Today's most viewed
Asbo family have home repossessed
FIVE members of a Hampshire household have been given Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and had their home repossessed.
Council chiefs acted after the family made life a misery for fellow residents in Swanmore.
The ASBOs were gained together with an outright possession order for the family's tenancy in the Spring Vale area.
The action by Winchester City Council came after continual complaints of anti-social behaviour, including damage to property and aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards local people and officers.
A council spokesman said: "Information was compiled with the support and assistance of local residents and the evidence clearly showed the negative impact the family was having on their neighbours' health and quality of life.
"Winchester City Council Housing Officers and Hampshire Police made every effort to work with the family to prevent the applications for the ASBOs and possession proceedings becoming necessary.
"However, despite numerous interventions to assist the family in maintaining their tenancy, the families conduct and behaviour did not improve."
The three five year ASBOs against Michael Harfield, 66, his wife Patricia, 42, and son Matthew, 18, covering the whole of England and Wales were gained at Winchester County Court.
Full ASBO hearings for Cindy, 16, and Ryan, 13, are scheduled for October in Portsmouth. In the meantime interim ASBOs have been secured.
The council also regained possession of the property yesterday.
The orders were granted after hearing evidence produced by the council and the Police that all family members had engaged in conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to local residents, resulting in numerous breaches of tenancy.
2:22pm Thursday 14th August 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: denzil, swanmore on 2:32pm Thu 14 Aug 08
where will we go
Posted by: rich the stitch on 2:36pm Thu 14 Aug 08
I wonder how long the people in the area had to put up with these low life before they were kicked out. Scum like that should not be allowed to live off our taxes. Hope they get everything they deserve, the horrible chav family.
I wonder how long the people in the area had to put up with these low life before they were kicked out. Scum like that should not be allowed to live off our taxes. Hope they get everything they deserve, the horrible chav family.
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 2:37pm Thu 14 Aug 08
woolston treatment works denzil
woolston treatment works denzil
Posted by: George on 2:38pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live [italic]somewhere[/italic]. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live
somewhere. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life
Posted by: The voice, Southampton on 2:38pm Thu 14 Aug 08
To be quite honest..who gives a toss as long as its not next to decent people although there was a big family who have just left a site in Eastleigh they can always join them...if they would have such low life
To be quite honest..who gives a toss as long as its not next to decent people although there was a big family who have just left a site in Eastleigh they can always join them...if they would have such low life
Posted by: Simon, Chilworth on 2:38pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]denzil[/bold] wrote:
where will we go[/quote] Don't come hear. Weve got enough problems allready.
denzil wrote:
where will we go
Don't come hear. Weve got enough problems allready.
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 2:42pm Thu 14 Aug 08
best thing to do is buy an island up in the shetlands and turn it into a prison island,tell them they got to feed and shelter them selfs
best thing to do is buy an island up in the shetlands and turn it into a prison island,tell them they got to feed and shelter them selfs
Posted by: Miles Sway, Scotland on 2:43pm Thu 14 Aug 08
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.
Posted by: George on 2:47pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Miles Sway[/bold] wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.[/quote] Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey
Miles Sway wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.
Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey
Posted by: Farmer, Winchester on 2:49pm Thu 14 Aug 08
I have a 10 acre field laying fallow right now. I rent it out to a pig farming mate of mine, so its totally covered in pig sh*t. If someone donates a big tent then the family can live in it on my field. For free. But they will have to accept me setting up a mobile sound system and pumping into the tent Mozart's Clarinet Concerto at 1000 watts, 24 hours a day. See how they like that. What absolute arseholes these selfish people are. Deport them, to Australia.
I have a 10 acre field laying fallow right now. I rent it out to a pig farming mate of mine, so its totally covered in pig sh*t. If someone donates a big tent then the family can live in it on my field. For free. But they will have to accept me setting up a mobile sound system and pumping into the tent Mozart's Clarinet Concerto at 1000 watts, 24 hours a day. See how they like that. What absolute arseholes these selfish people are. Deport them, to Australia.
Posted by: Denzils nipper, On a pavement in swanmore on 2:50pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]denzil[/bold] wrote:
where will we go[/quote] Its ok daddy, we can get a flat in thornhill! Are you still proud of me??
denzil wrote:
where will we go
Its ok daddy, we can get a flat in thornhill! Are you still proud of me??
Posted by: Miles Sway, Scotland on 2:51pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Miles Sway[/bold] wrote: They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.[/quote] Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey[/quote] Made me laugh George, thanks.
I doubt this lot have the brains to fill a form out but you can bet your last penny there'll be a young human rights lawyer somewhere looking for a case just like this.
George wrote:
Miles Sway wrote: They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.
Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey
Made me laugh George, thanks.
I doubt this lot have the brains to fill a form out but you can bet your last penny there'll be a young human rights lawyer somewhere looking for a case just like this.
Posted by: ha ha ha ha, the moon on 2:52pm Thu 14 Aug 08
i hope they all die of aides
i hope they all die of aides
Posted by: Ian, bitterne park on 2:56pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]ha ha ha ha[/bold] wrote:
i hope they all die of aides [/quote] Ha Ha Ha , just looked up the word aides.
[bold]American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This aide Audio Help (ād) Pronunciation Key
n.
1/ An aide-de-camp.
2/ An assistant; a helper: a nurse's aide. See Synonyms at assistant.
[French, from aider, to aid; see aid.]
[/bold]
What a pillock!!
ha ha ha ha wrote:
i hope they all die of aides
Ha Ha Ha , just looked up the word aides.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This aide Audio Help (ād) Pronunciation Key
n.
1/ An aide-de-camp.
2/ An assistant; a helper: a nurse's aide. See Synonyms at assistant.
What a pillock!!
Posted by: Dictionary Editor, Oxford on 2:58pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Miles Sway[/bold] wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.[/quote] Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey[/quote] "Malarkey"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?
George wrote:
Miles Sway wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.
Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey
"Malarkey"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?
Posted by: rich the stitch on 2:58pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live [italic]somewhere[/italic]. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life[/quote] The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.
George wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live somewhere. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life
The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.
Posted by: George on 3:03pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live [italic]somewhere[/italic]. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life[/quote] The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.[/quote] Why would that make them go out and get jobs? They already think the world owes them a living, clearly, so they'd just find some other way to milk the system, or sponge off others. Probably just turn to (or increase their involvement in) petty crime. I'd really love to believe that stopping their benefits would make them go and get jobs, but the realist in me seriously doubts it.
rich the stitch wrote:
George wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live somewhere. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life
The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.
Why would that make them go out and get jobs? They already think the world owes them a living, clearly, so they'd just find some other way to milk the system, or sponge off others. Probably just turn to (or increase their involvement in) petty crime. I'd really love to believe that stopping their benefits would make them go and get jobs, but the realist in me seriously doubts it.
Posted by: George on 3:04pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Dictionary Editor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Miles Sway[/bold] wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.[/quote] Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey[/quote] "Malarkey"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?[/quote] Surely you mean "What nonsense is this to which you refer?" :-)
Dictionary Editor wrote:
George wrote:
Miles Sway wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.
Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey
"Malarkey"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?
Surely you mean "What nonsense is this to which you refer?" :-)
Posted by: Mr Bumble on 3:06pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Bring back the workhouse: Shelter and food in return for hard work; Empty homes available for the employed to live in;sexes segregated (so no teenage parents)- the ideal solution...
Bring back the workhouse: Shelter and food in return for hard work; Empty homes available for the employed to live in;sexes segregated (so no teenage parents)- the ideal solution...
Posted by: Dictionary Editor, Oxford on 3:12pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Dictionary Editor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Miles Sway[/bold] wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.[/quote] Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey[/quote] "Malarkey"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?[/quote] Surely you mean "What nonsense is this to which you refer?" :-)
[/quote] You after my job? :-(
George wrote:
Dictionary Editor wrote:
George wrote:
Miles Sway wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.
Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey
"Malarkey"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?
Surely you mean "What nonsense is this to which you refer?" :-)
You after my job? :-(
Posted by: George on 3:15pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Dictionary Editor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Dictionary Editor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Miles Sway[/bold] wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.[/quote] Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey[/quote] "Malarkey"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?[/quote] Surely you mean "What nonsense is this to which you refer?" :-)
[/quote] You after my job? :-([/quote] I dunno. What are the hours?
Dictionary Editor wrote:
George wrote:
Dictionary Editor wrote:
George wrote:
Miles Sway wrote:
They'll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they'll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.
Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey
"Malarkey"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?
Surely you mean "What nonsense is this to which you refer?" :-)
You after my job? :-(
I dunno. What are the hours?
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 3:28pm Thu 14 Aug 08
put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable
put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable
Posted by: Dave, The Moral High Ground on 3:36pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Come on everyone, back to work. Someone has to pay tax so we can afford to re-house these scummers and police their ASBO conditions. Someone has to pay tax so we can afford to give them their generous welfare payouts otherwise how the hell would they be able to afford Sky and, oh my, might even have to survive without the Sports Package.
Furthermore someone, ideally, you, has to pay for these people's Special Brew and Fags.
You wasting your time on here is not working, in fact, you're probably breaching Cindy et al's Human Rights.
Poor little lambs.
Come on everyone, back to work. Someone has to pay tax so we can afford to re-house these scummers and police their ASBO conditions. Someone has to pay tax so we can afford to give them their generous welfare payouts otherwise how the hell would they be able to afford Sky and, oh my, might even have to survive without the Sports Package.
Furthermore someone, ideally, you, has to pay for these people's Special Brew and Fags.
You wasting your time on here is not working, in fact, you're probably breaching Cindy et al's Human Rights.
Poor little lambs.
Posted by: Permanent Dictionary Editor, Oxford on 3:39pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Dictionary Editor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Dictionary Editor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Miles Sway[/bold] wrote:
They\'ll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they\'ll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.[/quote] Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey[/quote] \"Malarkey\"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?[/quote] Surely you mean \"What nonsense is this to which you refer?\" :-)
[/quote] You after my job? :-([/quote] I dunno. What are the hours?[/quote] "dunno" !
My job is secure.
:-)
George wrote:
Dictionary Editor wrote:
George wrote:
Dictionary Editor wrote:
George wrote:
Miles Sway wrote:
They\'ll probably appeal to the European Court of Human rights, UK courts will be fined for being too harsh and they\'ll end up, completely untouchable by the law in a detached 4 bed somewhere nice.
Maybe if we make the appeal forms available only in exchange for Sky TV remotes, unused lottery scratchcards, or stapled to a P60, we could avoid all that malarkey
\"Malarkey\"?
What is this nonesense you refer to?
Surely you mean \"What nonsense is this to which you refer?\" :-)
You after my job? :-(
I dunno. What are the hours?
"dunno" !
My job is secure.
:-)
Posted by: Sophia, Soton on 4:00pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote:
As a solution to the problem of where to house them I think they should start a chart of good behaviour/bad behaviour. That way they can move all the good, well behaved council tennants to the nicer areas and put all the skanky pikey scum together in the nasty tower blocks. Then they can all rot together in their own chav communities and the rest of us can get on with our lives. Cancelling benefits (although it would be great) will never happen so I reckon this idea is the next best thing so the horrible families don't just get moved on to make somebody elses lives a misery. What ya reckon?[/quote] I think that's a really good idea. I hope someone who has the power to do this is reading this. It's only fair that they all live with eachother, that's what they deserve. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to say im British because of the way the Goverment works! They're always in favour of the people who claim benefits and dont work, not us hard workers who work 9-5 to pay our bills/mortgages/COUN
CIL TAX etc so we dont get in trouble! When the f**k are we gonna get a break! GGgrrrr. It makes me so angry!!!
I and I wrote:
As a solution to the problem of where to house them I think they should start a chart of good behaviour/bad behaviour. That way they can move all the good, well behaved council tennants to the nicer areas and put all the skanky pikey scum together in the nasty tower blocks. Then they can all rot together in their own chav communities and the rest of us can get on with our lives. Cancelling benefits (although it would be great) will never happen so I reckon this idea is the next best thing so the horrible families don't just get moved on to make somebody elses lives a misery. What ya reckon?
I think that's a really good idea. I hope someone who has the power to do this is reading this. It's only fair that they all live with eachother, that's what they deserve. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to say im British because of the way the Goverment works! They're always in favour of the people who claim benefits and dont work, not us hard workers who work 9-5 to pay our bills/mortgages/COUN
CIL TAX etc so we dont get in trouble! When the f**k are we gonna get a break! GGgrrrr. It makes me so angry!!!
Posted by: George on 4:02pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Sophia[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote:
As a solution to the problem of where to house them I think they should start a chart of good behaviour/bad behaviour. That way they can move all the good, well behaved council tennants to the nicer areas and put all the skanky pikey scum together in the nasty tower blocks. Then they can all rot together in their own chav communities and the rest of us can get on with our lives. Cancelling benefits (although it would be great) will never happen so I reckon this idea is the next best thing so the horrible families don't just get moved on to make somebody elses lives a misery. What ya reckon?[/quote] I think that's a really good idea. I hope someone who has the power to do this is reading this. It's only fair that they all live with eachother, that's what they deserve. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to say im British because of the way the Goverment works! They're always in favour of the people who claim benefits and dont work, not us hard workers who work 9-5 to pay our bills/mortgages/COUN
CIL TAX etc so we dont get in trouble! When the f**k are we gonna get a break! GGgrrrr. It makes me so angry!!![/quote] Some free legal advice: if you're struggling to pay your council tax, go mug somebody for the cash. You'll get a lighter sentence for street robbery than for non-payment of council tax. If you want to get off scot-free, simply be a heroin addict first
Sophia wrote:
I and I wrote:
As a solution to the problem of where to house them I think they should start a chart of good behaviour/bad behaviour. That way they can move all the good, well behaved council tennants to the nicer areas and put all the skanky pikey scum together in the nasty tower blocks. Then they can all rot together in their own chav communities and the rest of us can get on with our lives. Cancelling benefits (although it would be great) will never happen so I reckon this idea is the next best thing so the horrible families don't just get moved on to make somebody elses lives a misery. What ya reckon?
I think that's a really good idea. I hope someone who has the power to do this is reading this. It's only fair that they all live with eachother, that's what they deserve. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to say im British because of the way the Goverment works! They're always in favour of the people who claim benefits and dont work, not us hard workers who work 9-5 to pay our bills/mortgages/COUN
CIL TAX etc so we dont get in trouble! When the f**k are we gonna get a break! GGgrrrr. It makes me so angry!!!
Some free legal advice: if you're struggling to pay your council tax, go mug somebody for the cash. You'll get a lighter sentence for street robbery than for non-payment of council tax. If you want to get off scot-free, simply be a heroin addict first
Posted by: jed, soton on 4:09pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
woolston treatment works denzil[/quote] Don't stick him there...
Send him to pompey with a pompey stinks sandwhich board.
southy wrote:
woolston treatment works denzil
Don't stick him there...
Send him to pompey with a pompey stinks sandwhich board.
Posted by: Lynne, C/Ford on 4:10pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote:
As a solution to the problem of where to house them I think they should start a chart of good behaviour/bad behaviour. That way they can move all the good, well behaved council tennants to the nicer areas and put all the skanky pikey scum together in the nasty tower blocks. Then they can all rot together in their own chav communities and the rest of us can get on with our lives. Cancelling benefits (although it would be great) will never happen so I reckon this idea is the next best thing so the horrible families don't just get moved on to make somebody elses lives a misery. What ya reckon?[/quote] Yeah excellent idea couldn't agree more but only request would be to have them moved somewhere miles away from any other descent law abiding folk. That way we still could live in peace of mind of perhaps not having our stuff stolen that we've worked long and hard for.Somethings got to be done as things are only going to get worst.
I and I wrote:
As a solution to the problem of where to house them I think they should start a chart of good behaviour/bad behaviour. That way they can move all the good, well behaved council tennants to the nicer areas and put all the skanky pikey scum together in the nasty tower blocks. Then they can all rot together in their own chav communities and the rest of us can get on with our lives. Cancelling benefits (although it would be great) will never happen so I reckon this idea is the next best thing so the horrible families don't just get moved on to make somebody elses lives a misery. What ya reckon?
Yeah excellent idea couldn't agree more but only request would be to have them moved somewhere miles away from any other descent law abiding folk. That way we still could live in peace of mind of perhaps not having our stuff stolen that we've worked long and hard for.Somethings got to be done as things are only going to get worst.
Posted by: Ian, bitterne park on 4:20pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote: Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live [italic]somewhere[/italic]. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life[/quote] The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.[/quote] Why would that make them go out and get jobs? They already think the world owes them a living, clearly, so they'd just find some other way to milk the system, or sponge off others. Probably just turn to (or increase their involvement in) petty crime. I'd really love to believe that stopping their benefits would make them go and get jobs, but the realist in me seriously doubts it. [/quote] Sounds like you are talking about the Royal Family there, George.....
George wrote:
rich the stitch wrote: George wrote: Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live somewhere. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life
The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.
Why would that make them go out and get jobs? They already think the world owes them a living, clearly, so they'd just find some other way to milk the system, or sponge off others. Probably just turn to (or increase their involvement in) petty crime. I'd really love to believe that stopping their benefits would make them go and get jobs, but the realist in me seriously doubts it.
Sounds like you are talking about the Royal Family there, George.....
Posted by: Hard working honest taxpayer on 4:20pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Two centuries ago we shipped all the theives, vagabonds, pickpockets, highwaymen and total layabouts to Australia and got rid of all the persecuted religious pillocks by persauding them to set sail too and colonise America. We still have remnants of the British Empire dotted around the World. What we need is a 21st century solution to a centuries old problem and marry present day technology with a sparsely populated Island, preferably one infested with malaria or other foul disease.
Two centuries ago we shipped all the theives, vagabonds, pickpockets, highwaymen and total layabouts to Australia and got rid of all the persecuted religious pillocks by persauding them to set sail too and colonise America. We still have remnants of the British Empire dotted around the World. What we need is a 21st century solution to a centuries old problem and marry present day technology with a sparsely populated Island, preferably one infested with malaria or other foul disease.
Posted by: c on 4:27pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live [italic]somewhere[/italic]. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life[/quote] The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.[/quote] I agree that this family are a problem, but where does it say they are on benefits and have no jobs? no where, so don't jump to conclusions.
rich the stitch wrote:
George wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live somewhere. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life
The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.
I agree that this family are a problem, but where does it say they are on benefits and have no jobs? no where, so don't jump to conclusions.
Posted by: George on 4:30pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live [italic]somewhere[/italic]. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life[/quote] The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.[/quote] I agree that this family are a problem, but where does it say they are on benefits and have no jobs? no where, so don't jump to conclusions.[/quote] Sure, nowhere is it [italic]said[/italic], but I've got £50 here that says it is the case, nonetheless. When was the last time you heard of a working family causing this amount of bother?
c wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
George wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they'll still have to live somewhere. You'd like to think maybe they've learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren't high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they're not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the "stop their benefits" ideas won't work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they'll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life
The "stop their benefits" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There's where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.
I agree that this family are a problem, but where does it say they are on benefits and have no jobs? no where, so don't jump to conclusions.
Sure, nowhere is it
said, but I've got £50 here that says it is the case, nonetheless. When was the last time you heard of a working family causing this amount of bother?
Posted by: George on 4:32pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote]Sounds like you are talking about the Royal Family there, George.....[/quote]
Only if you consider the assassination of a princess and subsequent cover-up to be "petty crime" :)
Sounds like you are talking about the Royal Family there, George.....
Only if you consider the assassination of a princess and subsequent cover-up to be "petty crime" :)
Posted by: c on 4:35pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Thats not the point, don't point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.
Thats not the point, don't point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.
Posted by: Thought Police, Everywhere ( just think about it ) on 4:38pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they\'ll still have to live [italic]somewhere[/italic]. You\'d like to think maybe they\'ve learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren\'t high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they\'re not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the \"stop their benefits\" ideas won\'t work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they\'ll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life[/quote] The \"stop their benefits\" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There\'s where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.[/quote] I agree that this family are a problem, but where does it say they are on benefits and have no jobs? no where, so don\'t jump to conclusions.[/quote] You are incapable of intelligent thought
[bold]You are nicked![/bold]
c wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
George wrote:
Sounds like good news at first glance, but is it? Clearly it is for their former neighbours, but they\'ll still have to live somewhere. You\'d like to think maybe they\'ve learnt a lesson, but my hopes aren\'t high. At the end of the day, no matter how anti-social they are, they\'re not exactly going to be banished from the country or anything, so the problem still remains. What to do? All the \"stop their benefits\" ideas won\'t work, they still have to eat, still have to live somewhere, they\'ll only eventually turn to crime in order to eat. Where does one apply to become a burden on society? It seems like an easy life
The \"stop their benefits\" idea could work. Why not do that so the lazy scum have to go out and get jobs, instead of lazying around all doing nothing. There\'s where the problem lies, they are bored and and too much energy, maybe a hard days work would keep them under control.
I agree that this family are a problem, but where does it say they are on benefits and have no jobs? no where, so don\'t jump to conclusions.
You are incapable of intelligent thought
You are nicked! Posted by: c on 4:43pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Oh yeah why is that then?
Oh yeah why is that then?
Posted by: George on 4:48pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
Thats not the point, don't point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.[/quote] I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren't on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it
c wrote:
Thats not the point, don't point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.
I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren't on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it
Posted by: Denzil, Chillworth on 4:49pm Thu 14 Aug 08
George, max does the administrating, Lynne's a volunteer, she does it for pleasure, not cash.
George, max does the administrating, Lynne's a volunteer, she does it for pleasure, not cash.
Posted by: George on 4:53pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Denzil[/bold] wrote:
George, max does the administrating, Lynne's a volunteer, she does it for pleasure, not cash.[/quote] Ah, right. That's different then
Come off it, Lynne, you mug, there's people getting paid handsomely for that
Denzil wrote:
George, max does the administrating, Lynne's a volunteer, she does it for pleasure, not cash.
Ah, right. That's different then
Come off it, Lynne, you mug, there's people getting paid handsomely for that
Posted by: Thought Police, Everywhere on 4:57pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
Oh yeah why is that then?[/quote] Guru George has answered your question ten-fold. Your thought process is seriously flawed. [bold]Seriously[/bold] flawed. You are still nicked!
c wrote:
Oh yeah why is that then?
Guru George has answered your question ten-fold. Your thought process is seriously flawed.
Seriously flawed. You are still nicked!
Posted by: bored on 5:13pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Denzil[/bold] wrote:
George, max does the administrating, Lynne\'s a volunteer, she does it for pleasure, not cash.[/quote] Glad we had an expert on the subject on the message board - no idea myself.
But tell us Denzil, is it very pleasurable when you volunteer?
Denzil wrote:
George, max does the administrating, Lynne\'s a volunteer, she does it for pleasure, not cash.
Glad we had an expert on the subject on the message board - no idea myself.
But tell us Denzil, is it very pleasurable when you volunteer?
Posted by: John, Keeping It real on 5:16pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Hard working honest taxpayer[/bold] wrote:
Two centuries ago we shipped all the theives, vagabonds, pickpockets, highwaymen and total layabouts to Australia and got rid of all the persecuted religious pillocks by persauding them to set sail too and colonise America. We still have remnants of the British Empire dotted around the World. What we need is a 21st century solution to a centuries old problem and marry present day technology with a sparsely populated Island, preferably one infested with malaria or other foul disease.[/quote] Yeah, but Pompey is full of fishy scum anyway!
Hard working honest taxpayer wrote:
Two centuries ago we shipped all the theives, vagabonds, pickpockets, highwaymen and total layabouts to Australia and got rid of all the persecuted religious pillocks by persauding them to set sail too and colonise America. We still have remnants of the British Empire dotted around the World. What we need is a 21st century solution to a centuries old problem and marry present day technology with a sparsely populated Island, preferably one infested with malaria or other foul disease.
Yeah, but Pompey is full of fishy scum anyway!
Posted by: bored on 5:16pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable[/quote] No need to send them that far, think of the carbon footprint!
We have in island much nearer which is currently cold and damp, and usually miserable.
Send them to Pompey.
southy wrote:
put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable
No need to send them that far, think of the carbon footprint!
We have in island much nearer which is currently cold and damp, and usually miserable.
Send them to Pompey.
Posted by: George on 5:28pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]bored[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable[/quote] No need to send them that far, think of the carbon footprint!
We have in island much nearer which is currently cold and damp, and usually miserable.
Send them to Pompey.[/quote] To me, "nearer" is a problem. I was thinking more, East Falkland. If we can persuade Elizabeth Duke to open a sovereign ring shop in Port Stanley, we're on a winner I reckon.
bored wrote:
southy wrote:
put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable
No need to send them that far, think of the carbon footprint!
We have in island much nearer which is currently cold and damp, and usually miserable.
Send them to Pompey.
To me, "nearer" is a problem. I was thinking more, East Falkland. If we can persuade Elizabeth Duke to open a sovereign ring shop in Port Stanley, we're on a winner I reckon.
Posted by: c on 5:36pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
Thats not the point, don't point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.[/quote] I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren't on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it[/quote] What i believe , and what are actuall facts is a different matter george, thats exactly what i am saying, get your facts right before you comment.
George wrote:
c wrote:
Thats not the point, don't point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.
I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren't on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it
What i believe , and what are actuall facts is a different matter george, thats exactly what i am saying, get your facts right before you comment.
Posted by: bored on 5:38pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]bored[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable[/quote] No need to send them that far, think of the carbon footprint! We have in island much nearer which is currently cold and damp, and usually miserable. Send them to Pompey.[/quote] To me, "nearer" is a problem. I was thinking more, East Falkland. If we can persuade Elizabeth Duke to open a sovereign ring shop in Port Stanley, we're on a winner I reckon. [/quote] Going back to earlier comments, that seems a bit harsh on the many decent people of Port Stanley.
I stand by my Pompey suggestion
George wrote:
bored wrote: southy wrote: put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable
No need to send them that far, think of the carbon footprint! We have in island much nearer which is currently cold and damp, and usually miserable. Send them to Pompey.
To me, "nearer" is a problem. I was thinking more, East Falkland. If we can persuade Elizabeth Duke to open a sovereign ring shop in Port Stanley, we're on a winner I reckon.
Going back to earlier comments, that seems a bit harsh on the many decent people of Port Stanley.
I stand by my Pompey suggestion
Posted by: bored on 5:42pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote: Thats not the point, don\'t point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.[/quote] I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren\'t on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it[/quote] What i believe , and what are actuall facts is a different matter george, thats exactly what i am saying, get your facts right before you comment.[/quote] Were you [bold]assuming[/bold] that George and others didn't know for a fact the family were not on benefits?
On the basis that one or more may actually know this family, I'd say [bold]you[/bold] were jumping to conclusions.
That's the trouble with most people on this site.
You should stick with the facts!
c wrote:
George wrote: c wrote: Thats not the point, don\'t point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.
I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren\'t on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it
What i believe , and what are actuall facts is a different matter george, thats exactly what i am saying, get your facts right before you comment.
Were you
assuming that George and others didn't know for a fact the family were not on benefits?
On the basis that one or more may actually know this family, I'd say
you were jumping to conclusions.
That's the trouble with most people on this site.
You should stick with the facts!
Posted by: George on 5:46pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
Thats not the point, don't point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.[/quote] I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren't on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it[/quote] What i believe , and what are actuall facts is a different matter george, thats exactly what i am saying, get your facts right before you comment.[/quote] Do you have any way of ascertaining the facts in this instance?
This is a comment site, where people post their opinions. In pursuance of that, certain assumptions have to be made. For instance, you assume that the story has indeed reported "facts", despite numerous occasions where that hasn't been the case. It's human nature to learn from experience. If you look at the sky, and it's grey, overcast and cloudy, it's pretty safe to assume it's going to rain, given that it's almost always the case. If you drop a plate, you'll happily catch it, assuming it's going to break, rather than "wait for the facts". Likewise, if there's an entire family who are subject to an ASBO, and have been evicted from council housing, I reckon there's enough previous experience to safely say they're also on benefits
c wrote:
George wrote:
c wrote:
Thats not the point, don't point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.
I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren't on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it
What i believe , and what are actuall facts is a different matter george, thats exactly what i am saying, get your facts right before you comment.
Do you have any way of ascertaining the facts in this instance?
This is a comment site, where people post their opinions. In pursuance of that, certain assumptions have to be made. For instance, you assume that the story has indeed reported "facts", despite numerous occasions where that hasn't been the case. It's human nature to learn from experience. If you look at the sky, and it's grey, overcast and cloudy, it's pretty safe to assume it's going to rain, given that it's almost always the case. If you drop a plate, you'll happily catch it, assuming it's going to break, rather than "wait for the facts". Likewise, if there's an entire family who are subject to an ASBO, and have been evicted from council housing, I reckon there's enough previous experience to safely say they're also on benefits
Posted by: c on 5:48pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Well does george know this family? i doubt it or he would have said dont you think, i am sticking to the facts thanks,
Well does george know this family? i doubt it or he would have said dont you think, i am sticking to the facts thanks,
Posted by: George on 5:49pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]bored[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]bored[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable[/quote] No need to send them that far, think of the carbon footprint! We have in island much nearer which is currently cold and damp, and usually miserable. Send them to Pompey.[/quote] To me, "nearer" is a problem. I was thinking more, East Falkland. If we can persuade Elizabeth Duke to open a sovereign ring shop in Port Stanley, we're on a winner I reckon. [/quote] Going back to earlier comments, that seems a bit harsh on the many decent people of Port Stanley.
I stand by my Pompey suggestion[/quote] I suppose you're right, there. Pompey it is
bored wrote:
George wrote:
bored wrote: southy wrote: put them all on a island north shetland where it is normaly cold and damp and misable
No need to send them that far, think of the carbon footprint! We have in island much nearer which is currently cold and damp, and usually miserable. Send them to Pompey.
To me, "nearer" is a problem. I was thinking more, East Falkland. If we can persuade Elizabeth Duke to open a sovereign ring shop in Port Stanley, we're on a winner I reckon.
Going back to earlier comments, that seems a bit harsh on the many decent people of Port Stanley.
I stand by my Pompey suggestion
I suppose you're right, there. Pompey it is
Posted by: George on 5:51pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
Well does george know this family? i doubt it or he would have said dont you think, i am sticking to the facts thanks, [/quote] Can't really claim to be sticking to the facts in the same sentence as the words "doubt" and "don't you think".
I don't know them, for the record. I'm still sticking to my original guess, though. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll happily donate the aforementioned £50 to a charity of your choice
c wrote:
Well does george know this family? i doubt it or he would have said dont you think, i am sticking to the facts thanks,
Can't really claim to be sticking to the facts in the same sentence as the words "doubt" and "don't you think".
I don't know them, for the record. I'm still sticking to my original guess, though. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll happily donate the aforementioned £50 to a charity of your choice
Posted by: Thought Police on 5:53pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]bored[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote: Thats not the point, don\\\'t point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.[/quote] I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren\\\'t on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it[/quote] What i believe , and what are actuall facts is a different matter george, thats exactly what i am saying, get your facts right before you comment.[/quote] Were you [bold]assuming[/bold] that George and others didn\'t know for a fact the family were not on benefits?
On the basis that one or more may actually know this family, I\'d say [bold]you[/bold] were jumping to conclusions.
That\'s the trouble with most people on this site.
You should stick with the facts![/quote] The [bold]fact[/bold] is, this [italic]thought-less[/italic] individual has been nicked ( twice by my calculations ).
Refrain from further discussion with this doubley nicked idiot or you'll be nicked too, for thinking out aloud so [bold]boringly![/bold]
bored wrote:
c wrote:
George wrote: c wrote: Thats not the point, don't point the finger unless you have the facts, thats the trouble with most of the poster on this site , they jump to conclusions to often, i like to stick with the facts, and the facts are this is a problem family but lets not make it worse than it is, thats my point.
I respectfully disagree. Everyone pre-judges to a degree, whether they realise it or not. Do you honestly believe this family aren't on benefits? Cast aside your cloak of morality for a moment and be brutally honest about it
What i believe , and what are actuall facts is a different matter george, thats exactly what i am saying, get your facts right before you comment.
Were you assuming that George and others didn\'t know for a fact the family were not on benefits?
On the basis that one or more may actually know this family, I\'d say you were jumping to conclusions.
That\'s the trouble with most people on this site.
You should stick with the facts!
The
fact is, this
thought-less individual has been nicked ( twice by my calculations ).
Refrain from further discussion with this doubley nicked idiot or you'll be nicked too, for thinking out aloud so
boringly! Posted by: The Gov'nor, Swanmore on 5:58pm Thu 14 Aug 08
What does an ASBO covering England and Wales do?
What does an ASBO covering England and Wales do?
Posted by: c on 6:01pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Well if you dont know them, as i thought, keep your opinions to yourself especially if there not based on facts george.
Well if you dont know them, as i thought, keep your opinions to yourself especially if there not based on facts george.
Posted by: Get it right, Hythe on 6:03pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Simon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]denzil[/bold] wrote:
where will we go[/quote] Don't come hear. Weve got enough problems allready.[/quote] You've certainly got problems with your spelling.
It should be "here", "We've" and "already"...
Simon wrote:
denzil wrote:
where will we go
Don't come hear. Weve got enough problems allready.
You've certainly got problems with your spelling.
It should be "here", "We've" and "already"...
Posted by: Spelling Police Inspector ( retired ) on 6:07pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Get it right[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Simon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]denzil[/bold] wrote:
where will we go[/quote] Don\'t come hear. Weve got enough problems allready.[/quote] You\'ve certainly got problems with your spelling.
It should be \"here\", \"We\'ve\" and \"already\"...[/quote] That's my lad !
I'm so proud of 'im :-)
Get it right wrote:
Simon wrote:
denzil wrote:
where will we go
Don\'t come hear. Weve got enough problems allready.
You\'ve certainly got problems with your spelling.
It should be \"here\", \"We\'ve\" and \"already\"...
That's my lad !
I'm so proud of 'im :-)
Posted by: Tea Lady on 6:16pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
Well if you dont know them, as i thought, keep your opinions to yourself especially if there not based on facts george. [/quote] You lost the debate [italic]ages[/italic] ago. Make yourself a nice cup of tea and have a sit down. Relax yourself. You are so uptight at not being able to [bold]think[/bold] clearly. Happens to me sometimes too. A nice cup of tea always does the trick when i discover I've been talking out of my arse in public. It is so embarrasing when that happens. As I say, have a nice cup of tetley and a digestive and you'll bound to feel better. Its a well known fact, you know!
c wrote:
Well if you dont know them, as i thought, keep your opinions to yourself especially if there not based on facts george.
You lost the debate
ages ago. Make yourself a nice cup of tea and have a sit down. Relax yourself. You are so uptight at not being able to
think clearly. Happens to me sometimes too. A nice cup of tea always does the trick when i discover I've been talking out of my arse in public. It is so embarrasing when that happens. As I say, have a nice cup of tetley and a digestive and you'll bound to feel better. Its a well known fact, you know!
Posted by: George on 6:18pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
Well if you dont know them, as i thought, keep your opinions to yourself especially if there not based on facts george. [/quote] Er, no thanks. I wonder why you're so determined to dictate how others should behave
c wrote:
Well if you dont know them, as i thought, keep your opinions to yourself especially if there not based on facts george.
Er, no thanks. I wonder why you're so determined to dictate how others should behave
Posted by: c on 6:20pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Oh get stuffed you silly cow. what have you contributed to the story?
Oh get stuffed you silly cow. what have you contributed to the story?
Posted by: George on 6:22pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
Oh get stuffed you silly cow. what have you contributed to the story?[/quote] Have you any evidence "Tea Lady" is either silly, or of bovine stock? Given that people can post under a variety of names, do you know for a fact that she's not contributed?
Stick to the facts, 'c'
c wrote:
Oh get stuffed you silly cow. what have you contributed to the story?
Have you any evidence "Tea Lady" is either silly, or of bovine stock? Given that people can post under a variety of names, do you know for a fact that she's not contributed?
Stick to the facts, 'c'
Posted by: c on 6:24pm Thu 14 Aug 08
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all
Posted by: c on 6:26pm Thu 14 Aug 08
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.
Posted by: George on 6:30pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all[/quote] I know what you're saying. I'm just choosing not to fall into line with you. I'm perfectly within my rights to post opinion, and in all honesty, I'm at a loss as to what you can do about it. Given the facts of the story, I am supremely confident that the family in question are on benefits. If you can prove otherwise, I'll happily honour my proposal above
c wrote:
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all
I know what you're saying. I'm just choosing not to fall into line with you. I'm perfectly within my rights to post opinion, and in all honesty, I'm at a loss as to what you can do about it. Given the facts of the story, I am supremely confident that the family in question are on benefits. If you can prove otherwise, I'll happily honour my proposal above
Posted by: George on 6:31pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.[/quote] Why? There's nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?
c wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.
Why? There's nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?
Posted by: c on 6:32pm Thu 14 Aug 08
I cant prove that, that is my point george nor can you so dont guess is all i'me saying.
I cant prove that, that is my point george nor can you so dont guess is all i'me saying.
Posted by: doctor on 6:33pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all[/quote] Is this a sentence?
Nope.
Seems more like a collection of words thrown together by some unthinking, highly defensive, highly strung person, about to have a stroke.
Make room, make room! I'm a doctor.
c wrote:
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all
Is this a sentence?
Nope.
Seems more like a collection of words thrown together by some unthinking, highly defensive, highly strung person, about to have a stroke.
Make room, make room! I'm a doctor.
Posted by: George on 6:36pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
I cant prove that, that is my point george nor can you so dont guess is all i'me saying.[/quote] So you keep saying. Where I'm not getting you is, the bit where not being able to prove the facts disbars me from voicing my considered opinion. What [bold]you[/bold] think I [italic]should[/italic] do is one thing. What [bold]I[/bold] actually [italic]choose[/italic] to do is another. Which part of "I can say what I like" don't you understand?
c wrote:
I cant prove that, that is my point george nor can you so dont guess is all i'me saying.
So you keep saying. Where I'm not getting you is, the bit where not being able to prove the facts disbars me from voicing my considered opinion. What
you think I
should do is one thing. What
I actually
choose to do is another. Which part of "I can say what I like" don't you understand?
Posted by: c on 6:37pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.[/quote] Why? There's nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?[/quote] It annoys me when people like you george assume that people are on benefits just cos they commit a crime its not just people on benefits who commit crimes you know.
George wrote:
c wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.
Why? There's nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?
It annoys me when people like you george assume that people are on benefits just cos they commit a crime its not just people on benefits who commit crimes you know.
Posted by: George on 6:41pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.[/quote] Why? There's nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?[/quote] It annoys me when people like you george assume that people are on benefits just cos they commit a crime its not just people on benefits who commit crimes you know.[/quote] Then I suggest you adjust your expectations. This is the really real world, and people are going to say things you don't like. If you get annoyed at them all, you're going to be annoyed quite a bit. Not healthy, I can tell you
Besides, the issue here is not that they've committed a crime. Indeed, there's nothing in the story to indicate they have, so I'd respectfully refer you back to your pleas of "stick to the facts"
The issue is, they have - as reported - a very specific and ongoing anti-social behaviour pattern which is very much in keeping with a problematic family who lives on benefits. Statistics are on my side, I'm afraid.
c wrote:
George wrote:
c wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.
Why? There's nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?
It annoys me when people like you george assume that people are on benefits just cos they commit a crime its not just people on benefits who commit crimes you know.
Then I suggest you adjust your expectations. This is the really real world, and people are going to say things you don't like. If you get annoyed at them all, you're going to be annoyed quite a bit. Not healthy, I can tell you
Besides, the issue here is not that they've committed a crime. Indeed, there's nothing in the story to indicate they have, so I'd respectfully refer you back to your pleas of "stick to the facts"
The issue is, they have - as reported - a very specific and ongoing anti-social behaviour pattern which is very much in keeping with a problematic family who lives on benefits. Statistics are on my side, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Tina, Southampton on 6:43pm Thu 14 Aug 08
How much are bulletts now?
How much are bulletts now?
Posted by: c on 6:46pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]doctor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all[/quote] Is this a sentence?
Nope.
Seems more like a collection of words thrown together by some unthinking, highly defensive, highly strung person, about to have a stroke.
Make room, make room! I'm a doctor.
[/quote] well i beg to differ george i would stick to the facts if i were you.
doctor wrote:
c wrote:
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all
Is this a sentence?
Nope.
Seems more like a collection of words thrown together by some unthinking, highly defensive, highly strung person, about to have a stroke.
Make room, make room! I'm a doctor.
well i beg to differ george i would stick to the facts if i were you.
Posted by: George on 6:47pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]doctor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all[/quote] Is this a sentence?
Nope.
Seems more like a collection of words thrown together by some unthinking, highly defensive, highly strung person, about to have a stroke.
Make room, make room! I'm a doctor.
[/quote] well i beg to differ george i would stick to the facts if i were you.[/quote] But you're not me. And nor, actually, is "doctor". So much for your beloved facts, eh!
c wrote:
doctor wrote:
c wrote:
ime not dictacting how others should behave , ime just saying comment on the facts of the story which you have not done, you have just added your opinions which may not be true facts is all
Is this a sentence?
Nope.
Seems more like a collection of words thrown together by some unthinking, highly defensive, highly strung person, about to have a stroke.
Make room, make room! I'm a doctor.
well i beg to differ george i would stick to the facts if i were you.
But you're not me. And nor, actually, is "doctor". So much for your beloved facts, eh!
Posted by: I pay for your cups of tea, tax office on 6:49pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.[/quote] Why? There\'s nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?[/quote] It annoys me when people like you george assume that people are on benefits just cos they commit a crime its not just people on benefits who commit crimes you know.[/quote] Ahah!
So, you finally got your thinking clear enough to make an understandable point.
You are a benefits recipient.
You feel guilt/shame by association!
c wrote:
George wrote:
c wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.
Why? There\'s nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?
It annoys me when people like you george assume that people are on benefits just cos they commit a crime its not just people on benefits who commit crimes you know.
Ahah!
So, you finally got your thinking clear enough to make an understandable point.
You are a benefits recipient.
You feel guilt/shame by association!
Posted by: c on 6:54pm Thu 14 Aug 08
think what you like, just proves my point exactlly.
think what you like, just proves my point exactlly.
Posted by: George on 6:54pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]I pay for your cups of tea[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.[/quote] Why? There\\\'s nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?[/quote] It annoys me when people like you george assume that people are on benefits just cos they commit a crime its not just people on benefits who commit crimes you know.[/quote] Ahah!
So, you finally got your thinking clear enough to make an understandable point.
You are a benefits recipient.
You feel guilt/shame by association!
[/quote] An understandable, but ultimately flawed point. No mention of crime has been made until 'c' made it. I don't for one second assume that anyone committing a crime is on benefits. Based on my observations over the years, there are too many exceptions in either direction for that to be said. However, my observations over the years do indeed point to the fact that a whole family of nuisance neighbours who are all given ASBOs, are almost certainly living off benefits
As a taxpayer, 'c', please feel free to have your next cuppa on me
I pay for your cups of tea wrote:
c wrote:
George wrote:
c wrote:
well if she has contributed she should stick to the same name.
Why? There's nothing in the terms and conditions to say so. Riddle me this: why are you so concerned with how others choose to use this site?
It annoys me when people like you george assume that people are on benefits just cos they commit a crime its not just people on benefits who commit crimes you know.
Ahah!
So, you finally got your thinking clear enough to make an understandable point.
You are a benefits recipient.
You feel guilt/shame by association!
An understandable, but ultimately flawed point. No mention of crime has been made until 'c' made it. I don't for one second assume that anyone committing a crime is on benefits. Based on my observations over the years, there are too many exceptions in either direction for that to be said. However, my observations over the years do indeed point to the fact that a whole family of nuisance neighbours who are all given ASBOs, are almost certainly living off benefits
As a taxpayer, 'c', please feel free to have your next cuppa on me
Posted by: George on 6:55pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
think what you like, just proves my point exactlly.[/quote] No, it doesn't. It can't, because, for one, you don't [bold]have[/bold] a point. You claim I'm assuming this family are on benefits simply because they committed a crime, whereas no such assumption has been made. If you think that proves any "point" you've made, I suggest you re-think your reasoning
c wrote:
think what you like, just proves my point exactlly.
No, it doesn't. It can't, because, for one, you don't
have a point. You claim I'm assuming this family are on benefits simply because they committed a crime, whereas no such assumption has been made. If you think that proves any "point" you've made, I suggest you re-think your reasoning
Posted by: its all over! on 6:57pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]c[/bold] wrote:
think what you like, just proves my point exactlly.[/quote] wouldn't it just be simpler to admit you're wrong?? you ain't got a point!
c wrote:
think what you like, just proves my point exactlly.
wouldn't it just be simpler to admit you're wrong?? you ain't got a point!
Posted by: George on 6:58pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Well, enough of this wrangling, and back to the fact-laden story. What can be done about serial problematic families such as this? Will stopping their benefits do the trick? I say no, anyone care to counter?
Well, enough of this wrangling, and back to the fact-laden story. What can be done about serial problematic families such as this? Will stopping their benefits do the trick? I say no, anyone care to counter?
Posted by: Miles Sway, Scotland on 7:09pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
Well, enough of this wrangling, and back to the fact-laden story. What can be done about serial problematic families such as this? Will stopping their benefits do the trick? I say no, anyone care to counter?[/quote] Nope, stopping benefits won't change human behaviour for people like this. If they can't live amicably and reasonably in society what is the answer? Difficult question - castration to stop the rot would be a start of course!!
