Underpants Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Ok then, it's smashing. I was being general seeing as the title was tv sport. Apologies for you being so fucking literal! Only smashing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Only smashing? Well, no it's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underpants Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Well, no it's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. This could go on all night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter MickyD Posted November 13, 2009 Site Supporter Share Posted November 13, 2009 As for "if the peasants cant see some sport (The Ashes), tis their problem " comment then that is snobbery verging almost on a full blown application for the Upper Class Twit of The Year Award. Good bite there L my old chum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted November 13, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted November 13, 2009 ask him how much he pays for his sub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underpants Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 ask him how much he pays for his sub Direct debt since May Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted November 14, 2009 Site Supporter Share Posted November 14, 2009 Saying that the national teams should be free to air is no different to saying tickets to the games should be free as well. Perhaps the peasantry should give up the Big Macs if they want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M G WHITES Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 seeing as theyre looking at which sports should only be on free to air is it reet that cricket - for example - are told they can't sell to the highest bidder is it fair sky are deemed good enough to show england v bangladesh from a cold durham in april, but not the showpiece ashes stuff from lords clearly sky get subscribers through folk wanting to watch the top games so why the fcuk would they bother piling significant sums in for the shite my view, if the peasants cant see some sport, tis their problem Fair enough as you said its your view but imo its wrong,what if some young mum who has kids and cant afford Sky, it wrong that they should miss out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Horwich Posted November 14, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2009 They can watch the fooking highlights. They are more likely gonna be out robbing old people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Fair enough as you said its your view but imo its wrong,what if some young mum who has kids and cant afford Sky, it wrong that they should miss out. And what about some young woman who realises it'd be silly to have kids if she can't afford to give them a good life but still can't afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M G WHITES Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 And what about some young woman who realises it'd be silly to have kids if she can't afford to give them a good life but still can't afford it. Just think about it i was not on about such girls,maybe the father of the kids has died Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biff Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Well those that "can't afford it"should try clothing their kids at Matalan instead of JD Sports. It's all a matter of priorities; if you want to watch sport then you'll afford it. Maybe a lot of them do buy clothes at Matalan. You are falling for the stereotypes pushed out by the red tops. In my early years, I worked for DHSS in Bolton. My area covered Tonge Moor including the delights of Denvale Avenue and De Lacy Drive. I used to complain about all the scroungers but when I stopped to think about it such people were very much in the minority. The vast majority were genuine claimants and they wouldn't have been able to afford extras such as Sky TV. Again there are people in work who won't be able to afford Sky TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Horwich Posted November 14, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2009 Maybe she got fcuked behind Ritzy and doesnt know who the father is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little whitt Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Just think about it i was not on about such girls,maybe the father of the kids has diedhow did he die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 So let us get this straight. Some people would rather pay to watch the cricket than not pay to watch the cricket. I think cricket has been ruined by marketing people trying to sex it up over the last 10 years and wouldn't watch most of it, if it was free. The county game in particular is a pale shadow of what it was in the days of Garner,Richards and Botham at Somerset.Not worth watching for nowt these days in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Just think about it i was not on about such girls,maybe the father of the kids has died Was he insured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter MickyD Posted November 14, 2009 Site Supporter Share Posted November 14, 2009 George, a question: What, exactly, is a 'genuine claimant'? The reason I ask is that I think a claimant who is CAPABLE of working is never, ever genuine. The problems stem from the fact that it is financially better for some claimants to stay on benefits rather than get a job which, I understand, may not pay as much as staying home. The system which allows this irregularity is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I view a genuine claimant as one that is applying for jobs and can prove they are applying for jobs but can't get one. In this recession there are more people wanting jobs than jobs in my view.About 8,000 unemployed in Bolton I hear,but there won't be that many vacancies.Even if the unemployed solicitor made redundant because the conveyancing dept closed down was prepared to take a job stacking shelves at Morrisons there wouldn't be enough jobs to employ all the other genuine claimants.The unemployed cannot work if there are not the available jobs to employ them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_spencer Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 IMO if you have no job and are on long term benefits i'd have you 'working' for their benefit, picking litter/cleaning up grafitti/helping out at council run youth projects. no work no benefits obviously i exclude the severely disabled from this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biff Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Frank the work you have suggested is typical of that done by people wo have been sentenced to Community Service Orders. A person on long time benefits has not committed any crime and deserve to retain their dignity even if on benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Frank the work you have suggested is typical of that done by people wo have been sentenced to Community Service Orders. A person on long time benefits has not committed any crime and deserve to retain their dignity even if on benefit. I take your point Biff, but unfortunately, I'm sure there's quite a few who are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_spencer Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Frank the work you have suggested is typical of that done by people wo have been sentenced to Community Service Orders. A person on long time benefits has not committed any crime and deserve to retain their dignity even if on benefit. so they should get money for nothing? If you can't/won't find A job in 12 months why should the state fund you? It doesn't have to be physical labour as done under community service perhaps an accountant can help out with a local charity in order to sort out their books. Perhaps the job won't be one you want long term but getting paid working in Tesco's has got to do more for someone s 'dignity' than sitting at home awaiting the next government hand out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 so they should get money for nothing? If you can't/won't find A job in 12 months why should the state fund you? It doesn't have to be physical labour as done under community service perhaps an accountant can help out with a local charity in order to sort out their books. Perhaps the job won't be one you want long term but getting paid working in Tesco's has got to do more for someone s 'dignity' than sitting at home awaiting the next government hand out. And, of course, if people know that benefits are not forever, or a right, they might be inclined to use their latent flair, by setting up their own business and head towards self sufficiency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_spencer Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 And, of course, if people know that benefits are not forever, or a right, they might be inclined to use their latent flair, by setting up their own business and head towards self sufficiency i a bizzare loop if the government didn't have to spend so much on the benefit system there would be more money to spend on the NHS and Local Government creating jobs at all levels for people to fill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DutchWhites Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 so they should get money for nothing? If you can't/won't find A job in 12 months why should the state fund you? It doesn't have to be physical labour as done under community service perhaps an accountant can help out with a local charity in order to sort out their books. Perhaps the job won't be one you want long term but getting paid working in Tesco's has got to do more for someone s 'dignity' than sitting at home awaiting the next government hand out. Thats exactly what happens in Holland - 12 months of state help and then you are by yourself! The only exception is where children are involved, then they will give vouchers for food and help to house but thats it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts