D
Deleted member 1030
Your moral line.smoking and drinking is a choice..Not something that taxpayers need to foot the bill for.. housing yes, smoking ..No.
That's the moral line
Your moral line.smoking and drinking is a choice..Not something that taxpayers need to foot the bill for.. housing yes, smoking ..No.
That's the moral line
You missed the point... and if I ended up in hospital as a result, that would cost the State... but that wasn't my point.smoking and drinking is a choice..Not something that taxpayers need to foot the bill for.. housing yes, smoking ..No.
That's the moral line
I didn't miss the point. Agree with you on evidence. Science and statistics teach you that anecdotal facts can be hypothesis generating but needs to be proven. Data shows that smoking increases risk of cancer and is a public health burden. A few individuals who are outliers don't sway it for me.You missed the point... and if I ended up in hospital as a result, that would cost the State... but that wasn't my point.
The point is about how we look at evidence
Smoking is highly addictive, due to the nicotine in tabacco, and like any addiction once formed it stops being a choice and starts being a physical need. The same is often true with those the consume alcohol daily, of course with alcohol (ethanol) being the addictive compound.smoking and drinking is a choice..Not something that taxpayers need to foot the bill for.. housing yes, smoking ..No.
That's the moral line
As you pretending to be in trouble, no change in the system or screams of "make work pay" will stop those that choose to pretend to be in trouble from doing so.Aye but it's fair to say the general consensus here is;
Benefits are there to help those in trouble, needy, ill, poor or those in troubled waters. No choice.
Benefits are NOT there to help those pretending to be in trouble, needy, ill, poor or those in troubled waters, so they can get their 8 pack every day. 2 holidays per year.. and so forth - without having to get out and work for it, through choice.
It's addiction that's self induced. Sorry mate..I stand by that ..In that fags and alchohol is not something benefits should fund.Smoking is highly addictive, due to the nicotine in tabacco, and like any addiction once formed it stops being a choice and starts being a physical need. The same is often true with those the consume alcohol daily, of course with alcohol (ethanol) being the addictive compound.
Or on the flip side allow the new generation a first step onto the property ladder.The issue is though that if we built anywhere near the amount of homes we need, it would expose the over valued housing market (mainly due to lack of supply) and push many in to a negative equity situation.
Fine - so our benefits 'cheats' may not also be outliers?I didn't miss the point. Agree with you on evidence. Science and statistics teach you that anecdotal facts can be hypothesis generating but needs to be proven. Data shows that smoking increases risk of cancer and is a public health burden. A few individuals who are outliers don't sway it for me.
Sure.. outliers they maybe in number of ppl, but not insignificant in terms of impact on a local community. Would love to see what numbers are on that?Fine - so our benefits 'cheats' may not also be outliers?
But you recognise it's an addiction and claim to be a moral man, yet believe the state should pursue a programme of cruelty against every smoker that needs financial assistance form the state to find work.It's addiction that's self induced. Sorry mate..I stand by that ..In that fags and alchohol is not something benefits should fund.
It's interesting to note that successive waves of immigrants to this country are typically billeted in the worst available housing that no-one else wants - hence the Jews at Golders Green or the Huguenots in Whitechapel, the Windrushers to Brixton or the Somalis put on the North Peckham estates.Or on the flip side allow the new generation a first step onto the property ladder.
So are properties being kept artificially high so we don't slip into another recession thus showing how successful the Government has been?
B x
I was playing devils advocate, personally I believe sooner or later we'll have to bite the bullet and do it.Or on the flip side allow the new generation a first step onto the property ladder.
So are properties being kept artificially high so we don't slip into another recession thus showing how successful the Government has been?
B x
Smoking makes ppl lazy and therefore they cannot work? I don't see the pointBut you recognise it's an addiction and claim to be a moral man, yet believe the state should pursue a programme of cruelty against every smoker that needs financial assistance form the state to find work.
Sure:Sure.. outliers they maybe in number of ppl, but not insignificant in terms of impact on a local community. Would love to see what numbers are on that?
Excuse me I work damn hard seven days a week and I smoke does that make me lazySmoking makes ppl lazy and therefore they cannot work? I don't see the point
I smoke and work but I am lazyExcuse me I work damn hard seven days a week and I smoke does that make me lazy
Sarcasm.it was..Laziness can affect anyone but smoking and addiction is not a reason for weekly benefits is what I meantExcuse me I work damn hard seven days a week and I smoke does that make me lazy
Smoking makes ppl lazy and therefore they cannot work? I don't see the point
Hope it was as I work bloody long hours some days it can be 14/16 hoursSarcasm.it was..
Buddy. .. I said that as a sarcasm as to why smoking justifies benefits to LNF's point
Sorry mate but laziness is not a by-product of smoking. I smoked since I was 15 for 20 years of my life.
In my entire working life I have been unemployed for 1 week through redundancy and that's only because I was negotiating my new contract with another firm .
B x
I see your point, even if it did get you in the shitBuddy. .. I said that as a sarcasm as to why smoking justifies benefits to LNF's point