Room 101 - What irritates you?

Most of the clients are guilty. Many of the judges have very old fashioned ideas about provocative dressing and actions, and this doesn't help. Girls have all their dirty laundry aired in public and this puts them off. If a few innocent people go to jail and more guilty ones are caught then it is sad, but better than having rapists on the loose.

long threads

Yes. i do. They take tax apyers money. They get their benefis then streight down the bookies/ pub. I've seen it with my own eyes.
if we got rid of all benefits apart from disabilty and pensions it would be better.

.

How do you know most are guilty? And that the judges have those ideas, even in 2005? I agree about the crimes perhaps not being reported enough, but what your saying aboutl trials, i'm not convinced

Is that a way of saying that your fit, but not admitting that you enjoy it? only joking my dearest...
I have a friend who loves that when it happens in london, maybe shes just honest

Oh so they arent allowed down the bookies? Or the pub? Thats giving money to enterprise,isnt it?You discount people who genuinley cant get a job, have mental/physical illness, etc...just cos they go down the bookies or the pub doesnt mean you know anything about their circumstances. The royal family take a fat load of taxpayers money to lead the life of riley, and thats considerably more offensive. Anyway loads of people working on crap wages can make more on benefits than they can working-so some arent saints and play the system, so what? What would you do given no options?

lol....your good.

I think an aoption would be the privitisation of the dole. This would be welcome, unlike say the privitisation of BR which no-one wanted. The people would the have to work or they would get the benefits stopped. in theory, e have this, but there are so many loop holes it's not happening.
i once spoke to a seniro conservative shaddow minister who agreed that something had to be done, beacuse welfare to work was turning out to be a white elephant. This is one instance where the private sector might succeed - unlike trains or health. it seems that where a comodity is involved, rather than a service (BR,NHS,etc) then the private sector succeeds. If a publci service has to be delivered, than it often fails. But take the dole and the people on it as commodities then a private company might do wonders. I'm not aware of anyone offering this kind of service in the UK, but I image that Capita or Jarvis could do something.

I dont follow this...whats the point of benefits that support the employed but not the unemployed?? And why is the dole not a public service? Wheres the evidence here that privatising it would be beneficial in the slightest?

What are you missing?
Where did I say benefits for the employed?
It is not a public service as it does nothing for the majorty of people. most people will use the NHS, most people will take a train or a bus. Most people will not use the dole.
What evidience do you want. it is happeing across a large neumber of American States - if it didn't work why would they do it?
What the idea is is this: Government pays company a certain ammount. The company has to pay the dole (at a government appointed rate0 and make a profit. Only way to do that is to get people into work. Theey are forced into work on the threat of termination of payment, and part of their wages goes towards paying back the dole they have had, thus making money for the company. If they do not work, they loose the money and have to fend for themselves.
in theory the state could do it, but the profit incentive of a private company makes more sense.

long threads

What are you missing?
Where did I say benefits for the employed?
It is not a public service as it does nothing for the majorty of people. most people will use the NHS, most people will take a train or a bus. Most people will not use the dole.
What evidience do you want. it is happeing across a large neumber of American States - if it didn't work why would they do it?
What the idea is is this: Government pays company a certain ammount. The company has to pay the dole (at a government appointed rate0 and make a profit. Only way to do that is to get people into work. Theey are forced into work on the threat of termination of payment, and part of their wages goes towards paying back the dole they have had, thus making money for the company. If they do not work, they loose the money and have to fend for themselves.
in theory the state could do it, but the profit incentive of a private company makes more sense.

:

fox hunters are completely oblivious to the problems farmers face if the fox population gets out of control. if they would prefer, they can catch them live and give them a leathal injection for all i care, but that is ridiculously expensive unless the next government are willing to subsidise... doubtful

that makes sense, and if i can find a job, i expect a good proportion of people on benefits could too

To me its an unnessecary complication...the workers would have to pay back significantly MORE than they got on the dole to give the company a decent profit. and how long do they get dole for then, if they lose the money at a certain point?

you misunderstood, i'm anti hunting, not pro

surely this would motivate them to get a proper job.

yeah actually, that deserves an edit, i'm pro hunting...

and if i can work my ass off to get into uni, i don't see why others can't do the same!
!

Yes. i do. They take tax apyers money. They get their benefis then streight down the bookies/ pub. I've seen it with my own eyes.
if we got rid of all benefits apart from disabilty and pensions it would be better.