I think you are having trouble in understanding the simple concept of the effluxion of time.

Yes it was - the pass level was changed from one year to the next.

Think it through - there was a limited number of grammar school places available, in my school its was an influx of 120 boys per year, every year we got 120 boys, four forms of 30, exactly the same number every year, the rest (like my brother, chortle) were cast adrift into the secondary school system, his first year at secondary school was overcrowded and he ended up in a class of around 38 boys, put simply they creamed off the top 120 in our catchment area and put the rest into the lower division and to do that you have to move the bar every year.

I'd add that I later found out that my pass mark in the 11 plus was just one mark above what was the bar that year - and I continued in that mode for the next five years, always just did enough, never did too much

That's how exams were in the past. Take the top x %. It's the same with football clubs, etc. Take the top X take a closer look at them and then reduce that number (going into the adult squad / university). Trouble is Labour destroyed the system so its the other way round - with lot's getting to university and now they pay the price (literally) by paying themselves to stay off the unemployment register for 3 years.

Who'd have believed it - British politicians messing up something.

Call yourself an oracle?



I was aware of the cutting/capping of benefits, i thought the stopping of benefits of anyone on 60k+ was sort of an attack on the better-off, but the fact that millionaires get a big reduction just stinks, AND makes no sense, practically speaking.

i know full well it wasn't your idea, that would involve you actually having the nous to be able to come up with something.


an example? you've got it all mapped out. why are you distancing yourself from it now? surely it's right that we as taxpayers train up people to go and work for the energy companies and save them the job of doing it?

sounds pretty clear to me. paying people to behave. as i said, it's up there with 'hug a hoodie'.

nothing positive? what you want is cheerleaders, sycophants to nod in approval at the great essays of nothing you produce.

ffs. and i'm meant to be the stupid one.

Based on what measure? Since the Tories came to power in may 2010 the French economic growth has been more than double that of the UK.

I genuinely fail to see how this can possibly be the case. So our GDP is smaller, and growing more slowly, yet we will soon overtake them!?


They're going to be more than 2-3k better off if they earn a decent amount. For income over £150,000 the rate of tax has been cut from 50% to 45%. Yes they will lose out on child benefit, but because this isn't proportional to their very large incomes (in the same way their tax cut is) it doesn't nearly make up for it.

This was despite figures from the OBR showing that cutting the rate below 47% would decrease government revenue, so the ONLY justification for the move was to give some extra cash to their rich mates (and themselves).


In that analogy the amount they pay for their beer represents taxes, so beer represents what they get out of society. In your story it is implied that they all drink the same amount of beer, thus all get the same out of society. I would argue that is'nt the case at all - Rich people benefit far more from the fact that our society facilitates people to be prosperous*. The richest 10% own 53% of the UK's wealth, whereas the bottom 50% own 7%, so the analogy would've made more sense if 10 men go to a bar, the first 5 men share half a pint,... and the last man gets 5 and a bit pints all to himself - then shock horror people expect him to pay significantly more.

*before you claim that the rich are self-made men, and they don't owe it to the state for providing a country which made it possible to become rich, please answer me this: how many of them would've become rich if they'd being born in Somalia?

Nah. Never have, mate. Wouldn't want to be, either.

Christ samwire, you're a thick and unpleasant little f*ck, aren't you? Is that what your mummy taught you?

Was she as nasty a piece as you patently are? And as thick?

Obviously the two do often come together – and in you, we see them in perfect harmony. So it seems fair to ask if that's genetic.

Strivers not Skivers

Kirkstaller will be after you now

Like he got worked up the other day when Rooster had him by the short and curlys?

Yes, thats what you were talking about.

So have a read of this [urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/08/welfare-uprating-bill-2_n_2432078.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics[/url


And then come back and answer two simple questions...

1. Is the lady in question a striver or a skiver ?

2. What is the planned change to working tax credit going to do to help her ?



Remember - you can't earn working tax credit unless you're already a striver.

Judging by your abuse ridden post of 6.40 pm it appears you are the one getting 'worked up'.

oh, bless. got quite a temper haven't you? you should really chill out a bit.
is this how you always react when someone points out you're not as smart as you reckon you are.

What? As opposed to an individual who claims that the rise of food banks is down to 'people wanting things for free'?

And really, if I wanted to do abuse, I'd could do far better. Trust me. I was being polite.

My post the other day was edited (not by you I add) for containing a mild personal insult.

And I didn't swear or reference anyone's lineage.

Mine was just to point fun at the subject matter of a new thread. Yours appears to be the last vestige of a failing argument.

Please, going on about people's mothers. Playground stuff.

Why not delete it and save some face before too many read it.

and all those people q'ing outside next at 6am on boxing day are all there for what exactly? or the masses of people surrounding the reduced/whoops shelves in supermarkets?


you go for it then, sweetheart.

then that's your choice. why are ceo's overpaid?

I didn't mention mothers at all.

Learn to read.

On a family friendly forum. From a site admin too



I have no idea what the 'argument' was about. But by posting something like this Mintball has just lost it.

Love, you've admitted previously that you have such a lack of respect for people here that you can't be d with bothering to use even capital letters where required by the English language.

So why waste your time here?

You really must be a very sad little individual to continue to come back and do so – not least when there is nobody obviously agreeing with your poorly-considered 'thoughts'.

You said 'Is that what your mummy taught you'. You did therefore mention mothers.

Have you been drinking or have you completely lost the plot?!

Enough the lot of you.

If you can't hold a debate without slinging insults, getting nasty of showing yourselves up then this isn't the place to have your petty fights. And that means all of you.