The Sea Cat
|
Edited Jun 23, 2010, 10:24
Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jun 23, 2010, 09:52
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/23/budget-2010-losers-women-disabled
I am incandescent with rage. First, they parade Thatcher in front of us and now this. Abhorrent and disgraceful. I can only hope that this abomination is ousted quickly as the unaviodable horrendous social and economic ramifications kick in.
I'm too angry to say anything else.
|
moss
|
Re: Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jun 23, 2010, 11:31
|
"Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has already made it clear that he believes applying tougher tests will force large numbers back into the labour force,"
The government is of course creating hundreds of thousands jobless in the near future in other areas, so where are the jobs for the disabled who are forced back??? This government is on the way to getting very unstuck. Can't watch them on tv anymore its too sickening - mirrored images of each other - we need the unions to fight back..............
|
The Sea Cat
|
Re: Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jun 23, 2010, 14:13
|
|
The unions have said that this shower of fuckers wont know what's hit them. As for dragging people out wheelchairs, it's fucking vile. One step away from cattle trucks. It's class war.
|
mercian
|
Re: Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jun 24, 2010, 10:47
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10398918.stm
Work until you die! No chance of a youth being trained and taking your job when you retire. They make me spew.
|
The Sea Cat
|
Edited Jun 24, 2010, 11:01
Re: Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jun 24, 2010, 10:55
|
|
This is the worst imaginable government - the fabric of nightmares for anyone possessing any moral decency whatsoever. The vulnerable and the average have always been despised and targeted by the Tories in favour of the self serving elite, but I like to think that this time the fuckers have gone that extra bit too far, even by their pernicious and malevolent standards, and this coalition will be out within two years maximum. People are still in shock and when the reality hits hard and is felt over the coming months, it will be showdown time. Bring it on, Motherfuckers....
|
sanshee
|
Edited Jun 24, 2010, 18:09
Re: Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jun 24, 2010, 18:09
|
One thing to smile about, you can just see the steam shoot from Cameron's ears everytime 'that ligger' Clegg takes stage right beside him!
Can't even be P.M and have them say 'Conservative Govt', got to say 'The Coalition'!
Hehe.
Dunno if I'm right here, but I'm sure Prescott when with Blair never did much sitting by his side.
Deputy Prime Ministers tend not to have a say in anything actually. They certainly never had any real function.
Still, that's the price they paid for their fame. Bubble's gotta burst.
Popcorn at the ready peeps!
:-)
x
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jul 02, 2010, 02:49
|
Firstly, I have read the subsequent posts to this one, at the time of my writing this. Notwithstanding this is a budget comment/assessment from a newspaper...
Personally, I want to see people claiming benefits, of any kind, being reasonably checked, to make sure that they are:
1) entitled to what they are claiming
2) that "social services" are helping them as positively as possible to gain employment which rewards them as best as poss. in both the short and long-term .
Future employment will be led by prosperity and innovation in the private sector - with benefits for able and disabled workers.
Personally, I have no faith in "unions" nowadays...take a look at "Unite".
NOTHING on earth would support me contributing to anything that Derek and Tony were leading...a couple of "fat and happy liggers"..trying to punch way above their weight, IMHO. That said, "people-power" is absolutely critical...and can cause change..but the Unions dont have a finger on the pulse...or even on any part of the working-mans body.
I dont believe for one second there is a "class war" in the making...I think most sensible people recognise that w ewant to give great social support tothose that need it...and need to help/support those people who can suport themselves, to do so.
I see this as a pretty apolitical view - it's just common-sense to me...I cant believe Labour fucked things up so badly (unless I think for 1 sec, about the control-freak, Brown, which I try not to do)..
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jul 02, 2010, 03:12
|
Just a follow-up comment...re-read what you wrote...apart from the fact that you seem to be angry...I have no idea what, in detail, you specifically are challenged with.
More critical people may say you are just being contentious..making comments like "dragging people out of wheelchairs"...
...where the fuck did you deduce that from?
|
The Sea Cat
|
Re: Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jul 02, 2010, 07:48
|
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Just a follow-up comment...re-read what you wrote...apart from the fact that you seem to be angry...I have no idea what, in detail, you specifically are challenged with.
More critical people may say you are just being contentious..making comments like "dragging people out of wheelchairs"...
...where the fuck did you deduce that from?
I deduced it by pulling my head out of my arse and having a look around me. You should try it sometime.
|
mojojojo
|
Re: Protecting The Vulnerable, eh?
Jul 02, 2010, 15:22
|
|
As having your finger on the pulse seems to mean revelling in the robbing of the poorest in society and assett stripping the state to increase the wealth of the disgustingly wealthy I'm rather glad my union hasn't.
|
