Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Political Correctness gone mad. Again.

janner said:
WW
You saying that the Avator isn't a true likeness.

You have to look at the positive side of your relationship, you were privileged to know a Submariner and from the goodness of his heart He allowed you the use of his body.

Just one question, if you don't like him, how come you are looking after his child?

:roll: :roll: :roll:


Jan - I don't think that shite needed to said . It wasn't funny either .

Don't think you know much about kids or parenthood .
 
Greenie said:
janner said:
WW
You saying that the Avator isn't a true likeness.

You have to look at the positive side of your relationship, you were privileged to know a Submariner and from the goodness of his heart He allowed you the use of his body.

Just one question, if you don't like him, how come you are looking after his child?

:roll: :roll: :roll:


Jan - I don't think that shite needed to said . It wasn't funny either .

Don't think you know much about kids or parenthood .

I've brought up my own family and taught them the meaning of responsibilty as well as rights. I pay and have paid all of my working life, taxes, lately I see more and more of them being thrown at single parent families with no real effort being made to bring absent Fathers or in some cases Mothers to book and make them pay towards their childrens keep. Like you I don't know WW circumstances, but She tells us that the Father isn't paying for the childs upkeep, if this is true why isn't He? Not exactly hard to find if He is still serving. Maybe I'm wrong Greenie and you are quite happy to go on paying for other peoples irresponsibilty, I can't do much about the way my taxes are spent, it doesn't mean I have to like it.

My post was tongue in cheek as far as WW goes, its my sense of humour, like my taxes I can't do much about it if you don't share it
 
wompingwillow said:
Have to say cheers for Tuesday, what was the temperature again 36-39 degrees, what was I doing well while you were out earning the money I get for sitting on my arse I was.............oh yeah sitting on my arse, by a paddling pool drinking cider...........CHEERS FOR THAT ONE


After those backstabbing remarks I think Janner let her off lightly.

You have to be a particular type of person to live on handouts then sneer at the people who work to provide them.

..........
 
UncleAlbert said:
wompingwillow said:
Have to say cheers for Tuesday, what was the temperature again 36-39 degrees, what was I doing well while you were out earning the money I get for sitting on my arse I was.............oh yeah sitting on my arse, by a paddling pool drinking cider...........CHEERS FOR THAT ONE


After those backstabbing remarks I think Janner let her off lightly.

You have to be a particular type of person to live on handouts then sneer at the people who work to provide them.

..........

I came across far too many people like this when I used to co-run a charity for people with the medical disorder I have. Most people with it don't work, or to be more precise, prefer to live off benefits because it is easier. The condition is embarrasing, I accept that, but you learn to live with it. I used to get really pissed off with some of our members telling me that they were entitled to be be subsidised by people like me - why didn't I do the same. I am no longer involved - have become very cynical!

Like Janner I get really pissed off by people expecting to be subsidised and not taking responsibility for their own choices, such as having children and expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill. I am not getting at you personally WW, but I do think that your daughter's father should pay - have the money deducted from his income at source. Why should the rest of us pay for his selfishness? Having children is, after all, a lifestyle choice. I've been told: if you stop being gay, marry & have children then you'll benefit too. Well several months of painful aversion therapy didn't make me straight and my medical condition means that for all intents and purposes I have no balls (in reality the size of small peas :( :lol: :oops:). So, why should people like me subsidise people who've chosen to have children, precisely?

End of rant/feel much better! :)
 
Before you go accusing people of sponging of the state you might like to ask yourself if there is a bona fide reason for them being unable to work.I happen to know that Womp is at present unable to work due to an illness that she will be recieving treatment for very soon.(hope you dont mind womp)
 
Point taken. but that is not my real objection Andy - I haven't expressed myself clearly (nothing new there :roll:) - the issue is that her daughter's father is the one who is doing the sponging - he's counting on the taxpayer to take responsibility for his chosen actions.

I was also having a good moan because I'm both gay and sterile and get annoyed by my Evangelical dominated local council (Bromley) who moan about gay council tax payers not contributing by marrying and having heterosexual families and describing us as diseased, whilst happily taking our money. :evil:

Sorry Wompers!
 
AaC got it right ---its the father that is doing the sponging . Obviously the CSA can't catch up with him . They will eventually and meanwhile the womp has to live somehow!!

What do you suggest Jan-- bring back the poor houses---- homes for disgraced mothers--??????????????? Take the baby away for adoption???
Send baby to an aunt /uncle to be kept as a family secret???

The present generation --and there ain't no changing it cos its happened--don't really believe in marriage some do but its expensive marrying and very expensive getting divorced!!

So just keep paying the taxes etc ,apart from that there's probably more revenue dished out to the millions of illegals and their relations than the few unmarrieds with kids.
 
I for one would not criticise any one just for being on benefits, there are many reasons for getting into the system, some wholly acceptable, and others downright fraudulent, and the many shades in between. One of the major problems is that much of the system is very digital, you are either in or out, and to get out the jump is often a big one.

In general the probems with the benefit system lie not with the claimants but with the government and the civil service who administer the system. In the past various government have tried to buy votes with benefits and we are still left picking up the bill years after the culprits have retired.

Now I know there are those who fiddle the system, and they of course need to be weeded out and dealt with, but as far as the normal claimant is concerned they are but the symptom of the disease whaich is caused by infectious politicians.

I would also agree with the point made by AAC, far to many dissabled people hadve had the ability to take charge of their own lives be well meaning 'helpers' who have by helping removed the ability to indulge in independant thought.


Peter
 
Greenie said:
What do you suggest Jan-- bring back the poor houses---- homes for disgraced mothers--??????????????? Take the baby away for adoption???
Send baby to an aunt /uncle to be kept as a family secret???

That sends a shivver down my spine. I was classed as illegitimate at birth - in those days (1963) it was still a bit of a taboo - despite the moral-social maelstrom of WW2 being only 18 years before. Had I not been adopted I should have, until the early 1990s when their spiritual lordships in the House of Lords decided to relent, faced legal discrimination in all aspects of life. I can remember going to a debate in the late 1980s and hearing them describe the innocent party - the children - as needing to face discrimination and shaming as a punitive deterrent to others! What kind of Christian compassion is that, I wonder? So I for one am glad things have moved on a bit. :) Roll on a fully elected upper House with each nation (England, Scotland, Wales and NI) each getting an equal share of seats - to preserve the Union! :twisted:
 
Greenie said:
AaC got it right ---its the father that is doing the sponging . Obviously the CSA can't catch up with him . They will eventually and meanwhile the womp has to live somehow!!

What do you suggest Jan-- bring back the poor houses---- homes for disgraced mothers--??????????????? Take the baby away for adoption???
Send baby to an aunt /uncle to be kept as a family secret???

The present generation --and there ain't no changing it cos its happened--don't really believe in marriage some do but its expensive marrying and very expensive getting divorced!!

So just keep paying the taxes etc ,apart from that there's probably more revenue dished out to the millions of illegals and their relations than the few unmarrieds with kids.

My whole point, which you seem to be missing, is that the absent parent should be made to pay his/her dues, the CSA is an expensive white elephant that is costing far more to run than it is collecting in. I know that frequently the absent parent is easy to find, yet nothing happens and they go on Fathering children with none of the financial or moral responsibilities that go with it. Where you get the rubbish about poor houses I can't imagine. No blame can ever rest with a child under these circumstances. Theres no point in having a debate if you don't properly read other peoples posts, What I suggest is the WW helps the powers that be track down the absent Father so that He can pay his dues.

AndyM, WW's health was not the issue, She put this into the public domain, and made in my opinion ill advised and poorly thought out comments which I, and obviously others, read as a piss take, in the worst possible sense, of those who are paying their taxes, to help support her. No one wants gratitude but a sensible comment would stop the debate that has started. I return to my origninal comment and ask again, why is the Father not contributing to the childs upkeep.
 
C.S.A., Waste of time, my partner had 4 children, her then husband decided to go out of watch. He left her and paid sod all, changed his job, became a self employed Taxi Driver, apparewntly always only making the bare minimum wage.

She struggled on with benefits then I moved in and we've never looked back, I now have some lovely Grand Kids who call me Grand dad and don't know who the other t*sser is.


Womp all I can say is get your life sorted out and settled then decide what you want to do.
 
The CSA is no more, it was wound up today apparently, to be replaced by a smaller as yet un named agency which will be using Baliffs to chase outstanding monies and absentee parents
 
wompingwillow said:
to stay of topic

No I let him see her when ever he wants, at the end of the day what right do I have to denigh my daughter her father no matter what a prick he's been to me, he's still her dad.

I don't consider myself a nag bag, studied sports science at uni, qualified fitness instructor etc, and pride myself in trying to look the best I can. I have no intention of becoming bitter and twisted towards men or bringing my daughter up to feel the same.

But so many women do again I get tarred with that brush. I think it's completely fucked up when women are able to stop their child from seeing their dad, the only time this should be considered is if the dads a twat and abusive.

Its no good for the child, OK I don't particaly like the bloke, but why should my own selfishness stop my child from having another set of grandparents, uncles, aunts etc.

It should be made so much more easier not just for dads but for other members of the child's family to go through the courts to get access and the mother should be punished if they don't ahear to the access visits

Just my opion I'll get off me high horse

WW

WW.

Your reply has restored some confidence back in me that not all relationships destroy a childs family ties. If the child when its older 18ish then decides that its dad is a complete waste of time, then fair do's, could also go the other way of course - like dad and bin the mum(for being a bitch and not allowing access to dad). Could I give you my sons ex girlfriends details so you can have a chat ????

creakin
 
creakin said:
wompingwillow said:
to stay of topic

No I let him see her when ever he wants, at the end of the day what right do I have to denigh my daughter her father no matter what a prick he's been to me, he's still her dad.

I don't consider myself a nag bag, studied sports science at uni, qualified fitness instructor etc, and pride myself in trying to look the best I can. I have no intention of becoming bitter and twisted towards men or bringing my daughter up to feel the same.

But so many women do again I get tarred with that brush. I think it's completely fucked up when women are able to stop their child from seeing their dad, the only time this should be considered is if the dads a twat and abusive.

Its no good for the child, OK I don't particaly like the bloke, but why should my own selfishness stop my child from having another set of grandparents, uncles, aunts etc.

It should be made so much more easier not just for dads but for other members of the child's family to go through the courts to get access and the mother should be punished if they don't ahear to the access visits

Just my opion I'll get off me high horse

WW

WW.

Your reply has restored some confidence back in me that not all relationships destroy a childs family ties. If the child when its older 18ish then decides that its dad is a complete waste of time, then fair do's, could also go the other way of course - like dad and bin the mum(for being a bitch and not allowing access to dad). Could I give you my sons ex girlfriends details so you can have a chat ????

creakin

I have a strong suspicion that most relationship break ups mange to deal sensibly with the child problem. Obviously there are those that fail to do so for one reason or other, and these are the ones that get talked about giving the mpression that all are bad. Some of these situations I fear are made worse by the fact solicitors make money from conflict and so will encourage one or other of the partners to make an agressive stance, which of course will not help an already stressful situation.

Peter
 

Latest Threads

Top