All this fuss over Child Benefit? Why should folk on over £50k get ANY benefits? Come to that surely only the poorest should get any benefits. We seem to have unlimited benefits in this country, why? Surely we shouldn't just keep paying out for unlimited children?
child Benefit
My answer? Limit child Benefit to the first 3 children. We do need children for society to develop. After all as we get older and retire who do you think works and generates the wealth to keep us in our old age?
Conversely why should people get used to living on handouts? If the Government is paying you to live then just like those who work to live - ALL INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED!
So if you're on a low income you pay less or no tax. The more you get the more you pay in TAX. Seems fair?
What makes me cross is where has the commitment to help married couples? If only one works then he/she should share their Tax allowances since its a JOINT income. One person not working allows someone else to have a job opportunity instead of everyone working putting kids in care.Better to have mum or dad looking after them?
Monday 29 October 2012
Wednesday 24 October 2012
Cataclysm on East Coast
I'm fed up with all this doom and gloom about floods on the East Coast, Lincolnshire.
East Lindsey council now want Caravan sites to be only occupied over the summer 6 months because of the risk of flooding in Winter.
They've just had an exhibition "celebrating"the 60th anniversary of the flood disaster in
1953, (actually it is next year in January) they want to highlight (FRIGHTEN us about) the
increased risk of flooding due to Global warming.
ELDC have also refused planning permission to Southview leisure to open their park for
holiday makers for the full year and are limiting them to 10 months. New applications will
only be 6 months as I said because of the winter risk.
Excuse me but what about the residents? Do they somehow remain immune from flooding over
winter? Or will future planning rules restrict residents to 6months of the year. Where do
we have to go in winter (into Caravans!!). Will new builds (if there ever are any more) be
restricted to Summer only? This is all ridiculous
Actually look at the facts. The Sea defences are vastly improved since 1953.
The Environment agency spend £6m a year on them.
Since 1953 the population (houses) must have increased 10 fold since then - why impose these
restrictions now - surely its already too late. They must PROTECT us.
What do they do in Holland etc. What about London - a surge will affect millions as well but
we're only country bumpkins - not worth the bother here, there's nothing worth protecting?
Actually what about the Theddlethorpe Gas terminal. If that goes under then the country has
a BIG problem - no gas to heat your homes etc
Why don't they go the Whole Hog and buy all us residents out so we can move to higher land. Of course those on benefits won't have to buy another house they can rent one FREE on their benefits - just move them. At £6m a year over 10 years they can buy up 400 of the average house at £150k. Of course many homes are worth less here as prices are lower so more can be bought. The Environment Agency have a 50 year plan anyway so that equals 2000 homes and they could put more money in and get it over with. Then don't bother defending the shoreline. Let the Caravanners come for summer and take a risk.
East Lindsey council now want Caravan sites to be only occupied over the summer 6 months because of the risk of flooding in Winter.
They've just had an exhibition "celebrating"the 60th anniversary of the flood disaster in
1953, (actually it is next year in January) they want to highlight (FRIGHTEN us about) the
increased risk of flooding due to Global warming.
ELDC have also refused planning permission to Southview leisure to open their park for
holiday makers for the full year and are limiting them to 10 months. New applications will
only be 6 months as I said because of the winter risk.
Excuse me but what about the residents? Do they somehow remain immune from flooding over
winter? Or will future planning rules restrict residents to 6months of the year. Where do
we have to go in winter (into Caravans!!). Will new builds (if there ever are any more) be
restricted to Summer only? This is all ridiculous
Actually look at the facts. The Sea defences are vastly improved since 1953.
The Environment agency spend £6m a year on them.
Since 1953 the population (houses) must have increased 10 fold since then - why impose these
restrictions now - surely its already too late. They must PROTECT us.
What do they do in Holland etc. What about London - a surge will affect millions as well but
we're only country bumpkins - not worth the bother here, there's nothing worth protecting?
Actually what about the Theddlethorpe Gas terminal. If that goes under then the country has
a BIG problem - no gas to heat your homes etc
Why don't they go the Whole Hog and buy all us residents out so we can move to higher land. Of course those on benefits won't have to buy another house they can rent one FREE on their benefits - just move them. At £6m a year over 10 years they can buy up 400 of the average house at £150k. Of course many homes are worth less here as prices are lower so more can be bought. The Environment Agency have a 50 year plan anyway so that equals 2000 homes and they could put more money in and get it over with. Then don't bother defending the shoreline. Let the Caravanners come for summer and take a risk.
Tuesday 23 October 2012
China - Learn Mandarin II
I said on Monday 15th Oct be afraid of China.
Here is more evidence I am not alone.
I do not hate the Chinese. Good luck to them I say. Its US that's stupid. The West.
They do not seem to want to conquer the West not like we tried to conquer the world in times gone by.
Zheng He's statue looks across to the city of Nanjing
Here is more evidence I am not alone.
I do not hate the Chinese. Good luck to them I say. Its US that's stupid. The West.
They do not seem to want to conquer the West not like we tried to conquer the world in times gone by.
We governed from afar, exported our ways of doing things, imposed our languages, our education, our religion and much else besides.
Zheng He's statue looks across to the city of Nanjing
The Chinese, in contrast, preferred to stay at home. They believed the Middle Kingdom, the old name for China, literally meaning the centre of the world, was the highest form of civilisation. So why step outside into ever darkening shades of barbarianism?
We are surrendering all that we strove for to the Chinese as the easy way - we have become lazy. We will regret it.
Wednesday 17 October 2012
pensions 4 everyone 2
I said it on 2nd Oct:-
Lets just hope G Osborne and D Cameron sort out the mess over charges and how you "take your pension" with you.
At the end of the day unless its a very good company scheme only the Bankers win - AGAIN
Didn't I say it and now the Daily Mail agrees with me.
The Government MUST regulate these pension schemes and stop the Bankers from getting rich quick on poor people. They are gambling with peoples only hope for the future. They take their whole lives to save any sort of pension, these bankers make that much bonus in 1 year! There must be certainty in pensions and a guarantee that you can take it with you without loss if you move jobs.
Now in a letter to the Daily Telegraph these organisations agree with ME, the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF), the TUC, charity Age UK and the consumers' association Which?.
So you heard it first from Monty.
Lets just hope G Osborne and D Cameron sort out the mess over charges and how you "take your pension" with you.
At the end of the day unless its a very good company scheme only the Bankers win - AGAIN
Didn't I say it and now the Daily Mail agrees with me.
The Government MUST regulate these pension schemes and stop the Bankers from getting rich quick on poor people. They are gambling with peoples only hope for the future. They take their whole lives to save any sort of pension, these bankers make that much bonus in 1 year! There must be certainty in pensions and a guarantee that you can take it with you without loss if you move jobs.
Now in a letter to the Daily Telegraph these organisations agree with ME, the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF), the TUC, charity Age UK and the consumers' association Which?.
So you heard it first from Monty.
Monday 15 October 2012
China? Better Learn Mandarin
Have you noticed where things are made these days? yes 9 out of ten seem to come from China.
You know this worries me to hell.
See, riots in Greece due to their economic woes and they blame Germany for bleeding them dry (actually it was more like a parent spoiling a child). Anyway I'm more worried about China.
The day will come when lest say the ships and planes stop coming from China to supply us with all these nice cheap goodies (iPADS and iPhones, TVs and gadgets). Then what do we do? We've no manufacturing here.Also what do we do when China decide because they've a monopoly (We've no manufacturing here.), they decide now that they don't need our western money, 'cos they've got it all (where do you thing the US and us get our money from at the moment? - loans from China), they either put the prices up and then we're all like Greece or they just stop bothering, and we're all like Namibia (who cares about them?).
SO OK just sit there playing with your Chinese gadgets, on your Chinese made TV on Chinese made furniture etc. etc.
Be really really worried about China.
You know this worries me to hell.
See, riots in Greece due to their economic woes and they blame Germany for bleeding them dry (actually it was more like a parent spoiling a child). Anyway I'm more worried about China.
The day will come when lest say the ships and planes stop coming from China to supply us with all these nice cheap goodies (iPADS and iPhones, TVs and gadgets). Then what do we do? We've no manufacturing here.Also what do we do when China decide because they've a monopoly (We've no manufacturing here.), they decide now that they don't need our western money, 'cos they've got it all (where do you thing the US and us get our money from at the moment? - loans from China), they either put the prices up and then we're all like Greece or they just stop bothering, and we're all like Namibia (who cares about them?).
SO OK just sit there playing with your Chinese gadgets, on your Chinese made TV on Chinese made furniture etc. etc.
Be really really worried about China.
Friday 12 October 2012
Jimmy Savile
Now there really is vile in Jimmy's name. The things that allegedly went on are VILE.
I am not condoning anything allegedly done to Children however we must remember the climate was different 50 years ago. What young man, pop star, DJ would not resist a girl flaunting herself at them. We know what went on and did they ask if they wee under 16? No.
But the rest? No way, it is sick!
There is a responsibility on all society to protect children. However I notice over the years a softening to attitudes to sex with Children. Under 16s are children and must be protected from themselves as much as the predators. Look at the 30 year old teacher going to France with his 15yr old pupil, yes the law will deal with it but was the girl co-earced? Yes she's under 16 so must e protected by law. It is WRONG.
Again however, how much under age sex goes unpunished? HOw many over 16's are prosecued for sex with under 16s? very few I think. The law sees it as pointless. But where do we draw the line? If Jimmy Savile is a criminal then so are the rest. ZERO tolerance I say.
Children by definition do not understand what they are doing and the over 16's must be told (by prosecution) that it is against the LAW. That is why thelaw exists.
Parents must exercise their responsibilities and accept that under age sex is against the law. It is there because it ruins lives.Children are sexualised at a far too young age and we mus stop it.. Letting unfettered access to the internet is responsible as well - parents again must be made responsible and society has to accept the constraints.
IF we cease to protect our vulnerable children where does that leave us?
I am not condoning anything allegedly done to Children however we must remember the climate was different 50 years ago. What young man, pop star, DJ would not resist a girl flaunting herself at them. We know what went on and did they ask if they wee under 16? No.
But the rest? No way, it is sick!
There is a responsibility on all society to protect children. However I notice over the years a softening to attitudes to sex with Children. Under 16s are children and must be protected from themselves as much as the predators. Look at the 30 year old teacher going to France with his 15yr old pupil, yes the law will deal with it but was the girl co-earced? Yes she's under 16 so must e protected by law. It is WRONG.
Again however, how much under age sex goes unpunished? HOw many over 16's are prosecued for sex with under 16s? very few I think. The law sees it as pointless. But where do we draw the line? If Jimmy Savile is a criminal then so are the rest. ZERO tolerance I say.
Children by definition do not understand what they are doing and the over 16's must be told (by prosecution) that it is against the LAW. That is why thelaw exists.
Parents must exercise their responsibilities and accept that under age sex is against the law. It is there because it ruins lives.Children are sexualised at a far too young age and we mus stop it.. Letting unfettered access to the internet is responsible as well - parents again must be made responsible and society has to accept the constraints.
IF we cease to protect our vulnerable children where does that leave us?
Wednesday 10 October 2012
Wind Farms - we pay them £1bn to exist
Think - why do we pay £1billion pounds to companies to build Wind Farms?
Energy prices are set to rise at over twice inflation so people will be forced to cut back to save money.
Wind Power is not the answer. After all where do we get our electricity when there's no Wind!
There are 25million homes in britain. If they gave a subsidy to folks to install Solar panels on their roofs, let s say each generates 2kw, that's 50million kw of power or 50GW.
Equivalent to 50 1gw power stations In the dash for Gas they cost about £10m each and will last 15-25years at most (if the Gas lasts).
I realise Solar doesn't generate at night but when did the Sun Not rise?
Where are the Tidal power stations? Tidal is there all day every day - in/out twice a day.
We're surrounded by sea. Where is the Severn, the Humber and Morecambe bay barriers - free power. No greenhouse emissions.
I don't think they want solar panels on our roofs because its FREE power and the electric companies wouldn't need their subsidies
Energy prices are set to rise at over twice inflation so people will be forced to cut back to save money.
Wind Power is not the answer. After all where do we get our electricity when there's no Wind!
There are 25million homes in britain. If they gave a subsidy to folks to install Solar panels on their roofs, let s say each generates 2kw, that's 50million kw of power or 50GW.
Equivalent to 50 1gw power stations In the dash for Gas they cost about £10m each and will last 15-25years at most (if the Gas lasts).
I realise Solar doesn't generate at night but when did the Sun Not rise?
Where are the Tidal power stations? Tidal is there all day every day - in/out twice a day.
We're surrounded by sea. Where is the Severn, the Humber and Morecambe bay barriers - free power. No greenhouse emissions.
I don't think they want solar panels on our roofs because its FREE power and the electric companies wouldn't need their subsidies
Tuesday 9 October 2012
Hamza out! his brood live on state still
Yes at long last we've got rid of Abu Hamza! but I wondered how long it would be before it was realised that we're still supporting his brood at the States expense.
Justice has at last prevailed and the man who claims to detest this country protested fo 8 years that it was unfair to make him leave. All the while his family lived at our expense in a "luxury" home.
I support the Government in its effort to end the "something for nothing culture" - but where these folk are British through and through it does seem crassly unfair that we bend over backwards to support blatant foreign criminals who have come here for shelter and handouts and abuse our hospitality.
If refugees are convicted of a criminal offence in this country boot them out immediately, and make their families follow them.
I would still rather fund jobless young people born and bred here than criminals. WE need to give them jobs. What about making benefits conditional on doing some community/voluntary work?
It seems crazy that if you're unemployed and "seeking work" you are NOT allowed to help out in you "free" time doing charity work for NOTHING, because you're not "available for work"! Of course you'd stop immediately and attend an interview and get a job.
Justice has at last prevailed and the man who claims to detest this country protested fo 8 years that it was unfair to make him leave. All the while his family lived at our expense in a "luxury" home.
I support the Government in its effort to end the "something for nothing culture" - but where these folk are British through and through it does seem crassly unfair that we bend over backwards to support blatant foreign criminals who have come here for shelter and handouts and abuse our hospitality.
If refugees are convicted of a criminal offence in this country boot them out immediately, and make their families follow them.
I would still rather fund jobless young people born and bred here than criminals. WE need to give them jobs. What about making benefits conditional on doing some community/voluntary work?
It seems crazy that if you're unemployed and "seeking work" you are NOT allowed to help out in you "free" time doing charity work for NOTHING, because you're not "available for work"! Of course you'd stop immediately and attend an interview and get a job.
Sunday 7 October 2012
Tax on Children? - outrageous - is this China?
So now our wonderful Government is to put a Tax on children?
Well if you earn over £50k they want the Child Benefit back. Well relatively speaking if you earn over £50k the benefit is not important in your thinking if you want children or not. However looking at the other end. The hoy polloy, riff raff, plebs breed unfettered. Why should they care kids=money. The more you have more you benefits, get a house the state pays - whoopee.
WHat does this get us - a dystopian future where society is dominated by an underclass of no-hopers, breeding like rabbits supported by the elite who are diminishing rapidly because they refrain from procreating as it cramps their style and costs them loads of money. Yet these are the ruling classes who set the rules. They seem to have a death wish?.
Really they should be setting the rules opposite. Stopping the plebs from breeding, thus saving billions in benefits and reducing the under class of inbreds thus strengthening the ruling elite. They can have their 2.4 children send them to good schools and thus keep the status quo surviving. Really we want more of them or what future do we have?
I know its true "inbreds" because I've seen it. Jane has a child by Jim, (Chloe) (teenagers not married), Jane and Jim get a house (council/association). Jane and Jim fall out. Jim has a new girlfriend. Jane now on her own with kid. Jane gets a boyfriend, John, gets pregnant. John moves in. Now Jane has another baby, Britney.
Jim shacks up with Sarah, Sarah has a baby, Wayne, Sarah and Jim fall out. Jim goes off with Chantelle.
Sarah meets Craig, has a baby Vicky.
Are you following - no, not surprised.
12 years or so later after several scenarios above. Wayne meets Britney and makes her pregnant. They are half brother sister!
Craig meets Chloe (now she's 16) makes her pregnant, oh forgot to say Jane was also seeing Craig whilst married to Jim. She wasn't sure who's Chloe's father but thinks it was Craig (she was stoned at the time and had sex with another man that night). On the birth certificate Jim is the father
So it goes on. If Jim was Chloe's father its incest!
It is more complicated in real life this is the simple version.
Well if you earn over £50k they want the Child Benefit back. Well relatively speaking if you earn over £50k the benefit is not important in your thinking if you want children or not. However looking at the other end. The hoy polloy, riff raff, plebs breed unfettered. Why should they care kids=money. The more you have more you benefits, get a house the state pays - whoopee.
WHat does this get us - a dystopian future where society is dominated by an underclass of no-hopers, breeding like rabbits supported by the elite who are diminishing rapidly because they refrain from procreating as it cramps their style and costs them loads of money. Yet these are the ruling classes who set the rules. They seem to have a death wish?.
Really they should be setting the rules opposite. Stopping the plebs from breeding, thus saving billions in benefits and reducing the under class of inbreds thus strengthening the ruling elite. They can have their 2.4 children send them to good schools and thus keep the status quo surviving. Really we want more of them or what future do we have?
I know its true "inbreds" because I've seen it. Jane has a child by Jim, (Chloe) (teenagers not married), Jane and Jim get a house (council/association). Jane and Jim fall out. Jim has a new girlfriend. Jane now on her own with kid. Jane gets a boyfriend, John, gets pregnant. John moves in. Now Jane has another baby, Britney.
Jim shacks up with Sarah, Sarah has a baby, Wayne, Sarah and Jim fall out. Jim goes off with Chantelle.
Sarah meets Craig, has a baby Vicky.
Are you following - no, not surprised.
12 years or so later after several scenarios above. Wayne meets Britney and makes her pregnant. They are half brother sister!
Craig meets Chloe (now she's 16) makes her pregnant, oh forgot to say Jane was also seeing Craig whilst married to Jim. She wasn't sure who's Chloe's father but thinks it was Craig (she was stoned at the time and had sex with another man that night). On the birth certificate Jim is the father
So it goes on. If Jim was Chloe's father its incest!
It is more complicated in real life this is the simple version.
Thursday 4 October 2012
Find April Jones!
If the Police have the Main Suspect why won't he tell them where she is?
They could
They could
- offer to set him free, tell everyone when and where (lynch mob gathers)
- give him truth serum and get him to tell them. He's going to jail for a long time anyway.
Why not - bugger his human rights finding April is more important. Mark Bridger can rot in hell. How could he do it to a little girl.Why won't he tell them?
I really don't understand. In this case a judge should ORDER him to tell or have truth serum.
After all her life is at stake if its not too late.
Tuesday 2 October 2012
Pensions for Every one
Now everyone is to be IN
Don't fight it - its the safest bet for everyone. Those paying in create pots for investment in the economy and those retiring are safe there's enough money for them.
Lets just hope GO and DC sort out the mess over charges and how you "take your pension" with you.
At the end of the day unless its a very good company scheme only the Bankers win - AGAIN
Didn't I say it and now the Daily Mail agrees with me.
The Government MUST regulate these pension schemes and stop the Bankers from getting rich quick on poor people. They are gambling with peoples only hope for the future. They take their whole lives to save any sort of pension, these bankers make that much bonus in 1 year! There must be certainty in pensions and a guarantee that you can take it with you without loss if you move jobs.
Don't fight it - its the safest bet for everyone. Those paying in create pots for investment in the economy and those retiring are safe there's enough money for them.
Lets just hope GO and DC sort out the mess over charges and how you "take your pension" with you.
At the end of the day unless its a very good company scheme only the Bankers win - AGAIN
Didn't I say it and now the Daily Mail agrees with me.
The Government MUST regulate these pension schemes and stop the Bankers from getting rich quick on poor people. They are gambling with peoples only hope for the future. They take their whole lives to save any sort of pension, these bankers make that much bonus in 1 year! There must be certainty in pensions and a guarantee that you can take it with you without loss if you move jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)