GTCharlie:
.....I am thinking in particular to Europe,and look forward to hearing your views....Morse

Just maybe when Molotov signed that deal with Ribbentrop, that the Soviets were trying to appease Hitler in to attacking the west first,, which he did, that deal lasted almost 2years.Maybe Stalin was hoping to share even more spoils with Hitler,After all Stalin snapped up the Baltic countries. But also lets add this yet another Hitler/Stalin pact, signed  a few months AFTER the west declared war on Germany.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

Übergeek 바둑이: Hitler invaded Poland splitting it with the USSR,The Allies responded by declaring war on Germany. Then with little action by the Allies, Hitler then invaded France by going around the Maginot line and into the lowlands, defeating the French (except for Vichy) driving out the British . THEN came the battle of Britain with Hitler hoping to invade England. when he failed... THEN AFTER ALL THAT... he foolishly invaded the USSR. That sequence doesn't sound like appeasement to me.It seems you have a different view of Western intentions Oh I also forgot the invasion of Norway and Denmark which came before the invasion of France.. Hitler really conquered all of the west except for England before turning to the USSR.. So if they were hoping Hitler would go after the USSR first,,, it didn't work out too well. And don't forget the Soviets attempt to invade Finland before all that

Morse:

Earlier this month we discussed the subject of "appeasement".  You can do a search of the board using the small form above the messages.  In that topic we discussed why appeasement happened and the different interpretations of it.

I think that WW II was unavoidable both in Europe and in Asia.  WW I was a resolution of conflicts that had started going back to the 19th century (and perhaps earlier than that).  Germans wanted to have an empire of their own much like France and England had.  The problem was tht the world had already been "divided" among the superpowers.  For Germany this meant that the only part of the world that they could potentially conquer was Eastern Europe.

In WW I Germany fought against Russia and nearly defeated it until the Czar fell from power and the new Communist government (under Lenin) surrendered and declared peace with Germany.  At the time Germany took control of several areas under the Czar's control.  For example, the Ukraine, Finland, etc.  However, Germany was no able to effectively control those lands and eventually lost them as the German economy sank into a deep recession in the 1920s.

When Hitler came to power he was determined to destroy what he called the "jew bolsheviks".  Hitler went on to incite antisemitism, hatred of the Roma (what we call Gypsies) and hatred of Slavs.  At the same time Stalin despised Hitler's fascism and how Hitler moved in to use the state to solidify the power of German capilatist monopolies.  The conflict between Stalin and Hitler was unavoidable.  They both knew it and signed their non-aggression pact to buy time before going to war.

Western superpowers knew this, and they "appeased" Hitler and gave him control of Poland and Czechoslovakia.  Their hope being that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union and in that way find the "living space" that the Third Reich wanted.  They probably thought that if Hitler was busy destroying the Soviet Union, he would stay away from France and England.  The superpowers hated the Soviet Union too, so appeasement was favorable to them.  This gave Hitler the impetus he needed to attack the Soviet Union and at the same time build his army to attack France and England.

On the Eastern front Japan had invaded China, Korea, Vietnam and other parts of Asia.  The Communist parties in those countries were determined to drive out the Japanese and these communist parties had the support of the Soviet Union.  The Japanese also hated the Soviet Union and were determined to build their empire by invading the Soviet Union from the East.  They also saw the opening of the hostilities between Germany and the Soviet Union as an opportunity to "divide and conquer" the Soviet Union by attacking in two fronts.  The Communist parties in occupied Asian countries declared war on Japan too and that meant that the conflict spread itself over all of eastern Asia.

Western superpowers were willing to tolerate attacks on the Soviet Union because they hated communists.  However, they were not willing to tolerate attacks against themselves.  When Hitler decided to invade France and Japan bombed Pearl Harbour, the conflict became truly a world war, and it was unavoidable because both Germany and Japan were determined to build their empires.

Ferris Bueller: The tag is an ankle bracelet tied to a home base. If you leave your home.. it goes off to alert those who monitor your probation/house arrest conditions.

as such our homeless are not jailed unless they break the law. Some people just find the jail world easier to live in then the outside world... that is disturbing.

Morse: Depends on what theater.. Asian or European?2 separate conflicts although a lot of the same participants...

.....As i am new to this Fellowship i'm not ceratain if the above subject can be debated or on which board it should be posted.I am studying the above subject and would like to debate "Could WW2 have been avoided,and events that changed the course of the war,including mistakes made by polaticians before,during and after the war.Any guidlines you can give me would be appreciated..............................Morse

Ferris Bueller: The tag seems to be an effective system over here. Not perfect but it is better then locking someone up for non-violent crimes. I don't believe for major non-violent (such as a big fraud) that it should be applied but that's what minimals are for, and house arrest.. though not a luxury house.. that's insult to injury.

But at the same time.. some penance beyond locking up needs to be applied in such cases, community service tends to be very popular over here. plus an attempt to prevent by changing attitudes of small time crooks, though although not always successful.. I have seen positive results.

The alternative is that someone gets use to going to jail. It's not a prison.. just another home and 3 meals a day.

Anyway.. did you here about the court ruling over here regarding some guy who got tortured?? The Government is having to appeal against 7 paragraphs of info regarding said act being made public. The judge says it's not a security risk in that your country's intelligence service will stop working with ours.

The BNP. Who only allows indigenous caucasian people to join has to put this policy to a members vote or face prosecution under racial discrimination laws.

.... An the UN has backed a report condemning BOTH Israel and Hama's. Although we know the USA (seeing as a certain power advises the 'other' government) .. They may be held to account in the international war crimes court.
... perhaps in the long run if they both recognise as well as protecting their people they have been bad boys. there might get to be a level playing field from which this decades old mess can be sorted.

(V):  I used to work in group home for juvenile, non-violent offenders.  Often they did learn to be better criminals - "graduating" from the non-violent to the violent.  I think there needs to better options for the non-violent offender than prison time.  Probation, community service, counseling and/or house arrest come to mind.  It would not only save the money of prison time, but hinder the criminal "education" they get in our jails. 

Übergeek 바둑이: Many here want the lower risk to health illegal drugs virtually decriminalised. Drink and cigs cost far more in terms of health risk and drains on resources. Putting someone in prison for minor things not only is an immediate waste of money and resources, but serves no good.

The big dealers.. bang em up. That or as would be more sensible with the likes of Marijuana.. make it a registered tax payable business. The Gov here already has 'farms' for 'research', and as pointed out by the boffins there.. it has many possible uses. Pain via THC, sanity via CBD (excuse if I've got my initials wrong on the second) .. Properly regulated, strains could be grown like those sold legally in California for specific problems.

.... The only problem is the pill makers... I don't think they like the idea of natural drugs replacing their multi-billion pound gravy train.

And if it was more regulated (eg police are very afraid of the consequences of a rogue batch of heroin coming in that is far better then users are use to.. people die) and grown under licence.... it cuts drug running, cuts out (in the case of bad hashish) people smoking so much junk that the big boys have mixed in to make a profit...

...and the dear old chancellor gets a nice bit of money. Plus.. as such the police then can target their time on stopping the hoodies and others who ruin actual quality of life rather than a shareholders bank account.

.. another thing.. community service, why lock up someone for a non-violent crime when they can be working off their debt by helping the community. I heard the good thing about prisons was that they gave criminals a chance to learn how to be better criminals..

... ... .. Oh sorry.. I got that wrong. I thought it was a good thing as the prison service keep making that mistake. One European country has it that non-violent offenders work during the week, go home to their families, pay from their wages compensation and goto jail at the weekend... with the tag system.. why not!!

Übergeek 바둑이:   There are those of us who lobby for the legalization of such drugs in the US, but the "war on drugs" keeps it from happening despite the fact it is practical for many reasons to do so.  Medical marijuana is helpful to dying patients.  It is outrageous to put a dealer of such substances in jail for 10 years due to mandatory sentencing.  Marjuana general use could carry a huge "sin tax", like cigerettes, to pay health care which people are crying about being too expensive.  In other words, its stupid & inpractical not to legalize such dope; therefore, I agree with you strongly on this subject.

(V):
I remember some 12 years ago China was critized on human rights ground because they executed 67 drug dealers.  The attitude of the Chinese government was one of eradication through the highest applicable legal penalty.  It worked to some extent although China still has problems with drugs, like most other countries around the world.  Their tough approach would probably be acceptable to some people who see no other way out other than extermination.

In many countries drug-related offenses cause a huge drain in the economy.  In the US about 80% of the people in the corrections system were incarcerated due to drug-related offenses.  That means that about 4 million people are there due to drugs and the cost of incacerating them is huge.  It hasn't worked because drugs are still a big problem in the streets.  Here in Canada the situation is the same and drugs are everywhere.

The Netherlands legalized some of the "softer" drugs like marihuana and hashish.  It seems to have worked for them, but politically their approach would not be acceptable to other countries.

I think that it is a losing battle.  The only way it will end is when poverty is eliminated both at the source of the drugs where poor farmers plant drug crops to survive, and at the destination where demand is fuelled by poverty.  This has to be accompanied with legalization of some drugs, and stronger penalties for trafficking others.  Marihuana, hashish, and LSD are not as destructive as cocaine and the amphetamines.  I think that penalties for possession have to change depending on the drug.  We see some of this here in Canada where possession of small amounts of marihuana has become tolerated by the law.  It might not solve the marihuana problem, but it has certainly kept a lot of people out of jail and out of descending into a life of crime.

Übergeek 바둑이: Our serious crime squad have as such admitted they cannot eradicate drugs off the street. Their attitude now is that in some cases, if a 'drug dealer' is known by them and causing no other problems (depending on the drugs and level of course) not to bust them. If.. it is impacting on neighbours etc, through related crime.. then they take the attitude of either telling them to clean up their act and the impact of what they are doing or get busted.

It's a matter of resources. Spending 10's of thousands of pounds to bust a person who's a low level dealer... or get the serious nasty distributors and those who's abuse impacts others.

Because quite seriously, as much as it would be nice to have a magic wand and be able to end the problem... it ain't that easy. The resources needed to end abuse are as such to costly and would kill any medical system, and as such... (as Jeremy Kyle would say) they can't do anything until the person abusing themselves wants to stop and face what's in their mind causing the addiction.

The Jeremy Kyle show had one person who hadn't gotten to the point that they'd complete the rehab course they were on.. at £5k+ a time, that is a lot of cash and resources to end drug/alcohol abuse throughout the system.

As a matter of point.. I was cruising the news/docu channels last night and came had a look at fox.. O'Reilly was moaning at a woman for her views on Afghanistan and missed her point. Although as needed we are stopping terrorist camps and attacks/training in the area, Taliban control (even though rocky) ... one task.. women being treated as equals, it's not a thing that eradicating the Taliban will solve. The men (as documented on Panorama) are still very Victorian in their attitudes. Even the CEO does not express 'equal rights'. This attitude is not going to disappear over night, and may take a generation or two to sufficiently say "job done".

Men still treat women as an object pretty much and the justice level for women is practically non-existent.

You can't change a whole country over night.

(V):

The use of performance enhancing substances in the military goes back a long time through history.

The Greeks talked of theis soldiers and athletes using small amounts of strychnine mixed with egg whites as a way to increase their strength.  Strychnine acts as a stimulant and increases the strength of muscular contractions.  That practice continued until the early 20th century when amphetamines were discovered by German chemists.

During WW II all sides of the war used amphetamines.  Reputedly British troops consumed 72 millions tablets during the war.  Both the RAF and the US Air Force gave amphetamines to their pilots during long missions.  German troops used amphetamines and testosterone to increase strength and aggression.  Amphetamine use has been blamed for many "friendly fire incidents" into our modern era.

Cocaine abuse has been a terrible thing too.  Cocaines has been very common in Africa among those people using child soldiers.  Rebels in Sierra Leone and Angola would give cocaine to children, then make those children use axes to chop off people's arms and legs.  Cocaine abuse has also been broadly implicated in the wars in Congo and the genocide in Rwanda.

Today special forces around the world use amphetamines, cocaine, and other stimulants to increase strength and alertness.  They also use steroids, growth hormone and IGF-1 to increase strength, and EPO to increase endurance.  This has led to some horrific things happening.  There was a case of a Russian soldier who had his legs and genitals amputated during a hazing ritual and drug abuse among the soldiers was  major cause of the tragedy.

I am a chemist and I despise the drug abuse.  I think our governments turn a blind eye to many forms of drug abuse because it is politically convenient and because government officials themselves are making money out of drug trafficking.

Übergeek 바둑이: I doubt it, all it's done imho is made another chain in the process to obtain drugs. They buy whatever (on the card so the gov don't see anything) and then have to barter those goods for their addiction. If someone is that desperate they will find a way.. and if someone is that desperate.. then someone will take advantage of that!!

Then the related problems of shoplifting, theft.. Quite honestly I think it's just passing on the problem to the people and businesses just to say... "we are doing something"

gogul: Strange though that certain illegal substances are used to keep USA pilots awake and alert on missions.

Maybe less missions rather than pump the pilots up with amphetamines to keep them alert beyond endurance, less friendly fire problems to be certain.

gogul

>  To get people to work, to make them indeed "function", all the families comunities etc you need to bust the wall street
>  our standards of agriculture are getting better
>This industrialisation not only went a little too far, it's waaay out of hand.

You make very good points in your last two posts.  Poverty and drugs go together, and so do money and drugs.  In reality the drug business is being fuelled by several factors.

On one side we have big demand fro drugs from the wealthier industrialized nations.  This demands comes from all segments of society from the rich to the poor.  Drugs among the poor are the worst problem because drugs make poverty even worse.  Poor people use drugs to escape from a bad life, and that life gets worse as a result.  It is a problem that feeds on iself.

The other side of the problem is the supply side.  Most of the growing of plants for drugs is done by some of the poorest farmers and peasants in the world.  These people grow coca, poppies and other crops because drug crops make more money than food crops.  A farmer growing corn will starve to death, but a farmer growing coca can at least make just enough to feed his children.

What does all this have to do with Wall Street (or other financial centres in the world)?  Agricultural conglomerates (like Monsanto, DuPont, etc.) make billions of dollars by controlling the supply of seed, fertilizers and pesticides.  These companies make money by overpricing essential supplies that farmers need.  In wealthier industrialized nations farmers might be able to get by, but in developing nations farmers can barely break even between the cost of production and the income they get from cash crops.  At the same time big grain producers in the US, Canada and Europe dump massive amounts of grain at lower prices and that means that small farmers in developing nations can't compete.  So poor farmers get a double pronged attack on their livelihoods.  Expensive supplies and external competition means that their cash crops are worthless, so they turn to growing drug crops out of desperation.

The end result has been that at no time in history have there been so many human beings suffering from hunger.  In 2006 there were 850 million people who did not have enough food to eat.  With the massive rise in oil in 2007 and 2008 the cost of grain increased between 80% and 300% in developing nations.  As a result now nearly 2 billion human beings do not have enough to eat.  That is about 30% of the population of our planet.  Ironically, advances in agricultural technology also mean that never in history has humanity produced so much food.  We have enough food to feed everyone, but we insist in pursuing agriculture for profit and that is leaving 30% of our planet without enough to eat.

The same can be said for industrialization.  We live in the most productive time in history.  Never in history has humanity produced so many consumer goods, yet 1/3 of humanity lives in poverty and misery.  The reason is simple.  Poverty means cheap labour, and cheap labour means mass production at a low cost.  Who makes the profit?  Wall Street (and other) billionaires.

Bernice:

>  vouchers for FOOD

Here in Canada the government tried vouchers for food, but drug addicts desperate for cash were selling them cheaply.  The government has tried a system that seems to work better.  They use a pre-loaded debit card (similar to a credit card).  They can use to buy things, but they can never extract cash from it, and the card is non-transferable.  That has stopped some of the cheating and wasting of state funds.  It is not perfect, but it seems the best solution so far.

Bernice: Its the authorities responsability. Who pays decides.

Any opinions on drug consume at the wall street? I know the ways drugs take and what they do to humans.

Bernice: same should be for child support recipients.

Übergeek 바둑이: ****I think that drug testing should be mandatory in cases where a social worker suspects that somebody is using social assistance money to buy alcohol, cigarrettes or drugs***

One way around this is to implement vouchers for FOOD (with the stipulation not to include alcohol or smokes), Schoolbooks, etc...This would stop Mum and Dad sitting home all day watching tele, smoking, drinking etc while the kids are at school....Under NO circumstances give the dole bludgers money...vouchers only...perhaps this would also help in curbing drug abuse.

Übergeek 바둑이: Well look, there has never been more hungry people as these days. Politicians everywhere try them self in patchworking the systems and obviously fail. So, basicly, we'll have a majority of people without work, because our standards of agriculture are getting better, because machines make most of the stuff, and we profitate from migrants willing to work a lot of hours in jobs nobody wants to do. For two decades we were willing to hope that some sort of share holder value would fix all our problems, the very same value that killed all the jobs. Certain people are despered enough to want to push people into jobs which frankly do not exist. In order to create jobs you have to think small-scale, very small scale. This industrialisation not only went a little too far, it's waaay out of hand.

Übergeek 바둑이: If you'd make this your political program and propagate it as something priority to handle social problems, then you fail to see that social problems come with missing perspective. To get people to work, to make them indeed "function", all the families comunities etc you need to bust the wall street, that is priority road. You need to get the banks back in the role they are BEST thought for, not a elitary club of avoiders of folk fete. Go figure where abuse is coming from. Most in poverty are trapped in awful difficult lifesituations, and they can figure abuse, coins against BILLIONS.

Czuch:

>  if you are taking from the state, then the state has the right to test you for drug use and other "intrusions"

I entirely agree with you on this.  People who use drugs and receive social assistance often leave their kids starving on account of their addiction.  I think that drug testing should be mandatory in cases where a social worker suspects that somebody is using social assistance money to buy alcohol, cigarrettes or drugs.  I think that there should also be a mandatory ban of social assistance recepients from casinos and other forms of gambling.  I think casinos should be required by law to turn away people receiving social assistance.  In practice it might be difficult to implement such a law, but the problem is that people addicted to gambling will go and bet away their kids' welfare.

The issue of addiction and social assistance is complex.  I think that if the state imposes mandatory testing, then there should also be readily available addiction recovery programs.  If somebody who wants social assistance tests positive for drugs or gambling, then a mandatory drug or gambling recovery program should be a condition for recieving social assistance as well as strict monitoring of the person's expenses.

The whole objective of social assistance programs is to ensure that the children of low income families receive all the basic needs so as to avoid unnnecessary hardship on low income children.  If that is the case, then drug testing and mandatory recovery programs should be part of the social programs aimed at helping low income families.  People might argue that it is "intrusive" or "inconstitutional", but the welfare of children should take precendence.

Some of the arguments against these programs are also done on a "cost" basis.  People will argue that it is expensive to treat addicts.  However, it would seem to me that in the long run it would cost less to provide treatment rather than see all that tax money wasted away on drugs, plus the economic cost of dysfunctional families unable to work or contribute to society.

Übergeek 바둑이: Its simple really.... people dont mind helping the disadvantaged, but they dont want to be duped by them either.

One problem with the whole issue is that most liberals (USA) think it is some kind of civil rights violation to put safe guards in place to avoid corruption. You cant drug test etc blah blah blah.... well to me, if you are taking from the state, then the state has the right to test you for drug use and other "intrusions" that those of us who do not need or choose to use public assistance are afforded.

You have a job and a family, and cant afford an educational tool like a computer for your child, then sure, give them a voucher.... but no drug abuse, make sure the computer can only be used by them and not sold etc....

I think the main point here is, that you may lose some "privacy rights" that most people enjoy, if you take my money to pay for your life, is that too much to ask, really?

"....Labour backbencher Alan Simpson is pledging to go to court rather than return £500 which he has been accused of over-claiming in cleaning bills......"

I guess this guy ain't going to get re-elected.

Snoopy: I don't think so, I think 'kissing baby' politics is just too much of the job. I heard a story about the USSR, the boffins were asked to come up with an efficient economic system.... they did. Yet those in power would have lost power.

Übergeek 바둑이 says money can bring out the worst in people.. true, but power can also.

plus the small matter of "we have a new idea"... "it's election time, who do we want to fund us?" ... zzzzzzzzzzzzz

As to your layabouts.. ok .. but that is them, not everyone on benefits is a layabout and it would be wrong to paint all with the same brush. Same as I hear some say "All terrorists are Muslims", "Everyone in the Anglican faith believes exactly the same"....

.. it just ain't true.

Snoopy:

In reponse to this:

>  why should any decent hard working person have to pay for someone else child to
>  have the same has theyve had to work hard for.

We can make the same argument for a lot of things.  Why pay for somebody else's healthcare?  Why should my money pay for somebody else's education?  Why should my tax dollars be used to buy food for the poor?  They can get jobs and pay for everything themselves.

The thinking probably is that in our modern world a child without a computer is at a disadvantage because computers are supposed to be educational tools.  The logic behind this might be to give low income families an opportunity to get something that they could not afford otherwise.  In that way their children would not be at a disadvantage at school.

Let's say that instead of computers they had said:  "We will give people vouchers to buy books if they find jobs".  Would the reaction be the same?  Probably those who object to it would not object as much, and those who would receive the voucher would not have been so happy about it.

We know that computers are more than educational tools.  They are also toys, and weapons.  They can be abused, like everything else.

Will there be abuse under a program like this?  For sure, in the same way that there is abuse in anything to do with giving people money.

There are people here who get a divorce so a woman can claim income support for a single parent.  Then later the government finds out that the ex-husband has become the woman's "roomate"!

Money always brings out the worst in people.

(V): just has the labour government did nothing to fix the problems she created
which brings everything nicely back to AD's post which was
Frankly, it sounds like both our governments are a bunch nitwits when it comes to financial matters.

okay had my say now back to what im really here for to play games


PS I don't know where you see this happening very rarely, and 2) how do you know they didn't buy this stuff before losing a job? 3) how do you know if they are single?
thats easy to answer known most of them since birth known there parents before them etc etc
dont have to be brain of Britain to know they just a bunch of layabouts who abuse the system year in year out

Snoopy: *sigh* it's a matter of economics, something I studied at school.... the economic system her government used is in economics known as a 'boom and bust' system. It makes things look good and great for a while until the bubble bursts. Granted Labour had made some rubbish decisions, but her government did not fix the problems, just used a fresh coat of paint to cover up the cracks and holes.

Basically the same as has happened now with the current recession worldwide.

And realistically the unions had a lot to do with Labour's mess, as I said she sorted that out thankfully re the coal strikes. But as such uncontrolled lending (as did happen in her time) went BANG.

(V): here we go again blame it all on Maggie despite the fact that the labour government before her had the country on its knees

Snoopy: I don't know where you see this happening very rarely, and 2) how do you know they didn't buy this stuff before losing a job? 3) how do you know if they are single?

Do you stand outside the job centre asking them to do a survey?

I'll give one example of one guy I use to know... his cars never cost him more then £50 and were paid for by selling the old ones for scrap. But he wasn't single, he'd lost his business thanks to Maggie's boom and bust economic policy.. married and had 3 children. He had good clothes for going out, and old clothes for when he was doing bits around the home. despite being a high paid executive, last I saw he was working for Mcdonalds after not being able to find work at the time Maggie's economic policy went BUST.

But that is an old example.. if you want to find out more I suggest you do that survey.

And yes.. there are some who abuse the system.. but it's wrong to paint those who do not with the same brush.

(V): but thats was the whole idea of the dole system surely was to tie ppl over until they found another job
it was never meant to gave ppl luxury items like it does now

if the money is so low for single ppl how come you never or very rarely see these ppl without the latest designer gear pulling up to the signing on offices in there cars
all with there mobile phones

heres a case in point few years ago i had to go my local social security office to sort things out after my mother died
and a girl in there was bragging that she come in for a crisis loan and she said they couldnt refuse her has she had children despite the fact that on every finger where gold rings and she actually reported the guy behind the desk
when he quite natually pointed out why didnt she sell some of her gold if she was that hard up

its not actually the system i object to
its the abuse of the system thats carried out on such a massive scale
there will always be ppl in genuine need

Snoopy: 1) these days they are hard regarding getting work. 2) people have to prove they are looking for work or their money is cut.

3) how can you cut people money for going on a course to help them find work?

... and FOUR)... the money that someone gets on the "dole" is low... you even mentioned that point earlier "....where the take home pay is coppers more than what benifits pay out.."

so please explain how it's "...the life of Riley.." ... Years ago when a firm I worked for went bust the money on the dole was so rubbish that I got temp jobs till I could find the job I wanted as the money was so crap. I don't see how you can say it's a great life. It's not like they are Paris Hilton or the likes living on millions is it. Back when I did temp jobs, the difference (pre minimum wage) between working 60+ hours a week on less then £2.5 per hour to the dole was over £120.

The rates for a single person(I've just checked) is £64.30 per week.. out of that, a person is expected to buy food, pay bills, clothe themselves, pay any rent top up, etc, etc. The minimum wage for the same person guarantees for a 40 hour week an income after tax of about £150 (rough estimate).... so how is being on the dole easy living? After just paying out for food elec/gas that's say.. £30+ gone, especially in winter. Rent top up can be (depending on the council) £5-10. Normal expenses.. soap, toothpaste, washing clothes... that's another fiver gone .. easily. Clothes wear out, shoes wear out, etc..

So how is it the life of Riley?
How is this easy living?

(V): yeah ive heard about these so called schemes
they attend for allotted time
fill in a few forms do a CV knowning full well that at the end of the day they not going to find work and so its back to the life of Riley on the dole

if there money was cut everytime they attended one of these so called schemes they just might get the message
GET OF YOUR LAZY BUTT AND FIND WORK

Snoopy: That remark is an ignorant $ grotesque over generalization of the poor.

Snoopy: It is almost impossible for someone to live their entire working lives on the dole unless their is no work. Disabled people.. that's a different matter. But the schemes in place for someone on the dole to assure they are not doing nothing to get a job are such that it is very hard for someone to cheat the system. They have to prove these days that they are looking for work and take part in schemes to improve their chances of getting a job.

Why do you think Working Families Tax credit was introduced!!

(V): thats my point its good to give to those ppl who are in the low paid jobs
ive nothing against that one lil bit
but im talking about giving to those who live there whole working lives on the dole

and how are ppl on these benifits able to afford internet access anyway ?

Snoopy: You missed my point. THOSE ON LOW INCOMES cannot afford to buy computers, to blame it all on being jobless is inaccurate and a complete misrepresentation of the matter.

If John Smith who is doing the bins in the morning has only a small amount of spare income after paying all his families bills, his wife cannot work (or in another case it's a one parent family)... where are they supposed to find the money?

And quite frankly, in a case of 'vouchers' I'd have it that they have to pay it back weekly/monthly, etc.

(V) your missing my point again

they would be able to buy there children computers and whatever else if they went out and found work

and dont tell me there isnt the jobs available cause there is if they look hard enough
they prefer to drink there beers take there drugs and get everything handed to them on a plate
and why should any decent hard working person have to pay for someone else child to have the same has theyve had to work hard for

Snoopy: My only real likeable thing Maggie did, was to lower the power of the unions to a reasonable level. The inquiry is not about charges, but how the mess happened.

From what I gather.. Tony Blair did not want the USA to go it alone into the Iraq war.. and I gotta hand it to him.. He was a major part of the Northern Ireland troubles stopping and the disarming of the various militia's on either side of that stupid conflict.

(V): well Maggie will always be a hero in my eyes

and i loved hearing the mother of one of the many killed in the Iraq war ask whether Tony Blair is to be charged with war crimes

Tony Blair was nothing more than George Bush puppet

Snoopy: I know it sounds stupid, and the possibility of fraud is a concern of those who have interest in kids having computer access (teachers associations and the like) .. but kids these days do need access to the net for their homework. It's not about whether you've got a job or not, as those on low incomes have problems affording a computer.

They calculated on a basis of those that have a PC or not that about 1 billion pounds is the cost to families in this country per year in not having access (about £500 per household) through not being able to surf for better deals on the likes of insurance, etc.

e-skills UK, the employer-led Sector Skills Council for IT and Telecoms.. recon that investment in IT skills and tech, etc.. including school kids being computer literate could generate an extra £35 billion pounds for the UK economy over the next decade.

If not vouchers, then some scheme must be set up so kids have access after school close to home to the net in order to be able to do their homework to the standards expected today. As I assure you... the homework ain't like we use to get!!

Snoopy: I was referring to the expenses scandal, and that does go back to Maggie's gov, as it was then the rules were changed to make it easier for the MP's to con the system.

As to this recession.. yes, there is some blame as to this crises. The guzumping (sp) that went on back then pushed house prices through the roof, the attitude that destroyed much of our community spirit came from her era.
.... As to the spending... As much as it has cost us, the likes of banks who have screwed up ..eg RBS and them going under would have cost more in the long run, I know it was the RBS's bosses fault on buying a bank without a detailed accounts to be able to see if they were worth it, but it was all those reliant on that bank for their retirement funds that would have suffered.

.. As to the two wars... Yes I agree on Iraq, that's why I'm glad there is in progress a full inquiry, but as to Afghanistan... Although the Taliban were as much our creation (as in the west re Russia's occupation) the possible deaths that could occur from that country training terrorist cells, the related killings of their own people and the poppy farms that give rise to so much heroin production ... My main 'rag' is that the troops sent to Iraq could have gone to Afghanistan and that war could have been almost over by now.

Maggie may have sorted out some matters... but she created so many new ones, she only got elected the second time due to the Falklands war victory. In many respects, she's one of the most hated PM's of the 20th century.

Snoopy: ah but Snoopy...it is a well known fact that most unemployed bludgers DON'T want to work,...why should they, they are given everything...enough money for smokes, grog, internet, and a bit left over for food...why work. As long as the kids are in school they can drink themselves to death, take drugs and generally not want to improve their lives at all. Take their council flats/homes off them and MAKE them work...things would fast change

Bernice: to let every child in the country internet access by giving parents vouchers to buy computers

ive never heard anything more stupid its so open to abuse its a joke
they just get the vouchers buy the computer and sell it the same day

not to mention the fact that if they got off there lazy asses and when and got a job
they be able to buy there children these things

Snoopy: OOOOOOOOOH I cant wait for the reaction to that post LOL