Damage done to the UK ALREADY following the elction

Labaik Is this relevant to the discussion ?

But when the leave voters are standing in these queues they will blame the EU, just as they have been programmed to do.

Saw a list of things needed to be done when travelling to EU countries with pets after Brexit. Think a lot of people will be caught out by it. Also hearing of long queues at passport control even before we have officially left.

And the latest Ken Loach film ''Sorry we missed you'' - harrowing about the reality of such contracts and other low paid work.

Oh JE you really don't know much about the real world do you. I will be kind and assume you read the DM or just watch programmes on TV which demonise poor people. So I'll try to tell you what really happens. You cannot "choose a benefits lifestyle" you have to actively seek work, sometimes dispite the fact that you are unwell or disabled. If you don't actively seek work you will be sanctioned and your benefit will stop. If you refuse to accept a job (even a zero hours contract job) you will be sanctioned and your benefit will stop. That's what happens to people. Should you be held up for whatever reason on your way to an appointment to do with your benefit you may be sanctioned if they choose to.
I advise you to watch the film "I, Daniel Blake" to find out what realy happens to people on benefit.

How insensitive can you continue to be : ''no one is forcing them to take a zero hours job if it was unsuitable.'' - unbelievable

For goodness sake, how many times does it have to be said?

I and a few others aren’t talking about people in work who might not earn very much but those perfectly able to work but who instead chose a benefits lifestyle.

As regards the much maligned zero hours contracts, they do work well for some people who want part time work with flexible hours.

Obviously they wouldn’t be suitable employment for a lot of people needing full time work, but no one is forcing them to take a zero hours job if it was unsuitable.

Oh you saints! It's not about being SAHM. Most people my age did it for a bit when their kids were small. It's about realising that for some people life is very difficult and those people are not the benefit scroungers you seem to think but the low paid workers who staff the care homes, serve the coffee and generally maintain the basis of the society you live in, but don't earn enough to live on and rely on UC to live. So that when things go wrong they are forced to use food banks. Be bloody grateful you could afford to stay at home because the likelyhood is you wouldn't now. You can't save when you are on a zero hours contract and you don't know from one week to the next what you will earn.

Perhaps time to go back to the OP - which goes far beyond the topic of the last couple of pages of stereotypes and generalisations.

Well said Jabberwok !! I too was a SAHM. If we couldn't afford something we managed without it unlike many benefit claimants who seem to think it's their right to have everything they want. Why do they always appear to have all the latest technology including massive T.V. sets? They often need to ask for help in dealing with the debts they have built up. Saving up for things appears to be beyond their understanding.

No growstuff, I have never offered anyone the sort of advice you seem to think I have, either on here or anywhere else. I do think people should cut their coat according to their cloth and only have that which they can afford including children. Like Jennifer E, I wanted to be with my children when they were small and beyond! For that we as a couple were prepared to go without a lot of things that would have been available had I worked, second hand everything, our choice! To accuse anyone of being privileged for being a SAHM when you haven't a clue as to their circumstances is just ridiculous and judgemental.

Nope, Janpt, I'm with growstuff. JE is very judgemental about others that she feels are 'undeserving', 'scroungers' or just who haven't contributed what she deems as enough to society. All the while having had quite an easy ride herself.

NOT that I begrudge anyone whatever life they've chosen BUT it's hypocritical to have sat on easy street yourself and then to accuse others less fortunate of scrounging from the state.

CraftyGranny, it's because I copied and pasted from someone else. Also because I'm s**t with technology.

Someone a few pages back very kindly added the complete, working links.

Sorry!

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

clicked on all your links GagaJo, but google couldn't find any of them!

Exactly! It's nothing to do with your being a SAHM JenniferEccles. It's to so with your hypocrisy and ignorance of other people's lives, about which you seem oblivious.

Still refuse to see the point, this is not about being a SAHM- or not- but about your pontificating and judging others.

Give me 'verbiage' anyday, rather than nonsense drivel.

Thank you for your kind words Jabberwok. I knew I wasn’t alone !

Lots of women of my generation didn’t work once the children came along but for some reason the fact that I am one of them appears to preclude me from commenting on benefits scroungers.

Anyway I have broad shoulders so it washes off me!

The spiteful comments say more about the posters though don’t they?

What I objected to was that JenniferEccles was implying that everybody who claims benefits during unemployment, etc could easily find a job, when she hasn't had to look for one for many years and was fortunate enough to be a kept woman.

Have you also offered people advice about getting off their backsides to look for a job Jabberwok?

Gagajo's 'verbiage' is neither interesting or relevant. The fact is that thankfully Corbyn and his Marxist cronies lost the election. Former loyal Labour supporters saw them for what they were and the country is now in safer hands with a Conservative government.

I will just add to my last post that all 5 of my gc are in full-time jobs, working and contributing to society and this was thanks to a mixture of my son self supporting and benefits.

Please explain why it is those that have a left wing agenda are opposed to SAHM.

From my viewpoint (and being child free) I think it's a good idea for a parent to be at home with their young children. But, some people can't afford to, some people want stuff, some people are career orientated and some people are lucky enough to be able to stay at home or pay for nannies so that they can further their careers.

Jennifer Eccles, I too was a SAHM ! No we weren't well off and I didn't live in a golden bubble as people on here have spitefully said about you. We chose for me to stay at home and look after our two children until the youngest was 13. My DH had a middle management job,(we were both under 30 when our two were born) We had a tiny two up two down cottage,no bathroom, outside loo! we were both war babies, (I was fatherless) so make do and mend was second nature for us. We had very little,but looking back, those early years spent with our babies were the best of our lives, so for people on here to deride and spit venom over individual life choices that don't fit into a left wing agenda is nothing short of disgusting!

Yes, I'm American. Agree with all your points, Growstuff . I just mentioned population growth/immigration as an example of an issue that can be contentious between the right and the left.