Conic wrote:Unemployment isn't going to go up because Pakis dont work so they are not taking our jobs. They just claim benifits with their 12 kids

Conic wrote:Unemployment isn't going to go up because Pakis dont work so they are not taking our jobs. They just claim benifits with their 12 kids
jackmaster wrote:you went in with this mix.
Soundcloud.onelove. wrote:There needs to be a DZA app on iPhone just for id'ing old Grime tracks.
What, from a magazine published by the Socialist Workers' Party?snuff wrote:the acid never lies wrote:Here's an interesting article - tackles the myths about immigration with a knockdown blow when you need to make someone feel foolish
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20351
its an interesting article not particularly cleverly written, clearly pushing the scoialist agenda as you would expect.
Ugh.Conic wrote:Unemployment isn't going to go up because Pakis dont work so they are not taking our jobs. They just claim benifits with their 12 kids
Can anyone else spot the flawed logic in this statement besides the racism?Conic wrote:Unemployment isn't going to go up because Pakis dont work so they are not taking our jobs. They just claim benifits with their 12 kids
Exactly.gh02 wrote:truth...this is the real problem... if you can't pay for them yourself you shouldn't have them in the first place!WhosZena? wrote:
I know enough British women at home calming benefits with their many kids.and if you do, why does that mean you can't work too!? (rant over)
I've moved into the UK recently, and I really noticed very young moms.WhosZena? wrote:Exactly.gh02 wrote:truth...this is the real problem... if you can't pay for them yourself you shouldn't have them in the first place!WhosZena? wrote:
I know enough British women at home calming benefits with their many kids.and if you do, why does that mean you can't work too!? (rant over)
paravrais wrote:It genuinely was a couple of years before I realised it was pronounced re-noise not ren-wah
You are in Greenock old chap!!!kejk wrote:I've moved into the UK recently, and I really noticed very young moms.WhosZena? wrote:Exactly.gh02 wrote:truth...this is the real problem... if you can't pay for them yourself you shouldn't have them in the first place!WhosZena? wrote:
I know enough British women at home calming benefits with their many kids.and if you do, why does that mean you can't work too!? (rant over)
I was told they actually get kids on purpose to claim the benefits to buy new louie viton bags, which is sick.
Yeah... that sounds about right.kejk wrote:I've moved into the UK recently, and I really noticed very young moms.WhosZena? wrote:Exactly.gh02 wrote:truth...this is the real problem... if you can't pay for them yourself you shouldn't have them in the first place!WhosZena? wrote:
I know enough British women at home calming benefits with their many kids.and if you do, why does that mean you can't work too!? (rant over)
I was told they actually get kids on purpose to claim the benefits to buy new louie viton bags, which is sick.
dutty_switch wrote:ASDA has better deals than Morrisons. Rollback mothefucker, dun know!
Helix [Delay] wrote:Everybody's gay for Stephen Fry.
That's largely a myth perpetrated by some taboloids, and like most things if it is repeated enough people will start to accept it as a fact. If you think about it, it is just the right wing media segregating young mothers as a moral example at which the rest of society can point and stare. Futher reinforcing the patriarchal society that we live in. The fact is that most young mums don't get a council house or receive very much in the way of benefits, in fact the vast majority (around 95%) of young mums live with their parents, and the child's grandparents are the main carers - this gives the chance of the young mum to finish her schooling or work.kejk wrote: I was told they actually get kids on purpose to claim the benefits to buy new louie viton bags, which is sick.
Nice post. I do have to disagree with a few points...firky wrote:That's largely a myth perpetrated by some taboloids, and like most things if it is repeated enough people will start to accept it as a fact. If you think about it, it is just the right wing media segregating young mothers as a moral example at which the rest of society can point and stare. Futher reinforcing the patriarchal society that we live in. The fact is that most young mums don't get a council house or receive very much in the way of benefits, in fact the vast majority (around 95%) of young mums live with their parents, and the child's grandparents are the main carers - this gives the chance of the young mum to finish her schooling or work.kejk wrote: I was told they actually get kids on purpose to claim the benefits to buy new louie viton bags, which is sick.
Overall most mums actually have children later in life, this is of course a side effect of women becoming more empowered in the work place and in society as a whole. Most people also seem to think that teenage mums are on the rise, again this is a myth, teenage pregnancy is on the whole on the decline. Also the way that stats are gathered are inaccurate of how many women actually become mums, conception and pregnancy does not equate being a mum, that is media spin. One thing that si true is that we do have the highest rates of teenage pregancy in europe.
paravrais wrote:It genuinely was a couple of years before I realised it was pronounced re-noise not ren-wah
Trust me on this one, in 19 years of Amsterdam I've only "picked up" 2 women from the club.firky wrote:Many believe that British teenagers are just more promiscuous than their European counterparts, which is why we have higher levels of teenage pregnancy. In fact there is little evidence that we are any different in this regard from the rest of Europe.
paravrais wrote:It genuinely was a couple of years before I realised it was pronounced re-noise not ren-wah
collige wrote:some stay dry and others feel the pain.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests