York councillor Chris Steward to visit food bank

THE YORK councillor who sparked an angry backlash by saying food banks were not needed has said he will visit one to see how they work.

Chris Steward, chairman of York Conservatives and councillor for Rural West York, made the offer after he came under fire for comments revealed in The Press on Thursday. Coun Steward claimed there was no real poverty in the UK.

He said food banks were an insult to those starving around the world and said donating to banks merely enabled people who could not budget to spend more on cigarettes and alcohol.

He was criticised by the Trussell Trust, which runs the banks nationwide, and came under fire on social media websites, where he received a number of abusive messages. He has since said on twitter that he would be happy to visit a food bank to work a shift.

York Labour councillor Dafydd Williams also yesterday invited Coun Steward to visit the York food bank at Gateway Church in Acomb, and called the councillor’s comments “ill-informed”. Coun Steward declined to add to his comments on twitter when contacted by The Press.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:56am Sat 5 Jan 13

Silver says...

Does anyone believe he's actually interested in this or just trying to save political face?
Does anyone believe he's actually interested in this or just trying to save political face? Silver
  • Score: 0

11:11am Sat 5 Jan 13

heworth.28 says...

Indeed - he'll go along, grit his teeth for the afternoon and parrot party lines at people that anything is being done to help the poor. No doubt he and his stuffed-shirt mates will have a good laugh in the pub later about how he had to descend to the level of the great unwashed for a few hours.
Indeed - he'll go along, grit his teeth for the afternoon and parrot party lines at people that anything is being done to help the poor. No doubt he and his stuffed-shirt mates will have a good laugh in the pub later about how he had to descend to the level of the great unwashed for a few hours. heworth.28
  • Score: 0

11:13am Sat 5 Jan 13

bob the builder says...

I don't think he should pander to the right on lefties, he should stick to his guns.
I don't think he should pander to the right on lefties, he should stick to his guns. bob the builder
  • Score: 0

11:21am Sat 5 Jan 13

bob the builder says...

bob the builder wrote:
I don't think he should pander to the right on lefties, he should stick to his guns.
I wonder if he's considered suing for defamation, like Rutland councillors are doing. That will soon shut down other councillors using twitter etc to be offensive to their co-councillors - a favourite ploy of a certain red themed bunch.
[quote][p][bold]bob the builder[/bold] wrote: I don't think he should pander to the right on lefties, he should stick to his guns.[/p][/quote]I wonder if he's considered suing for defamation, like Rutland councillors are doing. That will soon shut down other councillors using twitter etc to be offensive to their co-councillors - a favourite ploy of a certain red themed bunch. bob the builder
  • Score: 0

11:48am Sat 5 Jan 13

xtc says...

Trying to save face,obviously no clue to what life is really like for some!
Trying to save face,obviously no clue to what life is really like for some! xtc
  • Score: 0

11:54am Sat 5 Jan 13

jorvik says...

bob the builder wrote:
bob the builder wrote:
I don't think he should pander to the right on lefties, he should stick to his guns.
I wonder if he's considered suing for defamation, like Rutland councillors are doing. That will soon shut down other councillors using twitter etc to be offensive to their co-councillors - a favourite ploy of a certain red themed bunch.
http://www.dailysham
e.co.uk/2013/01/sati
re/chris-steward-thi
nks-poors-dont-need-
food-banks-just-shoo
ting-probably/

This is what calamity James posted on his twitter account,never mind it is just left wing nonsense it is very offensive,I mean if somebody called James Alexander a fat turd he would be in uproar and straight onto the press to remove the comment,what I find most disturbing is the fact this is the leader of York city council who is tweeting offensive things about people.even though he is labour he is meant to be representing all the residents of York,not just the numpties
[quote][p][bold]bob the builder[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bob the builder[/bold] wrote: I don't think he should pander to the right on lefties, he should stick to his guns.[/p][/quote]I wonder if he's considered suing for defamation, like Rutland councillors are doing. That will soon shut down other councillors using twitter etc to be offensive to their co-councillors - a favourite ploy of a certain red themed bunch.[/p][/quote]http://www.dailysham e.co.uk/2013/01/sati re/chris-steward-thi nks-poors-dont-need- food-banks-just-shoo ting-probably/ This is what calamity James posted on his twitter account,never mind it is just left wing nonsense it is very offensive,I mean if somebody called James Alexander a fat turd he would be in uproar and straight onto the press to remove the comment,what I find most disturbing is the fact this is the leader of York city council who is tweeting offensive things about people.even though he is labour he is meant to be representing all the residents of York,not just the numpties jorvik
  • Score: 0

11:57am Sat 5 Jan 13

jorvik says...

jorvik wrote:
bob the builder wrote:
bob the builder wrote:
I don't think he should pander to the right on lefties, he should stick to his guns.
I wonder if he's considered suing for defamation, like Rutland councillors are doing. That will soon shut down other councillors using twitter etc to be offensive to their co-councillors - a favourite ploy of a certain red themed bunch.
http://www.dailysham

e.co.uk/2013/01/sati

re/chris-steward-thi

nks-poors-dont-need-

food-banks-just-shoo

ting-probably/

This is what calamity James posted on his twitter account,never mind it is just left wing nonsense it is very offensive,I mean if somebody called James Alexander a fat turd he would be in uproar and straight onto the press to remove the comment,what I find most disturbing is the fact this is the leader of York city council who is tweeting offensive things about people.even though he is labour he is meant to be representing all the residents of York,not just the numpties
He's even managed to annoy the new North Yorkshire police commissioner.but then tried to arrange a date with a good looking female journalist from the guardian
[quote][p][bold]jorvik[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bob the builder[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bob the builder[/bold] wrote: I don't think he should pander to the right on lefties, he should stick to his guns.[/p][/quote]I wonder if he's considered suing for defamation, like Rutland councillors are doing. That will soon shut down other councillors using twitter etc to be offensive to their co-councillors - a favourite ploy of a certain red themed bunch.[/p][/quote]http://www.dailysham e.co.uk/2013/01/sati re/chris-steward-thi nks-poors-dont-need- food-banks-just-shoo ting-probably/ This is what calamity James posted on his twitter account,never mind it is just left wing nonsense it is very offensive,I mean if somebody called James Alexander a fat turd he would be in uproar and straight onto the press to remove the comment,what I find most disturbing is the fact this is the leader of York city council who is tweeting offensive things about people.even though he is labour he is meant to be representing all the residents of York,not just the numpties[/p][/quote]He's even managed to annoy the new North Yorkshire police commissioner.but then tried to arrange a date with a good looking female journalist from the guardian jorvik
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Sat 5 Jan 13

only human says...

A good idea inprinciple just as the clothing and book recycling bins are but my concern is that some members of society could see them as a way of feeding themselves in the long term whilst using their income whether from benefits work or whatever to purchase non essential items such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Time will tell
A good idea inprinciple just as the clothing and book recycling bins are but my concern is that some members of society could see them as a way of feeding themselves in the long term whilst using their income whether from benefits work or whatever to purchase non essential items such as cigarettes and alcohol. Time will tell only human
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

only human wrote:
A good idea inprinciple just as the clothing and book recycling bins are but my concern is that some members of society could see them as a way of feeding themselves in the long term whilst using their income whether from benefits work or whatever to purchase non essential items such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Time will tell
As far as a limited amount of research shows, food banks can only be used by referral from the Job Centre, and then only three times a year.
Therefore it's hardly going to be a satisfactory way of 'feeding themselves in the long term'. Actually it would barely be the opposite.
I am amused by this critical obsession that those satisfactorily well off have for assuming that all these people actually want is cigarettes and alcohol (or if they really want to rub home their bar-room point, it's ' booze and fags'). And therefore see the soup kitchens as a away of achieving this aim. But since benefit fraud amounts to 0.7% of all payments (don't believe IDS's pathetic lying, this is the true figure!), and is nothing compared to the 21% of expenses overpayment to MPs, often never paid back, on top of their fraudulent claims for rent payments and so forth, it really beggars belief that it's worth spending billions of pounds penalising the few at the bottom of the feudal system who doubtless fiddle it.
[quote][p][bold]only human[/bold] wrote: A good idea inprinciple just as the clothing and book recycling bins are but my concern is that some members of society could see them as a way of feeding themselves in the long term whilst using their income whether from benefits work or whatever to purchase non essential items such as cigarettes and alcohol. Time will tell[/p][/quote]As far as a limited amount of research shows, food banks can only be used by referral from the Job Centre, and then only three times a year. Therefore it's hardly going to be a satisfactory way of 'feeding themselves in the long term'. Actually it would barely be the opposite. I am amused by this critical obsession that those satisfactorily well off have for assuming that all these people actually want is cigarettes and alcohol (or if they really want to rub home their bar-room point, it's ' booze and fags'). And therefore see the soup kitchens as a away of achieving this aim. But since benefit fraud amounts to 0.7% of all payments (don't believe IDS's pathetic lying, this is the true figure!), and is nothing compared to the 21% of expenses overpayment to MPs, often never paid back, on top of their fraudulent claims for rent payments and so forth, it really beggars belief that it's worth spending billions of pounds penalising the few at the bottom of the feudal system who doubtless fiddle it. Trespar Zagenstuz
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Sillybillies says...

Don't be fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of left wingers using multiple accounts, the mood of the country is against the £millions paid out in benefits to the idle and feckless to support a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, gambling, satellite TV, and the latest mobile phones and designer clothes etc.

It is wrong that someone who works and saves and pays their own way ends up far worse off that someone who's been subsidised by the working population from the cradle to the grave and lacked nothing.
Don't be fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of left wingers using multiple accounts, the mood of the country is against the £millions paid out in benefits to the idle and feckless to support a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, gambling, satellite TV, and the latest mobile phones and designer clothes etc. It is wrong that someone who works and saves and pays their own way ends up far worse off that someone who's been subsidised by the working population from the cradle to the grave and lacked nothing. Sillybillies
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Don't be fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of left wingers using multiple accounts,

Really?
[quote]Don't be fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of left wingers using multiple accounts, [/quote] Really? Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

Sillybillies wrote:
Don't be fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of left wingers using multiple accounts, the mood of the country is against the £millions paid out in benefits to the idle and feckless to support a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, gambling, satellite TV, and the latest mobile phones and designer clothes etc.

It is wrong that someone who works and saves and pays their own way ends up far worse off that someone who's been subsidised by the working population from the cradle to the grave and lacked nothing.
I am certainly not fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of yourself, Sillybillies. You are little more than a clone and quoter of IDS, and I pity you for not being able to formulate an opinion of your own that is not based on hatred and prejudice.

Can you explain how you represent 'the mood of the country'? You actually represent a rather dilute version of the sort of bigots who pen vicious and vacuous bile to the the Daily Mail.
Please offer proof that more than 0.7% of benefit payment is lost to fraud, or fraudulent claims. That,afterall, is the figure from the ONS, but I don't doubt you have a far more accurate figure, probably told to you by a bloke down at the four-ale bar of The Jug & Jackboot.
You go on to say:
"It is wrong that someone who works and saves and pays their own way ends up far worse off that someone who's been subsidised by the working population from the cradle to the grave and lacked nothing."

It is indeed. Have you proof (not from the bar-room floor....!) that the majority (or even a minority) of food-benefit claimants fit this demographic group?
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: Don't be fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of left wingers using multiple accounts, the mood of the country is against the £millions paid out in benefits to the idle and feckless to support a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, gambling, satellite TV, and the latest mobile phones and designer clothes etc. It is wrong that someone who works and saves and pays their own way ends up far worse off that someone who's been subsidised by the working population from the cradle to the grave and lacked nothing.[/p][/quote]I am certainly not fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of yourself, Sillybillies. You are little more than a clone and quoter of IDS, and I pity you for not being able to formulate an opinion of your own that is not based on hatred and prejudice. Can you explain how you represent 'the mood of the country'? You actually represent a rather dilute version of the sort of bigots who pen vicious and vacuous bile to the the Daily Mail. Please offer proof that more than 0.7% of benefit payment is lost to fraud, or fraudulent claims. That,afterall, is the figure from the ONS, but I don't doubt you have a far more accurate figure, probably told to you by a bloke down at the four-ale bar of The Jug & Jackboot. You go on to say: "It is wrong that someone who works and saves and pays their own way ends up far worse off that someone who's been subsidised by the working population from the cradle to the grave and lacked nothing." It is indeed. Have you proof (not from the bar-room floor....!) that the majority (or even a minority) of food-benefit claimants fit this demographic group? Trespar Zagenstuz
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Don't be fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of left wingers using multiple accounts,

Really?
Is it possible to have multiple accounts? I have only one e-mail address, and I am not able to add another name to it, or even change the one I have.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, Sillybillies.....
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote]Don't be fooled by the abusive and offensive ravings of left wingers using multiple accounts, [/quote] Really?[/p][/quote]Is it possible to have multiple accounts? I have only one e-mail address, and I am not able to add another name to it, or even change the one I have. Perhaps you can enlighten me, Sillybillies..... Trespar Zagenstuz
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Sat 5 Jan 13

YSTClinguist says...

It's odd that people come on here and repeat government mantra and figures that are being proved inaccurate over and over. And I don't just mean the present government. They are have opportunity to make themselves as bad as each other, due to our flawed democratic system.

Frankly, these inaccuracies are much like a dodgy used car salesman insisting a car with faulty brakes is perfectly fine because when you put your foot down it accelerates.

If you do this, shame on you!
It's odd that people come on here and repeat government mantra and figures that are being proved inaccurate over and over. And I don't just mean the present government. They are have opportunity to make themselves as bad as each other, due to our flawed democratic system. Frankly, these inaccuracies are much like a dodgy used car salesman insisting a car with faulty brakes is perfectly fine because when you put your foot down it accelerates. If you do this, shame on you! YSTClinguist
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Wurlitzer says...

I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses?
I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses? Wurlitzer
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

Wurlitzer wrote:
I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses?
The two ends of the social spectrum are metaphorical light-years apart.
The politicians and similar fat-cat banksters at the 'top' of the feudal dunghill hover delicately on being above the law, or so they would assume, and such sponging and fiddling that they indulge in is brushed aside with good public relations exercises, good lawyers and good lying; all of which gets difficult to contest. CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill, refuses to accept the well-known fact that he lets his London accommodating for £7,000 a month. This is quite illegal, but he ignores it. The same might be said for Osborne stealing a million pounds of taxpayer's money to feather his own constituency nest in Tatton. To openly accuse and push the law against him is almost impossible.
Compare those putrid examples with the person subsisting on £75 per week in benefits. Unlike Osborne, a man having risen from the murky depths of being a millionaire's son,
the benefit-claimant might have got to where they are by no fault of their own; quite feasibly being made redundant and having nothing to fall back upon. That they might have once been drinkers, sky-TV watchers and smokers and representative of all the other ills of opprobrium heaped upon their head by more fortunate persons is irrelevant. That is what they were, possibly their fiercest critics have similar vices, but are not thrown into the situation where they have to make choices; give up drinking, smoking, watching TV, indulging in anything that is not part of the one group of necessities; to buy food, clothing and shelter.
Would anybody care to voluntarily strip their life down to these bare minimums in a month?
[quote][p][bold]Wurlitzer[/bold] wrote: I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses?[/p][/quote]The two ends of the social spectrum are metaphorical light-years apart. The politicians and similar fat-cat banksters at the 'top' of the feudal dunghill hover delicately on being above the law, or so they would assume, and such sponging and fiddling that they indulge in is brushed aside with good public relations exercises, good lawyers and good lying; all of which gets difficult to contest. CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill, refuses to accept the well-known fact that he lets his London accommodating for £7,000 a month. This is quite illegal, but he ignores it. The same might be said for Osborne stealing a million pounds of taxpayer's money to feather his own constituency nest in Tatton. To openly accuse and push the law against him is almost impossible. Compare those putrid examples with the person subsisting on £75 per week in benefits. Unlike Osborne, a man having risen from the murky depths of being a millionaire's son, the benefit-claimant might have got to where they are by no fault of their own; quite feasibly being made redundant and having nothing to fall back upon. That they might have once been drinkers, sky-TV watchers and smokers and representative of all the other ills of opprobrium heaped upon their head by more fortunate persons is irrelevant. That is what they were, possibly their fiercest critics have similar vices, but are not thrown into the situation where they have to make choices; give up drinking, smoking, watching TV, indulging in anything that is not part of the one group of necessities; to buy food, clothing and shelter. Would anybody care to voluntarily strip their life down to these bare minimums in a month? Trespar Zagenstuz
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

".....CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill....."

The asterisks, put there by the automatic censorship display indicator!
The redacted noun was, in fact another word for 'a male chicken', such as is traditionally found atop a dunghill!

But maybe the words 'c0ck' and 'caMoron' are not allowed to exist within the same sentence....which, as they go together like 'pope' and 'catholic,'
is a trifle unfair of the censorship-engine.
".....CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill....." The asterisks, put there by the automatic censorship display indicator! The redacted noun was, in fact another word for 'a male chicken', such as is traditionally found atop a dunghill! But maybe the words 'c0ck' and 'caMoron' are not allowed to exist within the same sentence....which, as they go together like 'pope' and 'catholic,' is a trifle unfair of the censorship-engine. Trespar Zagenstuz
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Caecilius says...

So Steward implicitly admits that he knew nothing about the way food banks work when he shot his mouth off on the subject.

A Tory who pontificates about matters he's entirely ignorant of, in the hope of appealing to people who are equally ignorant and who never aspire to be anything else (if indeed they have the capacity to be). He should go far in his party.
So Steward implicitly admits that he knew nothing about the way food banks work when he shot his mouth off on the subject. A Tory who pontificates about matters he's entirely ignorant of, in the hope of appealing to people who are equally ignorant and who never aspire to be anything else (if indeed they have the capacity to be). He should go far in his party. Caecilius
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Micklegate says...

Caecilius wrote:
So Steward implicitly admits that he knew nothing about the way food banks work when he shot his mouth off on the subject.

A Tory who pontificates about matters he's entirely ignorant of, in the hope of appealing to people who are equally ignorant and who never aspire to be anything else (if indeed they have the capacity to be). He should go far in his party.
The journalism on this has been shocking. The article says he 'will visit to see how they work', but from his twitter he has said he will visit (as he has said he will go anywhere he's invited) but has said he knows full well how they work. It also referred to him as the 'no poverty' councillor when his comments were clear that he believed poverty existed and he talked about how it was not as bad in this country as for example the third world. You are therefore totally wrong to say he's speaking on matters 'he's entirely ignorant of', just reading his twitter shows he's not. He has criticised something (I think in an over the top way), but you are harsh to criticise him when he is willing to learn more.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: So Steward implicitly admits that he knew nothing about the way food banks work when he shot his mouth off on the subject. A Tory who pontificates about matters he's entirely ignorant of, in the hope of appealing to people who are equally ignorant and who never aspire to be anything else (if indeed they have the capacity to be). He should go far in his party.[/p][/quote]The journalism on this has been shocking. The article says he 'will visit to see how they work', but from his twitter he has said he will visit (as he has said he will go anywhere he's invited) but has said he knows full well how they work. It also referred to him as the 'no poverty' councillor when his comments were clear that he believed poverty existed and he talked about how it was not as bad in this country as for example the third world. You are therefore totally wrong to say he's speaking on matters 'he's entirely ignorant of', just reading his twitter shows he's not. He has criticised something (I think in an over the top way), but you are harsh to criticise him when he is willing to learn more. Micklegate
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Sat 5 Jan 13

nearlyman says...

Trespar Zagenstuz wrote:
Wurlitzer wrote:
I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses?
The two ends of the social spectrum are metaphorical light-years apart.
The politicians and similar fat-cat banksters at the 'top' of the feudal dunghill hover delicately on being above the law, or so they would assume, and such sponging and fiddling that they indulge in is brushed aside with good public relations exercises, good lawyers and good lying; all of which gets difficult to contest. CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill, refuses to accept the well-known fact that he lets his London accommodating for £7,000 a month. This is quite illegal, but he ignores it. The same might be said for Osborne stealing a million pounds of taxpayer's money to feather his own constituency nest in Tatton. To openly accuse and push the law against him is almost impossible.
Compare those putrid examples with the person subsisting on £75 per week in benefits. Unlike Osborne, a man having risen from the murky depths of being a millionaire's son,
the benefit-claimant might have got to where they are by no fault of their own; quite feasibly being made redundant and having nothing to fall back upon. That they might have once been drinkers, sky-TV watchers and smokers and representative of all the other ills of opprobrium heaped upon their head by more fortunate persons is irrelevant. That is what they were, possibly their fiercest critics have similar vices, but are not thrown into the situation where they have to make choices; give up drinking, smoking, watching TV, indulging in anything that is not part of the one group of necessities; to buy food, clothing and shelter.
Would anybody care to voluntarily strip their life down to these bare minimums in a month?
Only a festering leftie could make it all this complicated !!
[quote][p][bold]Trespar Zagenstuz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wurlitzer[/bold] wrote: I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses?[/p][/quote]The two ends of the social spectrum are metaphorical light-years apart. The politicians and similar fat-cat banksters at the 'top' of the feudal dunghill hover delicately on being above the law, or so they would assume, and such sponging and fiddling that they indulge in is brushed aside with good public relations exercises, good lawyers and good lying; all of which gets difficult to contest. CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill, refuses to accept the well-known fact that he lets his London accommodating for £7,000 a month. This is quite illegal, but he ignores it. The same might be said for Osborne stealing a million pounds of taxpayer's money to feather his own constituency nest in Tatton. To openly accuse and push the law against him is almost impossible. Compare those putrid examples with the person subsisting on £75 per week in benefits. Unlike Osborne, a man having risen from the murky depths of being a millionaire's son, the benefit-claimant might have got to where they are by no fault of their own; quite feasibly being made redundant and having nothing to fall back upon. That they might have once been drinkers, sky-TV watchers and smokers and representative of all the other ills of opprobrium heaped upon their head by more fortunate persons is irrelevant. That is what they were, possibly their fiercest critics have similar vices, but are not thrown into the situation where they have to make choices; give up drinking, smoking, watching TV, indulging in anything that is not part of the one group of necessities; to buy food, clothing and shelter. Would anybody care to voluntarily strip their life down to these bare minimums in a month?[/p][/quote]Only a festering leftie could make it all this complicated !! nearlyman
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Sat 5 Jan 13

RoseD says...

Trespar Zagenstuz wrote:
Wurlitzer wrote:
I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses?
The two ends of the social spectrum are metaphorical light-years apart.
The politicians and similar fat-cat banksters at the 'top' of the feudal dunghill hover delicately on being above the law, or so they would assume, and such sponging and fiddling that they indulge in is brushed aside with good public relations exercises, good lawyers and good lying; all of which gets difficult to contest. CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill, refuses to accept the well-known fact that he lets his London accommodating for £7,000 a month. This is quite illegal, but he ignores it. The same might be said for Osborne stealing a million pounds of taxpayer's money to feather his own constituency nest in Tatton. To openly accuse and push the law against him is almost impossible.
Compare those putrid examples with the person subsisting on £75 per week in benefits. Unlike Osborne, a man having risen from the murky depths of being a millionaire's son,
the benefit-claimant might have got to where they are by no fault of their own; quite feasibly being made redundant and having nothing to fall back upon. That they might have once been drinkers, sky-TV watchers and smokers and representative of all the other ills of opprobrium heaped upon their head by more fortunate persons is irrelevant. That is what they were, possibly their fiercest critics have similar vices, but are not thrown into the situation where they have to make choices; give up drinking, smoking, watching TV, indulging in anything that is not part of the one group of necessities; to buy food, clothing and shelter.
Would anybody care to voluntarily strip their life down to these bare minimums in a month?
Thank you. I have enjoyed your outrage. I am a social loser myself tho, since i am disabled but not deemed crip enough for those whisky&fag bennies, i dont even get the other 'massive' payments: i cant claim to look for work when I can barely work....and yet I do apply..... in the off chance one day, someone will take a flyer on a clever person who cant always walk. However. Poverty does exist. Luckily we havent maxed out the ccard yet but, when we do, we'll lose the house. I rarely 'indulge' in heatng the place let alone the other vices which, frankly, not every down on their luck person finds appealing!
[quote][p][bold]Trespar Zagenstuz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wurlitzer[/bold] wrote: I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses?[/p][/quote]The two ends of the social spectrum are metaphorical light-years apart. The politicians and similar fat-cat banksters at the 'top' of the feudal dunghill hover delicately on being above the law, or so they would assume, and such sponging and fiddling that they indulge in is brushed aside with good public relations exercises, good lawyers and good lying; all of which gets difficult to contest. CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill, refuses to accept the well-known fact that he lets his London accommodating for £7,000 a month. This is quite illegal, but he ignores it. The same might be said for Osborne stealing a million pounds of taxpayer's money to feather his own constituency nest in Tatton. To openly accuse and push the law against him is almost impossible. Compare those putrid examples with the person subsisting on £75 per week in benefits. Unlike Osborne, a man having risen from the murky depths of being a millionaire's son, the benefit-claimant might have got to where they are by no fault of their own; quite feasibly being made redundant and having nothing to fall back upon. That they might have once been drinkers, sky-TV watchers and smokers and representative of all the other ills of opprobrium heaped upon their head by more fortunate persons is irrelevant. That is what they were, possibly their fiercest critics have similar vices, but are not thrown into the situation where they have to make choices; give up drinking, smoking, watching TV, indulging in anything that is not part of the one group of necessities; to buy food, clothing and shelter. Would anybody care to voluntarily strip their life down to these bare minimums in a month?[/p][/quote]Thank you. I have enjoyed your outrage. I am a social loser myself tho, since i am disabled but not deemed crip enough for those whisky&fag bennies, i dont even get the other 'massive' payments: i cant claim to look for work when I can barely work....and yet I do apply..... in the off chance one day, someone will take a flyer on a clever person who cant always walk. However. Poverty does exist. Luckily we havent maxed out the ccard yet but, when we do, we'll lose the house. I rarely 'indulge' in heatng the place let alone the other vices which, frankly, not every down on their luck person finds appealing! RoseD
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

nearlyman wrote:
Trespar Zagenstuz wrote:
Wurlitzer wrote:
I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses?
The two ends of the social spectrum are metaphorical light-years apart.
The politicians and similar fat-cat banksters at the 'top' of the feudal dunghill hover delicately on being above the law, or so they would assume, and such sponging and fiddling that they indulge in is brushed aside with good public relations exercises, good lawyers and good lying; all of which gets difficult to contest. CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill, refuses to accept the well-known fact that he lets his London accommodating for £7,000 a month. This is quite illegal, but he ignores it. The same might be said for Osborne stealing a million pounds of taxpayer's money to feather his own constituency nest in Tatton. To openly accuse and push the law against him is almost impossible.
Compare those putrid examples with the person subsisting on £75 per week in benefits. Unlike Osborne, a man having risen from the murky depths of being a millionaire's son,
the benefit-claimant might have got to where they are by no fault of their own; quite feasibly being made redundant and having nothing to fall back upon. That they might have once been drinkers, sky-TV watchers and smokers and representative of all the other ills of opprobrium heaped upon their head by more fortunate persons is irrelevant. That is what they were, possibly their fiercest critics have similar vices, but are not thrown into the situation where they have to make choices; give up drinking, smoking, watching TV, indulging in anything that is not part of the one group of necessities; to buy food, clothing and shelter.
Would anybody care to voluntarily strip their life down to these bare minimums in a month?
Only a festering leftie could make it all this complicated !!
"Only a festering leftie could make it all this complicated !!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#~~~~~
~~~~~~~
Thank you, 'nearlyman'. Iapologise for making it too difficult for you to follow.
Only a rabid right-wing fascist would have just about enough intelligence to simplify a complex situation down to a untruth that fits his low level of understanding and reasoning powers; to whit, unemployed= 'fag-smoking scrounger'.
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trespar Zagenstuz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wurlitzer[/bold] wrote: I have yet to meet anyone who exists on £75 a week benefits who has an iphone or sky tv,who drinks and smokes.Why do people seem to begrudge those on benefits who cant find a job receiving so little and yet never seem to complain about the real spongers and fiddlers in our society ie politicians with their bloated salaries and expenses?[/p][/quote]The two ends of the social spectrum are metaphorical light-years apart. The politicians and similar fat-cat banksters at the 'top' of the feudal dunghill hover delicately on being above the law, or so they would assume, and such sponging and fiddling that they indulge in is brushed aside with good public relations exercises, good lawyers and good lying; all of which gets difficult to contest. CaMoron, the **** of the dunghill, refuses to accept the well-known fact that he lets his London accommodating for £7,000 a month. This is quite illegal, but he ignores it. The same might be said for Osborne stealing a million pounds of taxpayer's money to feather his own constituency nest in Tatton. To openly accuse and push the law against him is almost impossible. Compare those putrid examples with the person subsisting on £75 per week in benefits. Unlike Osborne, a man having risen from the murky depths of being a millionaire's son, the benefit-claimant might have got to where they are by no fault of their own; quite feasibly being made redundant and having nothing to fall back upon. That they might have once been drinkers, sky-TV watchers and smokers and representative of all the other ills of opprobrium heaped upon their head by more fortunate persons is irrelevant. That is what they were, possibly their fiercest critics have similar vices, but are not thrown into the situation where they have to make choices; give up drinking, smoking, watching TV, indulging in anything that is not part of the one group of necessities; to buy food, clothing and shelter. Would anybody care to voluntarily strip their life down to these bare minimums in a month?[/p][/quote]Only a festering leftie could make it all this complicated !![/p][/quote]"Only a festering leftie could make it all this complicated !!" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ Thank you, 'nearlyman'. Iapologise for making it too difficult for you to follow. Only a rabid right-wing fascist would have just about enough intelligence to simplify a complex situation down to a untruth that fits his low level of understanding and reasoning powers; to whit, unemployed= 'fag-smoking scrounger'. Trespar Zagenstuz
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Sat 5 Jan 13

nearlyman says...

I rest my case !
I rest my case ! nearlyman
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

nearlyman wrote:
I rest my case !
I suggest you throw your case in the skip. It's full of holes.
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: I rest my case ![/p][/quote]I suggest you throw your case in the skip. It's full of holes. Trespar Zagenstuz
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Politics is a nasty business.
Politics is a nasty business. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

I trust Councilor Steward, after his shift at the food bank, will have been presented with a generous slice of humble pie.
Enjoy, Mr Steward!
I trust Councilor Steward, after his shift at the food bank, will have been presented with a generous slice of humble pie. Enjoy, Mr Steward! Trespar Zagenstuz
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Politics is a nasty business.
Yet, it only has a 7 day memory...
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Politics is a nasty business.[/p][/quote]Yet, it only has a 7 day memory... Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Sun 6 Jan 13

oi oi savaloy says...

Trespar Zagenstuz wrote:
I trust Councilor Steward, after his shift at the food bank, will have been presented with a generous slice of humble pie.
Enjoy, Mr Steward!
Notice how big buda as gone quite and this loony leftie as appeared???

James Alexander I presume?? With a vengeance
[quote][p][bold]Trespar Zagenstuz[/bold] wrote: I trust Councilor Steward, after his shift at the food bank, will have been presented with a generous slice of humble pie. Enjoy, Mr Steward![/p][/quote]Notice how big buda as gone quite and this loony leftie as appeared??? James Alexander I presume?? With a vengeance oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Ayemgee says...

What a lot of vitriol is thrown around on this page. Lies, distortion, insult, and lots of ya boo sucks, but little analsis of what was actually said or whether what was reported is any where near the truth of the matter. Poverty is a relative descriptor and there is plenty of poverty in the U.K.
Any one who is not rich is poorer than those who are and the poorest in our country do seem to be the ones who are faring worst. Not yet in the latter stages of poverty but on the way.
There are degrees of poverty which range from hard-up through abject poverty to destitution and then there is third world poverty which adds disease, starvation, deprivation and famine to the condition. Presumably Mr. Steward is referrring to the third world kind of poverty which we have not achieved in the UK yet, but if things don't pick up soon we may. We have already experienced a worsening situation with reports of a return of rickets and undernourishment.
Still "We are in this together" to quote a famous politician and no doubt some of his over fed colleagues will diet for the poor if it becomes fashionable.
In the mean time Nero fiddles and Rome burns!
What a lot of vitriol is thrown around on this page. Lies, distortion, insult, and lots of ya boo sucks, but little analsis of what was actually said or whether what was reported is any where near the truth of the matter. Poverty is a relative descriptor and there is plenty of poverty in the U.K. Any one who is not rich is poorer than those who are and the poorest in our country do seem to be the ones who are faring worst. Not yet in the latter stages of poverty but on the way. There are degrees of poverty which range from hard-up through abject poverty to destitution and then there is third world poverty which adds disease, starvation, deprivation and famine to the condition. Presumably Mr. Steward is referrring to the third world kind of poverty which we have not achieved in the UK yet, but if things don't pick up soon we may. We have already experienced a worsening situation with reports of a return of rickets and undernourishment. Still "We are in this together" to quote a famous politician and no doubt some of his over fed colleagues will diet for the poor if it becomes fashionable. In the mean time Nero fiddles and Rome burns! Ayemgee
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Trespar Zagenstuz says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
Trespar Zagenstuz wrote:
I trust Councilor Steward, after his shift at the food bank, will have been presented with a generous slice of humble pie.
Enjoy, Mr Steward!
Notice how big buda as gone quite and this loony leftie as appeared???

James Alexander I presume?? With a vengeance
"Notice how big buda as gone quite and this loony leftie as appeared??? James Alexander I presume?? With a vengeance"
~~says oi oi savaloy.
If you will care to transcribe your first sentence above into English I might understand it.
However, you may happily wallow in your ignorance, Mr Savaloy, as far as I am concerned. My secret is safe.
...........#........
......
But tell me, who is 'big buda'?
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trespar Zagenstuz[/bold] wrote: I trust Councilor Steward, after his shift at the food bank, will have been presented with a generous slice of humble pie. Enjoy, Mr Steward![/p][/quote]Notice how big buda as gone quite and this loony leftie as appeared??? James Alexander I presume?? With a vengeance[/p][/quote]"Notice how big buda as gone quite and this loony leftie as appeared??? James Alexander I presume?? With a vengeance" ~~says oi oi savaloy. If you will care to transcribe your first sentence above into English I might understand it. However, you may happily wallow in your ignorance, Mr Savaloy, as far as I am concerned. My secret is safe. ...........#........ ...... But tell me, who is 'big buda'? Trespar Zagenstuz
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree