|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 3, 2014 13:45:05 GMT
To you perhaps, but i think the true definition of that would be "Benefit fraudsters". There is a difference, dole scroungers play the system legally as do tax avoiders. Same thing. They just make new laws to help the latter and new laws to hinder the former. Benefit fraudsters lie in order to obtain benefits, therefore operating outside of the law, in HMRC terms an out and out lie is classed as Tax evasion. Whichever way you want to look at it, your ease at labeling dole scroungers does not seem to match that of labeling tax avoiders. And that's the point i'm making. Just like a tabloid editorial comment, we are encouraged to be critical of the unemployed/disabled in order to divert the attention away from the fact that shit loads more is being taken out of the public purse by the elitist few. It stinks of everything you post on other threads, an instant defence of the injustices of modern life. An apologist. Maybe im jaded from time working in London during the recession when idiots who knew no better thought it was all the fault of 'the banks' just because the media told them it was so. What you wrote smacks of exactly the same thing, with a slightly different subject. So now you ignore the point i made and decide to make a stand on the behalf of the innocent bankers. Hmmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 3, 2014 13:46:34 GMT
C'mon now Bisp i did offer an apology for that.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Aug 3, 2014 13:55:49 GMT
Maybe im jaded from time working in London during the recession when idiots who knew no better thought it was all the fault of 'the banks' just because the media told them it was so. What you wrote smacks of exactly the same thing, with a slightly different subject. So now you ignore the point i made and decide to make a stand on the behalf of the innocent bankers. Hmmmmm. The point im making is that you think theyre injustices because thats what you read in the papers. You dont understand why you think theyre injustices though. Which makes it a waste of time addressing your point.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 3, 2014 14:16:30 GMT
So now you're making a point on an assumption, that my views are somehow influenced by what i have read in the papers. Where the fuck has that come from, you having a little conversation with yourself or something?
No point whatsoever.
"Which makes it a waste of time addressing your point."
Seems to me you are not capable of even understanding the point i have made let alone address it.
|
|