Theresa May

[PANZER MURPHY]

9 minutes ago, Eric Cuntman said:

Haven't seen that yet, unfortunately I can't forgive Tom Hardy for having a fucking stupid accent in real life and not being Mel Gibson, that Mad Max film was a fucking joke, he was an incidental character playing second string to Charlize Theron.

I'd recommend it ..who cares if he's a bit of a cunt in real life..who isn't. .East inda company are the real cunts though 

Panzerknacker 

[Eric Cuntman]

Just now, Panzerknacker said:

I'd recommend it ..who cares if he's a bit of a cunt in real life..who isn't. .East inda company are the real cunts though 

Panzerknacker 

My great grandad was in that mob, never met him though, so unable to confirm whether he was a cunt, my grandma was born in India and they had a Punkah wallah in their employ. Apparently the Sikh conscripts were fearsome soldiers.

[PANZER MURPHY]

2 minutes ago, Eric Cuntman said:

My great grandad was in that mob, never met him though, so unable to confirm whether he was a cunt, my grandma was born in India and they had a Punkah wallah in their employ. Apparently the Sikh conscripts were fearsome soldiers.

Poor men make the best soldiers. .nothing to lose and everything to gain 

Panzerknacker 

[Mrs Roops]

1 hour ago, 'eavensabove said:

Where are the admissions to Your denials? Do you deny reading and distorting members PMs? Do you deny Your encouragement of punter against punter?  Oh, and whilst we are it, was it a brain-wave of yours the moment I appeared on this site or was it  hard evidence that I am Judge or Jazz? Oh, and you are my Luv. In fact, you are anything or nothing that I want you to be. 

How's the Visitor Lounge going? You're full of shite. 

Your post makes no sense. Unless I'm reading it wrong, why would there be "admissions to denials". Either one admits or denies. Additionally I'm not sure why Judge or the Visitor Lounge comes into this. In point of fact when you re-joined, you were for a while a person of no interest, i.e there was nothing that you said that raised any immediate suspicion. Even when some punters raised the possibility that you were Jazz, we still took no notice (such accusations are two a penny). However you did eventually say something that made me sit up and notice as the comments were unusual for a supposed newbie. It was when I pulled up all your posts that similarities were made with "Jazz's" style of posting. I will say that once the Admins were sure you were Jazz, we did confer to decide whether or not you should stay. The consensus was that as there didn't appear to be any of the old problems (the baseless accusations, the paranoia and the sodding JibJabs) then you should be given another chance. Did we make the right decision?

[Eric Cuntman]

Just now, Panzerknacker said:

Poor men make the best soldiers. .nothing to lose and everything to gain 

Panzerknacker 

Very true, and the poor have to grow up tougher, not pampered all their lives like the officer class.

[PANZER MURPHY]

31 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

Your post makes no sense. Unless I'm reading it wrong, why would there be "admissions to denials". Either one admits or denies. Additionally I'm not sure why Judge or the Visitor Lounge comes into this. In point of fact when you re-joined, you were for a while a person of no interest, i.e there was nothing that you said that raised any immediate suspicion. Even when some punters raised the possibility that you were Jazz, we still took no notice (such accusations are two a penny). However you did eventually say something that made me sit up and notice as the comments were unusual for a supposed newbie. It was when I pulled up all your posts that similarities were made with "Jazz's" style of posting. I will say that once the Admins were sure you were Jazz, we did confer to decide whether or not you should stay. The consensus was that as there didn't appear to be any of the old problems (the baseless accusations, the paranoia and the sodding JibJabs) then you should be given another chance. Did we make the right decision?

Laffin. .where would the place be without baseless accusations...paranoia  and jib jabs. .it's more of them is needed!

Panzerknacker 

[Mrs Roops]

57 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You have missed the point roops, the difference under the new scheme is a patient can be home cared as of now, however when the patient finally pops their clogs, the hours spent caring are added up at an hourly rate and this amount is charged to the estate leaving the sons/daughters with a large bill to pay once the house is sold.  This will pave the way for private care companies to profit from the high property prices.  Another parts of the NHS privatised.

I believe deferred payments are available now, but only for council provided care whether home help or care home.. As I understand it the Tory proposals will set up a national loan scheme (like student loans) to pay commercial care providers and then collect from the estate after death. As I said before, under existing arrangements people are expected to pay for their social care if they have assets over £23,250. The Tories propose to raise this to £100,000.

[Eddie]

On 5/21/2017 at 5:29 PM, Mrs Roops said:

I believe deferred payments are available now, but only for council provided care whether home help or care home.. As I understand it the Tory proposals will set up a national loan scheme (like student loans) to pay commercial care providers and then collect from the estate after death. As I said before, under existing arrangements people are expected to pay for their social care if they have assets over £23,250. The Tories propose to raise this to £100,000.

Under the present system the council will prove assistance to a individual whom needs help getting out of bed, dressing, eating and going to the lav. Under the new ruling this cost will be added up and charged against the sale of the patients home.

[Cuntybaws]

On 20/05/2017 at 2:07 PM, Roadkill said:

I haven't been to the Metro Centre since I was about 7. Do they still have the shitty "Old village" where you can get a fine selection of geodes if you're willing to spend over £200?

I didn't see it, but I didn't exactly hang around. I had to almost literally prise Mrs Baws out of the place, though.

[Roadkill]

2 minutes ago, Cuntybaws said:

I didn't see it, but I didn't exactly hang around. I had to almost literally prise Mrs Baws out of the place, though.

I remember they had these fucked up gnome mascots portrayed by people in seven foot high padded costumes. I'm sure the person who played the brown one (Rusty I think his name was) wanted to touch me. Kept asking me if I wanted to "colour in at the play area". Luckily I was a petulant little shit and was too busy demanding sweets from my mother at the time.

[Guest Alfie Noakes]

Much as I disliked her, Thatcher was "not for turning", whereas Theresa May is spinning around more than Kylie in those gold shorts. No respect for her whatsoever, she will fuck up brexit, totally.

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, Alfie Noakes said:

Much as I disliked her, Thatcher was "not for turning", whereas Theresa May is spinning around more than Kylie in those gold shorts. No respect for her whatsoever, she will fuck up brexit, totally.

If she could at least stand up straight that would be a start. 

[PANZER MURPHY]

2 hours ago, Alfie Noakes said:

Much as I disliked her, Thatcher was "not for turning", whereas Theresa May is spinning around more than Kylie in those gold shorts. No respect for her whatsoever, she will fuck up brexit, totally.

Maggie was smart enough not to let the mob have a say in the financial direction of the nation 

Panzerknacker 

[Wolfie]

What confidence Theresa May at the helm of the government's latest 'War On Terror' inspires. This, from a woman who failed dramatically to hit immigration targets year after year as Home Secretary – and who took it upon herself to lie to the British public about the numbers.

[Mrs Roops]

8 hours ago, Alfie Noakes said:

Much as I disliked her, Thatcher was "not for turning", whereas Theresa May is spinning around more than Kylie in those gold shorts. No respect for her whatsoever, she will fuck up brexit, totally.

Poor Theresa, one of the dangers of calling a snap election is that manifestos are rushed out with too little attention paid to detail. It should be remembered that the Tories are at last, attempting to provide conclusive solutions instead of tinkering or delaying with sticking plaster fixes with regards to social care.

Food for thought: The demographic that are making the most fuss are the baby boomers and older generation. This is the group who are cosseted by bomb-proof, gold-plated pensions and who by chance rather than design, have accumulated sizeable amounts of wealth via the value of  homes which has increased beyond the usual multiples of their incomes. The irony is that Labour and other political parties, by using inflammatory slogans such as "attacking the vulnerable" and "The Dementia Tax" are blithely asserting that the problem of a burgeoning social care could be funded from general taxation (in addition to the costs of other wish-list items). In short they are appealing to their core voters who in the main, will never enjoy the benefits of the baby-boomers pension security and home ownership yet are expected pay the care costs of the more fortunate so that the latter may keep their (mainly) unearned wealth intact. Discuss.

[Guest Ollyboro]

19 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

Poor Theresa, one of the dangers of calling a snap election is that manifestos are rushed out with too little attention paid to detail. It should be remembered that the Tories are at last, attempting to provide conclusive solutions instead of tinkering or delaying with sticking plaster fixes with regards to social care.

Food for thought: The demographic that are making the most fuss are the baby boomers and older generation. This is the group who are cosseted by bomb-proof, gold-plated pensions and who by chance rather than design, have accumulated sizeable amounts of wealth via the value of  homes which has increased beyond the usual multiples of their incomes. The irony is that Labour and other political parties, by using inflammatory slogans such as "attacking the vulnerable" and "The Dementia Tax" are blithely asserting that the problem of a burgeoning social care could be funded from general taxation (in addition to the costs of other wish-list items). In short they are appealing to their core voters who in the main, will never enjoy the benefits of the baby-boomers pension security and home ownership yet are expected pay the care costs of the more fortunate so that the latter may keep their (mainly) unearned wealth intact. Discuss.

There's enough cash about. We just need to take it off the cunts with most of it. It really is that simple. The smoke and mirrors that people like you fall for is the setting of people against each other. You probably think that the tax burden was lower under Thatcher, don't you? Or that her government got inflation under control? Or had low interest rates? Or had low unemployment....oh yeah, that's acknowledged. The Tory Party have convinced millions that tax is bad..... Shameful.

[Eddie]

26 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

Poor Theresa, one of the dangers of calling a snap election is that manifestos are rushed out with too little attention paid to detail. It should be remembered that the Tories are at last, attempting to provide conclusive solutions instead of tinkering or delaying with sticking plaster fixes with regards to social care.

Food for thought: The demographic that are making the most fuss are the baby boomers and older generation. This is the group who are cosseted by bomb-proof, gold-plated pensions and who by chance rather than design, have accumulated sizeable amounts of wealth via the value of  homes which has increased beyond the usual multiples of their incomes. The irony is that Labour and other political parties, by using inflammatory slogans such as "attacking the vulnerable" and "The Dementia Tax" are blithely asserting that the problem of a burgeoning social care could be funded from general taxation (in addition to the costs of other wish-list items). In short they are appealing to their core voters who in the main, will never enjoy the benefits of the baby-boomers pension security and home ownership yet are expected pay the care costs of the more fortunate so that the latter may keep their (mainly) unearned wealth intact. Discuss.

These were also the people paying 17% interest on their mortgages. As usual the nasty party are looking at the vulnerable to pay the bills whilst Britain’s billionaires have seen their net worth more than double since the recession. 

[Mrs Roops]

1 hour ago, Ollyboro said:

There's enough cash about. We just need to take it off the cunts with most of it. It really is that simple. The smoke and mirrors that people like you fall for is the setting of people against each other. You probably think that the tax burden was lower under Thatcher, don't you? Or that her government got inflation under control? Or had low interest rates? Or had low unemployment....oh yeah, that's acknowledged. The Tory Party have convinced millions that tax is bad..... Shameful.

Which was precisely what the Tories were proposing  I'm surprised Corbyn didn't think of this before. Just add all costs to general taxation, probably why socialists always, always run out of other peoples' money...

[Mrs Roops]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

These were also the people paying 17% interest on their mortgages. As usual the nasty party are looking at the vulnerable to pay the bills whilst Britain’s billionaires have seen their net worth more than double since the recession. 

Billionaires need sorting as does the whole business of hidden beneficial (as opposed to nominated) ownership. Unfortunately in the age of fast transfer of wealth effective control will only work if all countries agree and cooperate on anti money laundering protocols and on transparent rules of beneficial ownership.

[Guest Gong Farmer]

Good luck with that flip flopping harridan running the country. I don't think I've ever heard such a self contradicting politician than that of Teresa May, she's so embarrassingly contradictive I'd be embarrassed voting for her, seriously.

[Eddie]

12 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

Billionaires need sorting as does the whole business of hidden beneficial (as opposed to nominated) ownership. Unfortunately in the age of fast transfer of wealth effective control will only work if all countries agree and cooperate on anti money laundering protocols and on transparent rules of beneficial ownership.

The tories are known for sorting out the billionaires ? no they will just cancel school dinners.

[Guest Ollyboro]

4 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

Which was precisely what the Tories were proposing  I'm surprised Corbyn didn't think of this before. Just add all costs to general taxation, probably why socialists always, always run out of other peoples' money...

Oh well done, essentially you've just parroted the "there's not enough money line". Congratulations on your economic orthodoxy. THERE'S LOADS OF THE STUFF. It's just concentrated in too few wallets. Please tell me you get that argument.

[Wolfie]

3 hours ago, Gong Farmer said:

Good luck with that flip flopping harridan running the country. I don't think I've ever heard such a self contradicting politician than that of Teresa May, she's so embarrassingly contradictive I'd be embarrassed voting for her, seriously.

When do you think Theresa last had a wank, Gong?

[Guest Gong Farmer]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

When do you think Theresa last had a wank, Gong?

I don't even think she could tell you that without back tracking and changing her mind as too when it was. Would you even believe what she told you? 

[Guest 'eavensabove]

4 hours ago, Gong Farmer said:

Good luck with that flip flopping harridan running the country. I don't think I've ever heard such a self contradicting politician than that of Teresa May, she's so embarrassingly contradictive I'd be embarrassed voting for her, seriously.

She's a Weasel, or rather a rodent. She'd never, ever, get my vote.