Yes. You have. You were at the front of the queue here during the pensions dispute complaining about how overpaid public services – who you informed us didn't work in "The Real World" should be dragged down to the level of people like you, in "The Real World".

You reduce your outgoings – if/when your income declines.

Did Jesus do that before helping people?

Reading the right wing posts on here and other forums I am beginning to realise what is wrong.



It should be a criminal offence to be poor, malnourished, ill, disabled and not be employable,

It should be a criminal offence to care about human beings who need help and try to change things that could improve the situation.

If you have no humanity and are of the opinion that me me me is the only social process available then you should be lauded.

As a right wing apologist you should realise that those who have the most are so GREEDY that anyone who even thinks about having a care for others should be immediately incarcerated without trial.

As right wing apologists, pre enlightened Scrooge is the person you should aspire to as this is how you believe the system should be.

The word Nasty is pornographic and should be deleted.



There are however people still with social conscience who will risk right wing claptrap and continue to help those in need or who have fallen on hard times. Thank you for your efforts.



I hope everyone has as good a time as possible during the next few days, including those who stick their fingers in their ears, wear blinkers and sing la la la and hope someone will take away the worlds problems for them.

There is still hope for you yet, optimist that I am

I already have done.

Your attempt to pretend that reducing one's outgoings doesn't mean that one is worse off if one's pay is frozen or reduced is still risable, though.

Surely you mean "risible"?

We'll have to agree to disagree.

No i did not I have never said that because I haven't had a pay rise nobody else should get one - which is what you claimed.



So either prove it by finding a quote I have made that says what you claim or retract. We both know what is going to happen - neither because you cannot prove it, you would have if could have and you haven't got enough about you to admit when you are wrong.



What I did say was that many in the private sector will have little sympathy with civil servants striking for compulsory pay increases when many in the private sector - like me - haven't had a pay increase in a number of years. That isn't anything like what claim I said. Again please read what is written not what you want it to say.

At best, it was nothing other than sophistry.



Try taking it to its logical conclusion: 'Oh, I'm not worse off because my boss slashed my pay by a huge: I cut my outgoings by giving up my house and now I sleep on a bench in the park, so I'm not actually worse off.'

Is that why you replied to "Graeme" on another thread while replying to Jerry Chicken?

Quote BobbyD="BobbyD"The London Evening Standard? www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-un ... rnalSearch '" Yes, when I get the time to trawl back through my twitter timeline I'll provide the link

Quote BobbyD="BobbyD"The London Evening Standard? www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-un ... rnalSearch '" Yes, when I get the time to trawl back through my twitter timeline I'll provide the link

I heard a foodbank manager on the radio yesterday, when questioned about the nutritional value of a typical basket, stated that they tried to offer a balanced selection but were sometimes hampered logistically - many foodbanks have no facility for handling fresh, chilled or frozen foods. He also admitted that some had asked for "convenience" food but further investigation showed that the voucher holder didn't have the money to feed their meter to cook food.



I'll also try to find a link to Katie Hopkins blog on Huffington Post where she asserts that many female recipients are swapping their jam rags for a rock of crack

Out-smarted once again - why does everyone find it so easy?

What on earth are you on about now fool?



It's especially funny coming from someone who bemoans the systemic abuse of the welfare state, quoting apocryphal examples of hus own family members being involved in such abuse, yet has never reported such abuse to the relevant authorities

[iBloody druggies.[/i

[iLord Elpers wrote:

Do you still stand by this?[/i









It looks to me that the figure you quoted ie 32809 was for the end of 2011 and not 2010. The coalition came to power in the 2nd quarter of 2010. So was this a misreading of graphs error or a deliberate error to mislead?





[urlhttp://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita-ppp[/url

Ah, but it's only 'Champagne socialists' who Sal expects to abide by any standards – and even then, not their own but the ones that he reckons they have/should have, even though he cannot then lay out those same standards.



So when he does it, it's not hypocrisy of double standards at all.

Speaking of austerity, will be interesting to see how the Financial Conduct Authority's first major fraud trial pans out. The defendants currently cannot get barristers to represent them as no Chambers will agree to act for the reduced legal aid rates. The judge told the defendants in a preliminary hearing that they may need to defend themselves. So will it transpire they'll need to go to trial without representation and thereby formalise the fact that justice will only be open to the mega-rich in future or will, in the name of austerity, hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money presumably already spent in preparing the prosecution case be written off (defence arguing cannot have a fair trial without representation in such a complex case)? Either way is justice served or public money wisely spent?

Neat swerve once again.



What I said was this - the hypocrisy is the likes of McClusky speaking about equality and social justice from his ivory tower i.e £120k salary, plus nice car, plus final salary pension scheme all funded by members who will never enjoy such benefits. You really need to read what is written not what you want to it to say.



As I said I have no issue with how much anyone earns and I don't apologise for what I earn nor do I begrudge my bosses - two of which earned >800k last year.



Now where are we on you proving or retracting where you claimed I said nobody should get a pay rise because I hadn't had one? You see two can play this game!!

Why can MPs who represent the whole of the electorate manage on much lower salaries and still get criticised? These union leaders often take from the poorly paid to fund their fat cat life-styles. If they have conviction and members interests at heart they should not be accepting or demanding such pay. As you say, hypocrisy of the very worst kind.

Presumably because like anyone else, such as nurses, social workers, doctors they are open to criticism as we all are in our jobs. What their salaries has to do with this I have no idea. Should those nurses be immune from criticism because they earn less than an MP?







Given Union membership is voluntary has it crossed your mind that the members are happy to pay their subs knowing the people who run the organisation are well paid?



They don't "take" anything. Union membership is voluntary so therefore so are the subs the members pay. Anyone disagreeing with the pay the leadership receives can simply leave the Union.



If they don't they must believe the benefits of membership are worth the subs regardless of what salaries the union officials are paid.



The union leaders are also elected so just like MP's said they can be replaced if required so anyone who feels they aren't getting value for money can do something about it.



Anyone who takes whatever benefits the Unions secure for them yet then moans about the salaries paid to the officials would be the hypocrite.

But why do people who preach equality feel it necessary to have large salaries? Do they work harder for "their" members because they earn £120,000 than if they earned, say, £40,000? If so, why?

I wasn't aware they preach equality as such. More fairness as in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.



I don't work any harder these days despite my salary being considerably larger than it was 10 years ago but I assume I am paid it because my experience and skills are considered worth it.



Presumably union officials who earn these salaries are also considered worth the money.



All you are doing here is recycling the bankrupt argument that if you are of a left wing view you ought to work for free.

After some digging, it appears the quoted figure was from an article dated [url=http://www.standard.co.uk/news/one-million-young-people-jobless-6368531.htmlNovember 2011[/url, so please accept my apologies. Still doesn't alter the fact that this bunch of sociopaths managed to preside over the highest level of unemployment since the last time they were in charge of the nation

Nobody worse than the union leaders for pointing out how jobs could be saved if the bosses earned less - if we take your analogy then the experience and skills of the bosses and considered worth it? I bet if you asked McClusky to justify his salary and benefits he would point out his skills and experience.



Questioning the salary of bosses when you are the highest earner with the most benefits in the organisation is a touch hypocritical would you not agree?



No one is suggesting left wingers should not earn high salaries - just that they don't spout equality and a better spread of wealth from such a lofty position.