andy_parkin

ATOS and the Paraympians? Its like Geobills, Hitler and Himlerr supporting a Jewish sporting event. To be fair, ATOs don't atcually kill the disabled like the Nazis did, they just get the disabled to commit suicide. Make them financialy desperate to the point of suicide. Initially I did support ATOS, as I though people taking the mick would be targeted, however it seems people with real disabilitys are suffering the most

My idea was to implement the cap in April 2013 or 2014, this would not punish current kids being born, but would give people advanced warning that changes were in the pipeline in the future. People would have to change their behavior or fall foul of the new rules. Yes implementing the new system would be harmfull now, but if it was to be started 2 years into the future, people could not say they were not warned

The anti-social behavior, its an easy one to implement. If you want free housing/money then you have to agree to a code of behavior. If you disagree, then get a job and pay for you own home

Why have children if you can't afford to pay for them? The taxpayer can't be relied to bail out the feckless, we are out of money

OK, the cap at 2 children maximum, people have asked "what about people who have worked and suddenly found themselves out of work?" The answer is this. The benefit system would be flexible and look into each case in turn, we would need people employed in the benefit system who would judge each case on merits and decide accordingly, so for example case 1 Overseas migrant into the country, never contributed has 5 kids and needs accomodation as well as money to maintain a lifestyle case 2 male or female aged 25 (regardless of race) worked for 7 years, paid tax and national insurance into the system.. Recently been made redundant, fully intends to return to work but is struggling finacially at present case 3 layabout, refuses work, antisocial behavior, breeds kids like a rabbit on viagra, in the pub or on the x-box Now, you have to look at each case in turn and decide where best the money would be spent. If you have 3 cases like these people, I would allocate money (8k) and perhaps a little extra. Case 2, society would have to decide if allowing them to lose everything benefits the country in the long run, perhaps a defered loan until they get back on their feet to be repaid at a very low rate of interest

That post by me was a silly comment, I retracted it as I don't mean it

Sorry, that was silly. So people think my ideas are bad? Perhaps I am out of touch

Overweight people being forced to some exercises before being allowed to purchase fatty foods at the supermarket. One of the isles to be set aside so all overweight people have to do 30 situps before being allowed to go to the counter to buy junk food

Money we spend on foregn aid would go to the elderly. Petrol cut by 50p a litre, which would give car owners/familys additional spare cash to spend in the economy, more money in businesses means more money for businesses - the chancellor gets more money because the business has greater takings and pays more tax as a consequqnce. As it stands now, a huge chunk of peoples spare cash goes on petrol/fuel - money which cannot be spent elsewhere

Don't agree with the 3rd one I'm afraid. Another option is this The minimum income guarantee - for a full time worker a guarantee of a minimum income of £250 a week for a full time worker (part time worker would be £125 a week). Lets say someone earns £220 a week, the state would top them up to £250 by giving £30, someone earning £190 each week would get £60 etc..... This would be funded by a cut to benefits to people who refuse work, foregn aid would also be cut to fund this. There would also be the raising of the tax threashold to £12000 a year so work always pays Cuts to drug addition programmes as well as alcohol abuse victims - this money would be diverted to people suffering illnesses that are not lifestyle choices (illnesses through sheer bad luck, cancer dementia etc....) The retirement age would be cut back to 60, which would free up jobs for our young. So in effect, instead of funding young people to not work, we now fund old people to not work (and the young would pay taxes - on earnings after £12000 per annum -) This money would allow people to retire at 60. People in specialised jobs who are 55, would then be given a youth who they would train up so they can do the job when they reach 60. Money would be cut from the FE system, and diverted into training young people to do real jobs. For example, a plumber approaching retirement would be given funding to teach up to 5 young people a trade, passing on his skills. The young people would be learning on the job. Accepted they would not get a nice qualification, but they would gain hands on trade skills which they could then use for paid work in the future. Grammer schools to be funded and only the best (regardless of background) be given scolarships. The current system of favouring the rich is not fair (internships - not good if you don't have rich parents), good schools in good areas and lets not forget private schools for the truely rich.

So how many would actually vote for these policies if put forward by a political party? Benefits cap An absolute maximum of £8000 per annum if you choose not to work. If you want more money, then get a job. Two children maximum paid for by the benefit system, one is an accident, if it happens again, OK - its another accident. If it happens again, then you need to think about condoms. Also, after baby number 3,the father needs to provide. Housing - a maximum cap of £75 a week regardless of the circumstances. This would force down the cost of renting for those in work,as private landlords would not be able to ramp up rent costs, knowing the benefits will pick up the tab. These would be implemented from Aprl 2013 - this would allow people who have taken advantage of the system to contunie to recieve payments (implementing it now would be inhumane to 1000s of children). It would give people enough warning as to what is in the pipeline. Foregn aid To be slashed to the minimum - this to be paid for by a 50p cut in a litre of petrol. The money from foregn aid would be directed to our elderly who have paid into the system all their lives. Also a cut in fuel duty would put additional cash into peoples pockets which would then be spent in the economy. The businesses would benefit from additional spending, who would then earn more money, who in turn would be paying additional tax - this would also offset the loss of revenue caused by the 50p a litre fuel duty cut. (the high petrol prices are self defeating) The EU An "in or out" referendum. No fudging of the issue, the vote is given and is people say "we want out" we get out. If people vote to "stay in" then we pay into the pot of the EU and people have to stop moaning. Vote "to get out" we get out, vote to stay in "we stay in". End of argument. Quangos If they serve no purpose, they get binned. If they stifle business, they get binned. anti-social behavior If a tennant is being given free housing and they cause anti social behavior (noise etc...) they are given 2 warnings. On the 3rd offence, they are kicked out. If given a free home, then a behavior contracts must be adhered to. If tennants wish not to do this, then the option is to get a job and pay for your own housing. I'll think of other ideas, but what do you think of these, would you vote for them?

Cut benefits and see the birth rate drop from immigrants 2 kids paid for by benefits A max benefit cap of 8k per annum. If you want more money, then get job Max cap on housing benefit of £70a week, thus reducing rents for people in work Easy

Football match at Hillsborough? Late Kick off, people making their way to the ground?

So here we have 2 opinions from 2 opposing people on the same subject, Peter Hitchens v Russel Brands. In the red corner is Peter Hitchens, darling of the Daily Mail and liked by the right (not the far right, I mean normal right wing) and tends to be liked by fiddy duddys and people whom are getting on a bit and no longer enjoy life like they used to In the blue corner is Russel Brand, darling of the liberal elite and probably a hit with those who get well paid from gardian type jobs, enjoy a spliff here and there and reading about the odd drug related stabbing is of little consequence to them.. But who is right? Is Peter Hitchens right claiming that middle class spoilt brats are out of touch, or does Russell Brand have his finger on the pulse of modern Britain?

We would like a budgie, however as we are out at work in the daytime the budgie would get lonely on its own and budgies are sociable pets. The question is, if we get 2 budgies clearly we need a bigger cage, however we would like them to have the house to fly around and being stuck in a cage cannot be much fun. With the 2 budgies should we have 2 girls 2 boys 1 boy and 1 girl We are thinking that the boy/girl combination would be better as they can amuse themselves during the daytime. If we had 2 boys, they (at a guess) are terrotorial and so could fight, I guess 2 girls would also fight and so the boy/girl combination would work well If there are resulting baby budgies, are they easy to sell? and how many years is a female budgie fertile for? if its a case of 2 years, then after the first 2 years the female would not end up pregnant. Any advice on 2 budgies as pets would be useful