On 08/04/2024 00:04, Rod Speed wrote:
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
>
>>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployablehas, in fact,
>>>> always  been quite clear:
>
>>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>
>>>  The law says nothing like that last.
>
>> The law is interpreted as meaning precisely that by jobcentre staff.
>
> Bullshit on the look convincing.
>
>> Perhaps it is different in Oz.
>
> Nope
>
>>>> and when a job is  offered, take it.
>
>>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
>
>>>  There is no deal involved.
>
>> It is a contractual condition of claimingvarious types of Universal
>> Credit.
>
> That isnt the dole, stupid.

That just demonstrates how out of touch you are with the UK benefit system

>> It is a deal.
>
> Bullshit.

Then you don't understand contacts or deals, in much the same way you
don't understand the UK benefit system.

On 07/04/2024 05:35 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>> Fredxx wrote:
>>> Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>
>>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be entitled
>>> and choose to work or not?
>
>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country. But
>> anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>
> "It's a free country" you say. Since when? It was close to being one
> when I was growing up, but that's long gone, mate. Anyone can lose
> their job or even their career just through one careless remark. That
> *never* used to be the case back in the day.

Anyone who chooses to leave their job, or not to look for a job, is free
to do exactly as they wish.

As long as they're not in the armed forces, no-one can make them carry
on in the job they already had (and if they are in the forces, they have
to have made a conscious decision to be bound by contract).

As I said on the subject of private incomes:

>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to work.
>
>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many case
>>> it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>
> AISI, the tax burden is the real incentive killer here, not low pay.
> But if you look at the state of the nation's finances, it ain't a
> pretty sight. It's either continue to levy crippling taxes or default
> on that *huge* pile of debt that's been built up over the decades.
> Neither choice is pleasant, but *debt* could bring this country (and
> many other Western countries) down at any time now. It's inevitable
> with the course we're on that sooner or later the bond markets will
> sell off and TSHTF.

Interesting.
>
>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
>> been quite clear:
>>
>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it) and when a job is
>> offered, take it.
>>
>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement. It's a
>> quid pro quo.
>>
>> No quid, no quo.
>>
>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing new.
>
> Actually, that's not the case.

Actually, it IS the case.

> During the 1970s and 80s, being on the
> dole required no effort on the part of the claimant to seek work.
> That's a far more recent development.

The "recent" development was proper enforcement of the requirement to
seek work as a condition of receiving benefit in respect of unemployment
- the recent (ish) development was the formulation of a new scheme for
ensuring that the law is better complied with (job tutors, job-seeking
diaries, etc).

But the little slip signed each week (now, each fortnight) by the
claimant was a declaration that that person had been seeking work but
unable to find any for that week and had therefore done no remunerative
work. The requirement to look for work had been there since the start of
the welfare state. It would have been odd had it not been.

On 07/04/2024 06:25 pm, Fredxx wrote:
> On 07/04/2024 15:58, JNugent wrote:
>> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>>
>>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>>
>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country. But
>> anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>
>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to
>> work.
>>
>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many
>>> case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>
>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
>> been quite clear:
>>
>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it) and when a job is
>> offered, take it.
>>
>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been
>> voided. Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed
>> entitlement. It's a quid pro quo.
>>
>> No quid, no quo.
>>
>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing new.
>>
>> But you already know this.
>
> Of course.
>
> Since women with young children are no required to work, guess what:
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/25/long-term-sickness-forcing-more-women-out-of-work-than-men/
>
>
> I know of one mother who doesn't work, sending her sick notes to the job
> centre every month.
>
> Where there's a will there will always be a way.

That's close enough to the facts (of course, the rules are not the same
for mothers who live with a partner and those claiming to be lone
parents and the age of the youngest child can also have an impact).

On 07/04/2024 07:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>>  A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>
>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>
>> But  anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>
> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private income.
>
>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to
>> work.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>
>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many
>>> case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>
>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
>> been quite clear:
>
>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>
> The law says nothing like that last.
>
>> and when a job is  offered, take it.
>
>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
>
> There is no deal involved.
>
>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement.
>
> Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook yet.
>
>> It's a  quid pro quo.
>
> Nope.
>
>> No quid, no quo.
>
> Nope.
>
>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing new.
>
> Nope.

Tiresome.

You will not object if I can't be bothered to reply any further.

On 07/04/2024 09:42 pm, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:06:30 +1000
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
>> wrote:
> .
>>
>>> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>
>> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private income.
>>
>
> In the UK, only if you have zero housing costs i.e. live with parents.
>
> Unemployment benefit barely covers basic food, and lasts for a maximum
> of six months, during which evidence of looking for work *is* required.
>
> Maybe it's different where you are.
>
> What happens, of course, is that people come down with 'depression',
> and disability benefit is not limited to six months. It's still pretty
> low, though. You need lots of children to make it useful, and an extra
> wife or two helps. Yes, they *are* counted as dependants.

I can already guess what his single word reply will be.

On 07/04/2024 09:42 pm, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:06:30 +1000
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
>> wrote:
> .
>>
>>> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>
>> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private income.
>>
>
> In the UK, only if you have zero housing costs i.e. live with parents.
>
> Unemployment benefit barely covers basic food, and lasts for a maximum
> of six months, during which evidence of looking for work *is* required.
>
> Maybe it's different where you are.
>
> What happens, of course, is that people come down with 'depression',
> and disability benefit is not limited to six months. It's still pretty
> low, though. You need lots of children to make it useful, and an extra
> wife or two helps. Yes, they *are* counted as dependants.

BTW: You have described Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution Based),
which does indeed last for no longer than 26 weeks before a new and
lengthy qualifying period (or time in work, paying NI) has to be served
in order to create a new six month potential entitlement.

But there is also the rather more important Jobseeker's Allowance
(Income Based) which potentially carries a larger entitlement amount
than bareboned JSA (CB).

Whereas UN(CB) payments are relatively low (there are reasons for that),
Universal Credit (which is the new name for JC(IB) provides (for a
couple over 25) with two or more children, the following *monthly* amounts:

Couple - joint claimants, one or both 25 or over £617.60
Child amounts £333.33

Housing costs and council tax liability are provided for (if they exist
- not everyone *has* housing costs of course) in addition to those amounts.

£617.60 + £333.33 + £333.33 = £1284.26

£1284.26 per month = £15,411.12 pa = £296.37 a week.

Don't forget that housing costs are catered for separately.

There must be quite a few non-claimant households that don't manage to
keep £296.37 a week clear of housing costs and council tax.

The UC figures for this month onwards are to be found at:

<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-and-pension-rates-2024-to-2025/benefit-and-pension-rates-2024-to-2025>

Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote

>>>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable
>>>>> has, in fact, always been quite clear:

Bullshit on what you need to do to get the dole.

>>>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)

>>>> The law says nothing like that last.

>>> The law is interpreted as meaning precisely that by jobcentre staff.

>> Bullshit on the look convincing.

>>> Perhaps it is different in Oz.

>> Nope

>>>>> and when a job is offered, take it.

>>>>> Fail in either of those and the dealwith the taxpayer has been
>>>>> voided.

>>>> There is no deal involved.

>>> It is a contractual condition of claiming
>>> various types of Universal Credit.

>> That isnt the dole, stupid.

> That just demonstrates how out of touchyou are with the UK benefit
> system

Still no DEAL involved.

>>> It is a deal.

>> Bullshit.

> Then you don't understand contacts

There is no legal contract involved.

> or deals,

You wouldnt know what a deal was if one bit you on your lard arse.

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 10:18:57 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

> On 07/04/2024 07:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>>>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>>
>>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country.
>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>
>>> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private income.
>>
>>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
>>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to
>>> work.
>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>
>>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many
>>>> case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>>
>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
>>> been quite clear:
>>
>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>> The law says nothing like that last.
>>
>>> and when a job is offered, take it.
>>
>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
>> There is no deal involved.
>>
>>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement.
>> Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook yet.
>>
>>> It's a quid pro quo.
>> Nope.
>>
>>> No quid, no quo.
>> Nope.
>>
>>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing
>>> new.
>> Nope.
>
> Tiresome.
>
> You will not object if I can't be bothered to reply any further.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

On 07/04/2024 19:43, R Souls wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:18:31 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>
>
> Tax dodgers are far worse.
> https://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud
>
>
> The real benefit scroungers are the government.
> https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/missing-out-%C2%A319-billion-benefits-support-goes-unclaimed-each-year
>
> Anyway, as a foreigner why are you so worried about what happens in
> the UK?

We should have a tax system like the US, where anyone holding UK
nationality legally has to pay it - no matter where they live/work in
the world.

It would sort out things a lot.

--
Adrian C

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 08:25:06 +0100, Adrian Caspersz
<email@here.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/04/2024 19:43, R Souls wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:18:31 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>
>>
>> Tax dodgers are far worse.
>> https://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud
>>
>>
>> The real benefit scroungers are the government.
>> https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/missing-out-%C2%A319-billion-benefits-support-goes-unclaimed-each-year
>>
>> Anyway, as a foreigner why are you so worried about what happens in
>> the UK?
>
>We should have a tax system like the US, where anyone holding UK
>nationality legally has to pay it - no matter where they live/work in
>the world.
>
>It would sort out things a lot.

Indeed!

On 8 Apr 2024 at 08:25:06 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/04/2024 19:43, R Souls wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:18:31 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>
>> Tax dodgers are far worse.
>> https://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud
>>
>>
>> The real benefit scroungers are the government.
>> https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/missing-out-%C2%A319-billion-benefits-support-goes-unclaimed-each-year
>>
>> Anyway, as a foreigner why are you so worried about what happens in
>> the UK?
>
> We should have a tax system like the US, where anyone holding UK
> nationality legally has to pay it - no matter where they live/work in
> the world.
>
> It would sort out things a lot.

Then you need to have double-taxation agreements.

Why should a Brit living overseas have to pay UK tax? They're not costing this
country anything. Even the Yanks, who do like to tax their overseas citizens,
give a massive allowance (used to be $70k) before such a person started
getting assessed for tax.

--
Britain sitting behind the protectionist wall of the Customs Union is doing absolutely nothing for the oppressed coffee bean growers of the developing world. How ironic then that the cappuccino-swilling hordes of Hove voted in large numbers to keep some of the world's poorest people and traders locked out of our markets.

Tom Bewick - Labour councillor in Brighton and Hove

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:16:27 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

>On 07/04/2024 05:35 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>>> Fredxx wrote:
>>>> Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>
>>>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be entitled
>>>> and choose to work or not?
>>
>>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country. But
>>> anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>
>> "It's a free country" you say. Since when? It was close to being one
>> when I was growing up, but that's long gone, mate. Anyone can lose
>> their job or even their career just through one careless remark. That
>> *never* used to be the case back in the day.
>
>Anyone who chooses to leave their job, or not to look for a job, is free
>to do exactly as they wish.
>
>As long as they're not in the armed forces, no-one can make them carry
>on in the job they already had (and if they are in the forces, they have
>to have made a conscious decision to be bound by contract).
>
>As I said on the subject of private incomes:
>
>>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
>>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to work.
>>
>>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many case
>>>> it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>
>> AISI, the tax burden is the real incentive killer here, not low pay.
>> But if you look at the state of the nation's finances, it ain't a
>> pretty sight. It's either continue to levy crippling taxes or default
>> on that *huge* pile of debt that's been built up over the decades.
>> Neither choice is pleasant, but *debt* could bring this country (and
>> many other Western countries) down at any time now. It's inevitable
>> with the course we're on that sooner or later the bond markets will
>> sell off and TSHTF.
>
>Interesting.
>>
>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
>>> been quite clear:
>>>
>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it) and when a job is
>>> offered, take it.
>>>
>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
>>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement. It's a
>>> quid pro quo.
>>>
>>> No quid, no quo.
>>>
>>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing new.
>>
>> Actually, that's not the case.
>
>Actually, it IS the case.
>
>> During the 1970s and 80s, being on the
>> dole required no effort on the part of the claimant to seek work.
>> That's a far more recent development.
>
>The "recent" development was proper enforcement of the requirement to
>seek work as a condition of receiving benefit in respect of unemployment
>- the recent (ish) development was the formulation of a new scheme for
>ensuring that the law is better complied with (job tutors, job-seeking
>diaries, etc).
>
>But the little slip signed each week (now, each fortnight) by the
>claimant was a declaration that that person had been seeking work but
>unable to find any for that week and had therefore done no remunerative
>work. The requirement to look for work had been there since the start of
>the welfare state. It would have been odd had it not been.

Thanks for clarifying that.

On 08/04/2024 08:25 am, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
> On 07/04/2024 19:43, R Souls wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:18:31 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>
>>
>> Tax dodgers are far worse.
>> https://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud
>>
>>
>> The real benefit scroungers are the government.
>> https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/missing-out-%C2%A319-billion-benefits-support-goes-unclaimed-each-year
>>
>>
>> Anyway, as a foreigner why are you so worried about what happens in
>> the UK?
>
> We should have a tax system like the US, where anyone holding UK
> nationality legally has to pay it - no matter where they live/work in
> the world.

Why?
>
> It would sort out things a lot.

Even if forced British expats to return to the UK because they couldn't
afford to pay tax to the Treasury on top of tax to the authorities
wherever they now live?

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:04:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 10:18:57 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/04/2024 07:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>>>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>>>>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>>>
>>>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country.
>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>
>>>> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private income.
>>>
>>>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
>>>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>>>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>>>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to
>>>> work.
>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>
>>>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many
>>>>> case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>>>
>>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
>>>> been quite clear:
>>>
>>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>>> The law says nothing like that last.
>>>
>>>> and when a job is offered, take it.
>>>
>>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
>>> There is no deal involved.
>>>
>>>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement.
>>> Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook yet.
>>>
>>>> It's a quid pro quo.
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> No quid, no quo.
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing
>>>> new.
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Tiresome.
>>
>> You will not object if I can't be bothered to reply any further.
>
>You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Pig ignorant geriatric wog sheepshaggers like you need to keep their
noses out of UK business.

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 03:30:21 +1000, Pomegranate Bastard <pommyB@aol.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:04:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 10:18:57 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/04/2024 07:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world
>>>>>>> over?
>>>>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident
>>>>>>> Lefty
>>>>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>>>>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>>>>>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country.
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>
>>>>> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>>> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private
>>>> income.
>>>>
>>>>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to
>>>>> work
>>>>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>>>>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>>>>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not
>>>>> to
>>>>> work.
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>
>>>>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many
>>>>>> case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>>>>
>>>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact,
>>>>> always
>>>>> been quite clear:
>>>>
>>>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>>>> The law says nothing like that last.
>>>>
>>>>> and when a job is offered, take it.
>>>>
>>>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been
>>>>> voided.
>>>> There is no deal involved.
>>>>
>>>>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement.
>>>> Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
>>>> yet.
>>>>
>>>>> It's a quid pro quo.
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> No quid, no quo.
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing
>>>>> new.
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Tiresome.
>>>
>>> You will not object if I can't be bothered to reply any further.
>>
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> Pig ignorant geriatric wog sheepshaggers like you need to keep their
> noses out of UK business.

You need to go and fuck yourself.

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 03:57:11 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 03:30:21 +1000, Pomegranate Bastard <pommyB@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:04:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 10:18:57 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/04/2024 07:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world
>>>>>>>> over?
>>>>>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident
>>>>>>>> Lefty
>>>>>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>>>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>>>>>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>>>>>>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country.
>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>>
>>>>>> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>>>> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private
>>>>> income.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to
>>>>>> work
>>>>>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>>>>>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>>>>>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> work.
>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many
>>>>>>> case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact,
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> been quite clear:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>>>>> The law says nothing like that last.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and when a job is offered, take it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been
>>>>>> voided.
>>>>> There is no deal involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement.
>>>>> Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
>>>>> yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a quid pro quo.
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No quid, no quo.
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing
>>>>>> new.
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Tiresome.
>>>>
>>>> You will not object if I can't be bothered to reply any further.
>>>
>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>> Pig ignorant geriatric wog sheepshaggers like you need to keep their
>> noses out of UK business.
>
>You need to go and fuck yourself.

That's what I admire about you, Rod. Your intelligent, well crafted
responses.

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 04:22:47 +1000, Pomegranate Bastard <pommyB@aol.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 03:57:11 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 03:30:21 +1000, Pomegranate Bastard <pommyB@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:04:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 10:18:57 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/04/2024 07:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world
>>>>>>>>> over?
>>>>>>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident
>>>>>>>>> Lefty
>>>>>>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>>>>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>>>>>>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>>>>>>>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country.
>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>>>>> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private
>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>>>>>>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many
>>>>>>>> case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact,
>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>> been quite clear:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>>>>>> The law says nothing like that last.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and when a job is offered, take it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been
>>>>>>> voided.
>>>>>> There is no deal involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement.
>>>>>> Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
>>>>>> yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a quid pro quo.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No quid, no quo.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>> new.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tiresome.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will not object if I can't be bothered to reply any further.
>>>>
>>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>
>>> Pig ignorant geriatric wog sheepshaggers like you need to keep their
>>> noses out of UK business.
>>
>> You need to go and fuck yourself.
>
> That's what I admire about you, Rod. Your intelligent, well crafted
> responses.

We all swooned at yours.

On 08/04/2024 06:57 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 03:30:21 +1000, Pomegranate Bastard <pommyB@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:04:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 10:18:57 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/04/2024 07:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world
>>>>>>>> over?
>>>>>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident
>>>>>>>> Lefty
>>>>>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>>>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>>>>>>  A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>>>>>>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country.
>>>>>  Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>>
>>>>>> But  anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>>>>  It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private
>>>>> income.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to
>>>>>> work
>>>>>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>>>>>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>>>>>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice
>>>>>> not to
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>  Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many
>>>>>>> case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact,
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> been quite clear:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>>>>>  The law says nothing like that last.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and when a job is  offered, take it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been
>>>>>> voided.
>>>>>  There is no deal involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement.
>>>>>  Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
>>>>> yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a  quid pro quo.
>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No quid, no quo.
>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing
>>>>>> new.
>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Tiresome.
>>>>
>>>> You will not object if I can't be bothered to reply any further.
>>>
>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>> Pig ignorant geriatric wog sheepshaggers like you need to keep their
>> noses out of UK business.
>
> You need to go and fuck yourself.

There you are...

You CAN debate at a more intellectual level when you really try...

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 05:38:52 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

> On 08/04/2024 06:57 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 03:30:21 +1000, Pomegranate Bastard
>> <pommyB@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 11:04:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 10:18:57 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/04/2024 07:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world
>>>>>>>>> over?
>>>>>>>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident
>>>>>>>>> Lefty
>>>>>>>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>>>>>>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>>>>>>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>>>>>>>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country.
>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>>>>>> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private
>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>>>>>>> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice
>>>>>>> not to
>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many
>>>>>>>> case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact,
>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>> been quite clear:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>>>>>> The law says nothing like that last.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and when a job is offered, take it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been
>>>>>>> voided.
>>>>>> There is no deal involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement.
>>>>>> Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
>>>>>> yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a quid pro quo.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No quid, no quo.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>> new.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tiresome.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will not object if I can't be bothered to reply any further.
>>>>
>>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>
>>> Pig ignorant geriatric wog sheepshaggers like you need to keep their
>>> noses out of UK business.
>> You need to go and fuck yourself.
>
> There you are...
>
> You CAN debate at a more intellectual level when you really try...

You clearly can't