstable I think speaks volumes- the mentally ill aren't even allowed
to be pop stars these days...
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 12:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy
That poor lass who got kicked off the X-Factor for being mentally
unstable I think speaks volumes- the mentally ill aren't even allowed to
be pop stars these days...
imagine the andy pandy puppeteers trying to operate an autonomous
'mentally unstable' andy pandy...

that is, they (big money 'talent shows') are looking for what they are
looking for, a controllable cash cow, and a 'mockumentary' show.

as for the piss taking waffen SS down at De WhiP, basically someone has to
pay for this existing old-boy bankster-network bailout, and another 7
billion now for this latest irish bankster-club bail out.

someone suggested, the money could have been given to mortgage owners to
pay off their mortgages to the banks, but no, it goes to the banksters and
they repossess the houses.... double payment... (OK apart from the unfair
distribution of just mortgage owners getting money, better to just have
divided it according to years worked or something and given to people to
spend.)

quite a racket. well tptb have been working on it for several hundred
years, pretty much perfected now. So well rigged any action plays into
their hands, almost?...
Ophelia
2010-11-23 13:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
someone suggested, the money could have been given to mortgage owners to
pay off their mortgages to the banks, but no, it goes to the banksters and
they repossess the houses.... double payment...
Explain please?


--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Jethro
2010-11-23 13:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ophelia
Post by CheeseySock
someone suggested, the money could have been given to mortgage owners to
pay off their mortgages to the banks, but no, it goes to the banksters and
they repossess the houses.... double payment...
Explain please?
 --
--https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their
own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.
Ophelia
2010-11-23 14:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro
Post by Ophelia
Explain please?
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their
own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.
Ahh thank you, I had missed it. Oh, and you are right! Of course they
are doing it to lessen their debt, but they also lessen the value of our
savings too:(
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 18:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ophelia
Post by Ophelia
Explain please?
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread (the
Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could have
given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their own
quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.
Ahh thank you, I had missed it. Oh, and you are right! Of course
they are doing it to lessen their debt, but they also lessen the value
of our savings too:(
--
well, it was not directly response/quote to jethro, I had not read his
thread, but quoting quite commonly voiced opinion along those lines,
either give to everyone rather than just help banksters risky ventures and
bonuses, or as it was essentially claimed as a housing based crisis, then
govt could get into landlord business... compulsory purchase houses to be
repossessed and rent them out.

(merchant banks may still have crashed as they operate several layers of
pure speculation/imagination above the hard tangible fact of property/
loan, and tales of the banks repackaging same loan/property for sale in
futures whatever, multiple times... even though they invent out of thin
air 90% of the money to loan in the first 'king place... they still have
to have more ponzi layers to pay their astronomical bonuses.)

Been well over a year since doing the bailout? how much have the
government been paid back by the banksters... they even loaned to the
banksters at stupid low rates so don't even earn any interest off the
bankster scuzzbuckets, while banksters get astronomical rates of return on
credit cards etc... 1400% markup at least, borrow at 1% lend at 15%....

STM it is absolute proof of who governments really work for.

bunch of absolute rotters in need of a good drubbing. Of course they play
even that drubbing-schardenfreude out in the pantomime punch and judy show
of an election... but really, same level of internationalist corporot/
bankster servants/associates get elected with different umbrella colour.

co2 hypocrites to boot. (45 minute scaremongers)

like recent classic revelation us congressbods exempt from tsa radiation
scanners and pat downs... no problem for them then...

sure war in Korea etc. might prove a nice little ninja smoke bomb...
praticularly if it goes global... bankster military industrial complex
surely gleefully rubbing its hands at the prospect...

Kirchner claimed bush had said to him pre 911 war would regenerate america
and allies, and blow me if some high-profile economist has not just said
the same thing...

these are the real lunatics... psychopaths... perhaps sane just evil... at
the flippin' controls... in positions of influence (as per macondo oil
spill, large investments in clean up and dispersant chemical companies
just before disaster event etc etc etc)

sat in their comfortable gated communities way beyond reach of some angry
iraqi/Afghani/whatever.... guarded by the forces the plebs taxes largely
pay for... really quite classic.
AndyW
2010-11-23 14:46:13 UTC
Permalink
"Jethro" <***@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-***@a30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their
own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source). The
population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time
It has been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could
have set up every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a fortune
in the 60s.

With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war would have
taken place saving millions of lives.

But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving money to
people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless things like consumer
goods or investing or blow it on food or nights out. When you spend it
top-down instead of bottom-up then the beaurocracy can spend vast sums on
administration and meetings like a good and proper civil service should.

Andy
Steve
2010-11-23 16:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their
own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source). The
population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time
It has been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could
have set up every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a fortune
in the 60s.
Assuming a billion is 1,000 x 1,000,000, according to your figures, $12,500
pp
AndyW
2010-11-24 07:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Assuming a billion is 1,000 x 1,000,000, according to your figures,
$12,500 pp
You are right I missed out a zero.

Andy
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 16:53:57 UTC
Permalink
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread (the
Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could have given
every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their own quantitive
easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800 billion ? That's
£10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200 billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source). The
population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time It has been
calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could have set up
every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a fortune in the
60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war would
have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving money
to people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless things like
consumer goods or investing or blow it on food or nights out. When you
spend it top-down instead of bottom-up then the beaurocracy can spend
vast sums on administration and meetings like a good and proper civil
service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the generals and
tools of war corporations... and kill loads of people. All because of a
fake attack in gulf of tonkin that never actually happened.

much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the false story
about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That was instrumental in
whipping up the poor-babies vote....

or the 45 minutes claim.

same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots of dead
people 'over-there'.

Hmmm... how 'odd'

anyone else noticed a pattern?

Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets here,
like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong target, like a
high profile figure, so really no skin off bankster military industrial
complex's nose...

they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best armed bunch
of martial law scum on the planet? That have several layers of attack
before even the safety catch is off....
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 17:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread (the
Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could have
given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their own
quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source). The
population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time It has been
calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could have set
up every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a fortune in
the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war would
have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving money
to people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless things like
consumer goods or investing or blow it on food or nights out. When you
spend it top-down instead of bottom-up then the beaurocracy can spend
vast sums on administration and meetings like a good and proper civil
service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the generals and
tools of war corporations... and kill loads of people. All because of a
fake attack in gulf of tonkin that never actually happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the false
story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That was
instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots of
dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets here,
like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong target, like a
high profile figure, so really no skin off bankster military industrial
complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best armed
bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several layers of
attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some incidents
against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 18:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their
own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source).
The population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time It has been
calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could have set
up every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a fortune in
the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war would
have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving
money to people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless things
like consumer goods or investing or blow it on food or nights out.
When you spend it top-down instead of bottom-up then the beaurocracy
can spend vast sums on administration and meetings like a good and
proper civil service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the generals and
tools of war corporations... and kill loads of people. All because of
a fake attack in gulf of tonkin that never actually happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the false
story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That was
instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots of
dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets here,
like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong target, like a
high profile figure, so really no skin off bankster military industrial
complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best armed
bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several layers of
attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some incidents
against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
of course the 'wrong targets' are with a certain degree of probability
false flags anyway, disposing of say a bankster-currency-monopoly-threat
like kennedy and blaming the commies... really, why should small time
mobster ruby want to shoot oswald? but convenient he never testified for
sure...
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 19:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their
own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source).
The population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time It has
been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could
have set up every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a
fortune in the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war would
have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving
money to people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless things
like consumer goods or investing or blow it on food or nights out.
When you spend it top-down instead of bottom-up then the beaurocracy
can spend vast sums on administration and meetings like a good and
proper civil service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the generals and
tools of war corporations... and kill loads of people. All because of
a fake attack in gulf of tonkin that never actually happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the false
story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That was
instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots of
dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets here,
like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong target, like a
high profile figure, so really no skin off bankster military
industrial complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best armed
bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several layers of
attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some incidents
against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
of course the 'wrong targets' are with a certain degree of probability
false flags anyway, disposing of say a bankster-currency-monopoly-threat
like kennedy and blaming the commies... really, why should small time
mobster ruby want to shoot oswald? but convenient he never testified for
sure...
or like say... the asbestos ridden, nigh-on-condemned, sparsely inhabited
white elephant twin towers and all the enron files/evidence in wtc 7 being
totally destroyed at nigh on free fall speed in one day...

and, didn't mountbatten oversee India's independence?
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 19:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their
own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR
£800 billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with
£200 billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source).
The population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time It has
been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could
have set up every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a
fortune in the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war
would have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving
money to people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless things
like consumer goods or investing or blow it on food or nights out.
When you spend it top-down instead of bottom-up then the beaurocracy
can spend vast sums on administration and meetings like a good and
proper civil service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the generals
and tools of war corporations... and kill loads of people. All
because of a fake attack in gulf of tonkin that never actually
happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the false
story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That was
instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots of
dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets
here, like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong target,
like a high profile figure, so really no skin off bankster military
industrial complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best armed
bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several layers of
attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some incidents
against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
of course the 'wrong targets' are with a certain degree of probability
false flags anyway, disposing of say a
bankster-currency-monopoly-threat like kennedy and blaming the
commies... really, why should small time mobster ruby want to shoot
oswald? but convenient he never testified for sure...
or like say... the asbestos ridden, nigh-on-condemned, sparsely
inhabited white elephant twin towers and all the enron files/evidence in
wtc 7 being totally destroyed at nigh on free fall speed in one day...
and, didn't mountbatten oversee India's independence?
oh yeah... and the accounts office investigating the pentagon missing 3
trillion dollars... direct hit... 9/11
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 20:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do
their own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count.
ISTR £800 billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child,
with £200 billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source).
The population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time It has
been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could
have set up every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a
fortune in the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war
would have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving
money to people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless things
like consumer goods or investing or blow it on food or nights out.
When you spend it top-down instead of bottom-up then the
beaurocracy can spend vast sums on administration and meetings like
a good and proper civil service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the generals
and tools of war corporations... and kill loads of people. All
because of a fake attack in gulf of tonkin that never actually
happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the false
story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That was
instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots of
dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets
here, like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong
target, like a high profile figure, so really no skin off bankster
military industrial complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best armed
bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several layers of
attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some
incidents against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
of course the 'wrong targets' are with a certain degree of probability
false flags anyway, disposing of say a
bankster-currency-monopoly-threat like kennedy and blaming the
commies... really, why should small time mobster ruby want to shoot
oswald? but convenient he never testified for sure...
or like say... the asbestos ridden, nigh-on-condemned, sparsely
inhabited white elephant twin towers and all the enron files/evidence
in wtc 7 being totally destroyed at nigh on free fall speed in one
day...
and, didn't mountbatten oversee India's independence?
oh yeah... and the accounts office investigating the pentagon missing 3
trillion dollars... direct hit... 9/11
if you want an example of the greater/lesser ***@nts that populate the
shitstem, consider the lawyer that was shot...

porker negotiator telling him no-one is going to shoot him, about 90
coppers with guns outside... so the pissed up twat starts firing and
waving shotgun about and about 20 coppers open fire on him...

would be funny as a comedy sketch perhaps....
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 20:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do
their own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count.
ISTR £800 billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and
child, with £200 billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the
source). The population of vietnam was about 40 million at the
time It has been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war
the US could have set up every man, woman and child with over
$1000 which was a fortune in the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war
would have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving
money to people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless
things like consumer goods or investing or blow it on food or
nights out. When you spend it top-down instead of bottom-up then
the beaurocracy can spend vast sums on administration and meetings
like a good and proper civil service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the generals
and tools of war corporations... and kill loads of people. All
because of a fake attack in gulf of tonkin that never actually
happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the
false story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That
was instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots
of dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets
here, like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong
target, like a high profile figure, so really no skin off bankster
military industrial complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best
armed bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several
layers of attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some
incidents against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
of course the 'wrong targets' are with a certain degree of
probability false flags anyway, disposing of say a
bankster-currency-monopoly-threat like kennedy and blaming the
commies... really, why should small time mobster ruby want to shoot
oswald? but convenient he never testified for sure...
or like say... the asbestos ridden, nigh-on-condemned, sparsely
inhabited white elephant twin towers and all the enron files/evidence
in wtc 7 being totally destroyed at nigh on free fall speed in one
day...
and, didn't mountbatten oversee India's independence?
oh yeah... and the accounts office investigating the pentagon missing 3
trillion dollars... direct hit... 9/11
shitstem, consider the lawyer that was shot...
porker negotiator telling him no-one is going to shoot him, about 90
coppers with guns outside... so the pissed up twat starts firing and
waving shotgun about and about 20 coppers open fire on him...
would be funny as a comedy sketch perhaps....
and those mumbai gunmen... drugged to the eyeballs no? classic hashishin
talking head COD programmed morons? no?
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 21:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another
thread (the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion,
HMG could have given every man, woman, and child in Britian
£1,000 to do their own quantitive easing. How much had they
spent, last count. ISTR £800 billion ? That's £10,000 for every
man, woman, and child, with £200 billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the
source). The population of vietnam was about 40 million at the
time It has been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war
the US could have set up every man, woman and child with over
$1000 which was a fortune in the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war
would have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving
money to people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless
things like consumer goods or investing or blow it on food or
nights out. When you spend it top-down instead of bottom-up then
the beaurocracy can spend vast sums on administration and
meetings like a good and proper civil service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the generals
and tools of war corporations... and kill loads of people. All
because of a fake attack in gulf of tonkin that never actually
happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the
false story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That
was instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots
of dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets
here, like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong
target, like a high profile figure, so really no skin off bankster
military industrial complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best
armed bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several
layers of attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some
incidents against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
of course the 'wrong targets' are with a certain degree of
probability false flags anyway, disposing of say a
bankster-currency-monopoly-threat like kennedy and blaming the
commies... really, why should small time mobster ruby want to shoot
oswald? but convenient he never testified for sure...
or like say... the asbestos ridden, nigh-on-condemned, sparsely
inhabited white elephant twin towers and all the enron files/evidence
in wtc 7 being totally destroyed at nigh on free fall speed in one
day...
and, didn't mountbatten oversee India's independence?
oh yeah... and the accounts office investigating the pentagon missing
3 trillion dollars... direct hit... 9/11
shitstem, consider the lawyer that was shot...
porker negotiator telling him no-one is going to shoot him, about 90
coppers with guns outside... so the pissed up twat starts firing and
waving shotgun about and about 20 coppers open fire on him...
would be funny as a comedy sketch perhaps....
and those mumbai gunmen... drugged to the eyeballs no? classic hashishin
talking head COD programmed morons? no?
not to say hashish nor any drug is automatically connected with bad, but
it was what they had at the time... nor to say that the "hash" (meaning
mashed) of the old-man-of-the-mountains did not contain say jimson, or
poppy-gunk, or morning glory... as perhaps modern compounds do... or that
basically love-of-the-flesh+money+power was not sufficient drug for any
recruit (guess there's levels and roles and suitable/required
remuneration...)
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 21:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another
thread (the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion,
HMG could have given every man, woman, and child in Britian
£1,000 to do their own quantitive easing. How much had they
spent, last count. ISTR £800 billion ? That's £10,000 for every
man, woman, and child, with £200 billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the
source). The population of vietnam was about 40 million at the
time It has been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war
the US could have set up every man, woman and child with over
$1000 which was a fortune in the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war
would have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would
giving money to people to spend. We would just spend it on
feckless things like consumer goods or investing or blow it on
food or nights out. When you spend it top-down instead of
bottom-up then the beaurocracy can spend vast sums on
administration and meetings like a good and proper civil service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the
generals and tools of war corporations... and kill loads of
people. All because of a fake attack in gulf of tonkin that
never actually happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the
false story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That
was instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots
of dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets
here, like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong
target, like a high profile figure, so really no skin off
bankster military industrial complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best
armed bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several
layers of attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some
incidents against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
of course the 'wrong targets' are with a certain degree of
probability false flags anyway, disposing of say a
bankster-currency-monopoly-threat like kennedy and blaming the
commies... really, why should small time mobster ruby want to
shoot oswald? but convenient he never testified for sure...
or like say... the asbestos ridden, nigh-on-condemned, sparsely
inhabited white elephant twin towers and all the enron
files/evidence in wtc 7 being totally destroyed at nigh on free fall
speed in one day...
and, didn't mountbatten oversee India's independence?
oh yeah... and the accounts office investigating the pentagon missing
3 trillion dollars... direct hit... 9/11
shitstem, consider the lawyer that was shot...
porker negotiator telling him no-one is going to shoot him, about 90
coppers with guns outside... so the pissed up twat starts firing and
waving shotgun about and about 20 coppers open fire on him...
would be funny as a comedy sketch perhaps....
and those mumbai gunmen... drugged to the eyeballs no? classic
hashishin talking head COD programmed morons? no?
not to say hashish nor any drug is automatically connected with bad, but
it was what they had at the time... nor to say that the "hash" (meaning
mashed) of the old-man-of-the-mountains did not contain say jimson, or
poppy-gunk, or morning glory... as perhaps modern compounds do... or
that basically love-of-the-flesh+money+power was not sufficient drug for
any recruit (guess there's levels and roles and suitable/required
remuneration...)
ah.. you want a full-auto machine gun and grenade launcher you gots to be
a soldier or criminal eh... ultimate draw... for some... :)
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 21:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another
thread (the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion,
HMG could have given every man, woman, and child in Britian
£1,000 to do their own quantitive easing. How much had they
spent, last count. ISTR £800 billion ? That's £10,000 for every
man, woman, and child, with £200 billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the
source). The population of vietnam was about 40 million at the
time It has been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam
war the US could have set up every man, woman and child with
over $1000 which was a fortune in the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war
would have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would
giving money to people to spend. We would just spend it on
feckless things like consumer goods or investing or blow it on
food or nights out. When you spend it top-down instead of
bottom-up then the beaurocracy can spend vast sums on
administration and meetings like a good and proper civil service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the
generals and tools of war corporations... and kill loads of
people. All because of a fake attack in gulf of tonkin that
never actually happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the
false story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators.
That was instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex,
lots of dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets
here, like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong
target, like a high profile figure, so really no skin off
bankster military industrial complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best
armed bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several
layers of attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some
incidents against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
of course the 'wrong targets' are with a certain degree of
probability false flags anyway, disposing of say a
bankster-currency-monopoly-threat like kennedy and blaming the
commies... really, why should small time mobster ruby want to
shoot oswald? but convenient he never testified for sure...
or like say... the asbestos ridden, nigh-on-condemned, sparsely
inhabited white elephant twin towers and all the enron
files/evidence in wtc 7 being totally destroyed at nigh on free
fall speed in one day...
and, didn't mountbatten oversee India's independence?
oh yeah... and the accounts office investigating the pentagon
missing 3 trillion dollars... direct hit... 9/11
shitstem, consider the lawyer that was shot...
porker negotiator telling him no-one is going to shoot him, about 90
coppers with guns outside... so the pissed up twat starts firing and
waving shotgun about and about 20 coppers open fire on him...
would be funny as a comedy sketch perhaps....
and those mumbai gunmen... drugged to the eyeballs no? classic
hashishin talking head COD programmed morons? no?
not to say hashish nor any drug is automatically connected with bad,
but it was what they had at the time... nor to say that the "hash"
(meaning mashed) of the old-man-of-the-mountains did not contain say
jimson, or poppy-gunk, or morning glory... as perhaps modern compounds
do... or that basically love-of-the-flesh+money+power was not
sufficient drug for any recruit (guess there's levels and roles and
suitable/required remuneration...)
ah.. you want a full-auto machine gun and grenade launcher you gots to
be a soldier or criminal eh... ultimate draw... for some... :)
of course soldier/criminal one and the same in some courts... had to bust
two of 'ours' (allegedly) out of iraqi jail... no....

certain number of 'nazis' still wanted, though sure its more to do with
the phoney wiesentals glory....
martin
2010-11-23 21:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
and those mumbai gunmen... drugged to the eyeballs no? classic hashishin
talking head COD programmed morons? no?
oh DO shut up you moronic bastard
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 21:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by CheeseySock
and those mumbai gunmen... drugged to the eyeballs no? classic
hashishin talking head COD programmed morons? no?
oh DO shut up you moronic bastard
and you are so clever because?
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 21:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by martin
Post by CheeseySock
and those mumbai gunmen... drugged to the eyeballs no? classic
hashishin talking head COD programmed morons? no?
oh DO shut up you moronic bastard
and you are so clever because?
I mean.. I'm just talking about sponsored training... ;) (of bumboy
gunmen... like yerself...)
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 21:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by martin
Post by CheeseySock
and those mumbai gunmen... drugged to the eyeballs no? classic
hashishin talking head COD programmed morons? no?
oh DO shut up you moronic bastard
and you are so clever because?
I mean.. I'm just talking about sponsored training... ;) (of bumboy
gunmen... like yerself...)
of course I assume this character 'martin' is not just another guise of
the metaphorical robot-maria, I mean s/he showed little pity for her shite
advice... I'd say steer clear of the De-WhiP waffen SS, they are.... a
bunch of shitstem believers...
CheeseySock
2010-11-23 20:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
Post by CheeseySock
Post by AndyW
news:7a964560-fcb3-4f0d-a1d1-
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their
own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source).
The population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time It has been
calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could have set
up every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a fortune in
the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war would
have taken place saving millions of lives.
But that would not be politically expedient, neither would giving
money to people to spend. We would just spend it on feckless things
like consumer goods or investing or blow it on food or nights out.
When you spend it top-down instead of bottom-up then the beaurocracy
can spend vast sums on administration and meetings like a good and
proper civil service should.
Andy
but for some reason they chose to line the pockets of the generals and
tools of war corporations... and kill loads of people. All because of
a fake attack in gulf of tonkin that never actually happened.
much like that kuwaiti 'princess' on a tour of the us with the false
story about iraqi's turning babies out of incubators. That was
instrumental in whipping up the poor-babies vote....
or the 45 minutes claim.
same result on all, an enriched military-industrial-complex, lots of
dead people 'over-there'.
Hmmm... how 'odd'
anyone else noticed a pattern?
Now of course the revenge would be targeted back at easy targets here,
like plebs on the underground.... or maybe even a wrong target, like a
high profile figure, so really no skin off bankster military industrial
complex's nose...
they leave you with the question... how do you attack the best armed
bunch of martial law scum on the planet? That have several layers of
attack before even the safety catch is off....
probably even that is the question they are happy with, some incidents
against outer layers to justify more clampdown.
classic babylon 5 episode/movie against the death-rig where what is the
critical component is not advertised as the critical component... yet has
a certain tell-tale sign to knowing eyes...

such is the establishment, which is certainly a death bringer.. I love the
story of yank doctors striking and the death rate falling... funny as it
gets.... but deadly serious....
Francis Burton
2010-11-23 16:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by AndyW
The veitnam war cost around $500 billion (depending on the source). The
population of vietnam was about 40 million at the time
It has been calculated that for the cost of the vietnam war the US could
have set up every man, woman and child with over $1000 which was a fortune
in the 60s.
With that amount of financial 'aid' it is unlikely that the war would have
taken place saving millions of lives.
And the arms manufacturers and other beneficiaries of the
military-industrial complex would have profited how exactly?
At least the US, God Bless Her, saw *some* benefit of (the)
war from that source.

Francis
tim....
2010-11-23 19:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ophelia
Post by CheeseySock
someone suggested, the money could have been given to mortgage owners to
pay off their mortgages to the banks, but no, it goes to the banksters and
they repossess the houses.... double payment...
Explain please?
--
--https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
I suspect this is a response to a comment I made in another thread
(the Customs one) where I said for a paltry £60 Billion, HMG could
have given every man, woman, and child in Britian £1,000 to do their
own quantitive easing. How much had they spent, last count. ISTR £800
billion ? That's £10,000 for every man, woman, and child, with £200
billion left over.

---------------------------------------------------------------

It's 180 Bn

tim
Ishvara
2010-11-23 22:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by CheeseySock
as for the piss taking waffen SS down at De WhiP, basically someone has to
pay for this existing old-boy bankster-network bailout, and another 7
billion now for this latest irish bankster-club bail out.
someone suggested, the money could have been given to mortgage owners to
pay off their mortgages to the banks, but no, it goes to the banksters and
they repossess the houses.... double payment... (OK apart from the unfair
distribution of just mortgage owners getting money, better to just have
divided it according to years worked or something and given to people to
spend.)
quite a racket. well tptb have been working on it for several hundred
years, pretty much perfected now. So well rigged any action plays into
their hands, almost?...
Exactly. Britain has a fascist regime in all but name. It's time to
fight back.
Ishvara
2010-11-23 22:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy
not "The Poor Man Is Disabled", but "The Disabled Man Is Poor"
The unemployment rate for those with disabilities is 50%. Shameful.
And all the tabloids seem to care about is the benefit bill, not the
far more important issue of the huge waste of talent.
Let's say a person with arthritis or bipolar (same true for epilepsy
or any other recurring illness) could work 9 months of a year but
would require around three months off work due to illness- there are
just not the job opportunities.
For some years now the state's employment service has done nothing more
than enforce the demands of the worst private sector employers. These
want strong, unquestioning serfs who will work whatever hours are
required, accept whatever remuneration employers offer, and then vanish
should they no longer be required or become ill or unproductive. If you
don't fit those demands, you are starved or evicted, and the state is
doing the starving and evicting.

This government is continuing with its predecessor's introduction of
euthanasia by stealth.
Post by Andy
How the state could help is by not stopping benefits on taking a job,
instead getting the claimant to pay a higher tax rate whilst working.
This means no-one would lose a penny by taking work when they are well
enough. Changing the business tax rules to encourage overmanning
rather than discouraging it would be a boon for the disabled. The
capitalist economic system inherently discriminates against "non-
standard" people, who might not be able to do all the things that
ordinary people can do, but have talents in other areas.
Sensible ideas. Far too sensible for a country which is only
meritocratic if one defines "merit" as meaning "possessing money".
Loading...