Ed V Dave - 9pm on C4 & Sky News

[law74]

My aunt got one of those cars - she was a lazy bastad - went on days out every single day for years buying crap and had a good lifestyle. She wasn't disabled - she was / is a piss taker like thousands of others who got the free ford focus. She simply milked the system.

Yet again I will ask, what have you done about her?

Yet again? I never saw you ask in the first place.

in a previous thread about a month or two back you were saying how she made you sick, i asked then and I ask again what have you done about it?

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

My aunt got one of those cars - she was a lazy bastad - went on days out every single day for years buying crap and had a good lifestyle. She wasn't disabled - she was / is a piss taker like thousands of others who got the free ford focus. She simply milked the system.

Firstly, Motability funded by DLA requires some of the most stringent checks of all and you need to be on the highest rate of DLA to receive it which means you need round the clock care from a personal assistant and/or are terminally ill. The new system of PIP is even more stringent, to the point where many social workers are worried about the mobility aspect.

Secondly, you don't get a free Ford Focus you get a range of choices suited to your current disability needs. Many of these require an up front payment, my Mum's was two grand on a Qashqai.

Thirdly, I seem to recall that Motability is funded by contributions out of the benefits of the disabled person - that they get about £50 a week less if they take the car over not taking the car though couldn't swear by it. They essentially rent the car and pay for any damage or wear and tear when the lease expires.

Not to inject any particular opinion, just a fact provision

Dont let facts get in the way of a good opinion mate

 

[worsleyweb]

My aunt got one of those cars - she was a lazy bastad - went on days out every single day for years buying crap and had a good lifestyle. She wasn't disabled - she was / is a piss taker like thousands of others who got the free ford focus. She simply milked the system.

Firstly, Motability funded by DLA requires some of the most stringent checks of all and you need to be on the highest rate of DLA to receive it which means you need round the clock care from a personal assistant and/or are terminally ill. The new system of PIP is even more stringent, to the point where many social workers are worried about the mobility aspect.

Secondly, you don't get a free Ford Focus you get a range of choices suited to your current disability needs. Many of these require an up front payment, my Mum's was two grand on a Qashqai.

Thirdly, I seem to recall that Motability is funded by contributions out of the benefits of the disabled person - that they get about £50 a week less if they take the car over not taking the car though couldn't swear by it. They essentially rent the car and pay for any damage or wear and tear when the lease expires.

Not to inject any particular opinion, just a fact provision

Dont let facts get in the way of a good opinion mate

simple google search shows 575000 people got disability cars from the government in 2011 up from 200,000 in 2001. 3000 were given to people with naughty children. I don't need one of Damocles lectures to tell my the system was abused. I know 3 people off the top of my head who had nothing wrong with them apart from being fat lazy idle scroungers who got the ford focus.

 

[worsleyweb]

Yet again I will ask, what have you done about her?

Yet again? I never saw you ask in the first place.

in a previous thread about a month or two back you were saying how she made you sick, i asked then and I ask again what have you done about it?

I had her shot dead.

 

[law74]

My aunt got one of those cars - she was a lazy bastad - went on days out every single day for years buying crap and had a good lifestyle. She wasn't disabled - she was / is a piss taker like thousands of others who got the free ford focus. She simply milked the system.

Firstly, Motability funded by DLA requires some of the most stringent checks of all and you need to be on the highest rate of DLA to receive it which means you need round the clock care from a personal assistant and/or are terminally ill. The new system of PIP is even more stringent, to the point where many social workers are worried about the mobility aspect.

Secondly, you don't get a free Ford Focus you get a range of choices suited to your current disability needs. Many of these require an up front payment, my Mum's was two grand on a Qashqai.

Thirdly, I seem to recall that Motability is funded by contributions out of the benefits of the disabled person - that they get about £50 a week less if they take the car over not taking the car though couldn't swear by it. They essentially rent the car and pay for any damage or wear and tear when the lease expires.

Not to inject any particular opinion, just a fact provision

Not 100% sure be near certain that the care component of DLA is not that significant but the mobility aspect is.
A car can also be provided to an able bodies person if they are the parent guardian or i think the main carer of a disabled person that meets the criteria with the dexuctions taken from the disabled pedsonz benefit amount

 

[Len Rum]

Yet again? I never saw you ask in the first place.

in a previous thread about a month or two back you were saying how she made you sick, i asked then and I ask again what have you done about it?

I had her shot dead.

For someone who had to rush off to bed early last night and had to be up at 6 am to work all the hours God sends, you seem to have spent a lot of time on this forum today.

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

No it isn't, because that is plainly false, it's gibberish.

That's sort of the point.

5 x 5 = 25 is correct.
5 x 5 = 200 is wrong.
5 x 5 = purple is not even wrong.

Not even wrong denotes when something doesn't follow the ideas of testable hypothesis. 5 x 5 = 25 is testable and correct. 5 x 5 = 200 is testable and incorrect. 5 x 5 = purple is not testable thus not even incorrect, it's just as you so rightly point out, gibberish.

Now, when you say "Executive pay has ballooned, with little or no connection to performance!" it is untestable as it lacks specifics so a source is required to provide a testable hypothesis to then test. Otherwise it fails to even stand as correct or incorrect.

If I make a statement, such as I got up this morning and SWP states prove it? Do I have to? No.

Well you don't HAVE to prove anything but it is an accepted idea that two people who are debating over a point should be able and willing to challenge each others views, which involves showing your working. Otherwise you're just blogging to an audience and not actually debating anything.

If I say executive pay has outstripped average earnings, inflation and productivity and SWP demands that I prove it and I don't, that is my choice, I believe it to be self evidently true and willing to leave it at that, if SWP continues to demand I prove it, some might believe I'm unwilling to prove my case, fine, the fact I believe it to be self evidently true is enough for me, but not for him, well I don't care but clearly he does, but not enough it would seem to refute it, which is interesting.

It's fine to be self evidently true to you, though I'd argue that that is a mistake in itself but it's your decision to make that mistake and it's only harming you. But the point is that you're not talking to a mirror, you're talking to a bunch of other people who hold similar and differing opinions to you. There's no reason for anybody to believe anything that you say, or that I say, or that SWP says because we haven't established the expert knowledge in an area through the production of that expertise in a source.

Your point seems to be "I can believe anything that I want", and it's true that you can but on the flip side other people can also challenge your beliefs whenever they want and think less of you if you cannot back them up with anything more than your own feelings. Especially in this specific case when you made a claim that appears to the reader to have some sort of studied knowledge behind it.

In the cut and thrust of debate one sometimes uses external sources to back up an argument and sometime you do not. Statements about gravity don't always quote Newton and statements on the solar system don't always quote Galileo.

No they don't. But when somebody asks you to back up your assertion about the rules of motion, you have the ability to do so. That's what the problem is here, you've said something in an argument and nobody has any ability to back it up because you're unwilling to divulge how it is that you know this which is all the production of a source actually is.

SWP has posted god knows how many times since my original statement full of false indignation. If I'm the fucking idiot and my argument without foundation then let him destroy it, the fact he'll do anything but speaks volumes.

You don't have an argument to destroy. That's why he is full of indignation. If you explain your argument then he can either destroy it or admit that there's merit to it. The problem is that you haven't produced an argument but seem to be under the impression that you have and it's unable to be argued. You've produced words that look like an argument if you squint. Without any sources to back up the positive claims you have made then there is nothing to destroy.

Of course I have an argument to destroy, this is the original post....

I suspect you like me are on PAYE, maybe with a small bonus element maybe not, so we couldn't abuse the system even if we wanted to. Executive pay has outstripped not only average wages and inflation but even share value and profit. Put simply executives are awarding themselves increases that bear no relationship to performance. Even when performance is related to increased shareholder value this all too often leads to short termism that temporarily boosts the share value, which is then cashed in to the long lasting damage of the company and wider shareholders (not to mention stakeholders like employees).

Legislation to prevent this abuse of the system not only makes economic sense it would be welcomed by many share holders who see executives ripping off companies at their expense.

Your opinion of it, its lack of external links the varacity of my argument, you might consider it nonsense, fine, have at it, but do have at it


Take this one point.....

Executive pay has outstripped average wages and inflation

I have have loads of links to back this up, so why do I not post them? Simple, just as I believe inequality has increased in this country and food bank use has risen in this country, how suicides have increased and the productivity gap is still terrible compared to our competitors, I believe these things to be what my late dad used to call the "bleedin obvious" and these points are not debating points, they're givens, they're lauch pads for discussion.

Right wingers seem to love disputing the "bleedin obvious" Why? Because it stiffles debate, they muddy the waters by refusing to accept there is even a topic to talk about, so we don't address excessive executive pay because, despite all the moutains of evidence, they dispute a problem exists, or if they do, they set up a Commision to look at the evidence (not the problem mind) and they'll get back to us in five years, or never.

Left wingers are tired of having to justify the bleedin obvious, if SWP cries foul then fine but it's not because he doesn't have a point to answer, it is because he can't.

I am not right wing, never have been, if fact i am voting green at the next election, the closest thing to a socialist party that is listed in the polls. You are failing to back up your opinion, time and time again, this is adding nothing to the debate, as it is just that at the moment, an opinion, we all have one of those, your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's no matter how much you insist its bleedin obvious. Surely if you have the mentioned links already then it would be a lot simpler to post them up, than typing what you just have. The fact is you wont as you think it is somehow clever or bleedin obvious, it isnt, its actually devaluing your point now. Do us all a favour and post your evidence, as your opinion might have some semblance of a fact then. I want and encourage you to do this as someone who thinks you are probably correct.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I have no need, I know it to be true. Look at it this way, just to amuse myself I bashed in to Google search executive pay, chose the UK and all articles from the last 12 months, and up popped page after page of Vince Cable babbling on about exorbitant pay, unjustified bonus payments, shareholder revolts and statistics showing of how over the last few decades executive pay has ballooned both in absolute terms and in comparison to average earnings, it's is as plain as the nose on your face.

Put another way, if I say Agüero is paid more, by any standards of measurement, than Paul Lake ever was, is there a question mark over that because I don't post an external link? No, because it is self evidently true.

You don't seem to be taking this onboard.

This isn't self evident. You know this because your self was challenged to show evidence and is seemingly unwilling or unable.

You are right, i'm unwilling, there can be no debate if a statement as obvious as...

Executive pay has outstripped average wages and inflation

Is in dispute.

There is a debate about whether this is a good thing or bad thing, but not about its veracity

 

[shallyman]

Can any of the class warrior , politics of envy , point and tax , life's not fair types explain to me what it feels like hating people because they earn more money than you?

Can any of you and your right wing pals tell me why they inflict class war on the poor, why they envy so much a person who exists on welfare and why they try so hard to not pay a fair share of tax. Why when they earn so much do they hate so much, why is that hate always aimed at the poor and minorities. Why do they always back privilige and old school tie over intelligence and why oh why are there people like you who back them to keep there priviliged place in society. Are you a sheep?

There's no such thing as the left and right when it's comes to Tory and Labour. That was all washed away in the 90's. You can't put a piece of paper inbetween the aims of both their manifestos. The benches on both sides of the chamber are occupied by Oxbridge educated individuals. You talk about a class war on the poor and then the privileged people at the very top, like they are the two sides of a coin, but let me tell you this. The majority of people in this country are neither. The majority of people in this country are ordinary working families with mortgages, children, cars...

And to be quite honest, they do not give a toss about people claiming benefits or toffs sipping champagne at the Henley regatta. Yes, people using food banks exist, wealthy bankers exist. But they make up such a small part of the people in this country that it's ludicrous to give it so much gravitas. You have a Dickensian idea of the world, maybe because you are maladjusted by personal choice.

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

Firstly, Motability funded by DLA requires some of the most stringent checks of all and you need to be on the highest rate of DLA to receive it which means you need round the clock care from a personal assistant and/or are terminally ill. The new system of PIP is even more stringent, to the point where many social workers are worried about the mobility aspect.

Secondly, you don't get a free Ford Focus you get a range of choices suited to your current disability needs. Many of these require an up front payment, my Mum's was two grand on a Qashqai.

Thirdly, I seem to recall that Motability is funded by contributions out of the benefits of the disabled person - that they get about £50 a week less if they take the car over not taking the car though couldn't swear by it. They essentially rent the car and pay for any damage or wear and tear when the lease expires.

Not to inject any particular opinion, just a fact provision

Dont let facts get in the way of a good opinion mate

simple google search shows 575000 people got disability cars from the government in 2011 up from 200,000 in 2001. 3000 were given to people with naughty children. I don't need one of Damocles lectures to tell my the system was abused. I know 3 people off the top of my head who had nothing wrong with them apart from being fat lazy idle scroungers who got the ford focus.

You should report those people, i encourage that, as my father is severely disabled, he needs round the clock care, if the scroungers were removed from the system, he would get more. He used to have a motorbility car and was assessed for it, far more than he was for his DLA, as he is wheelchair bound and unable to move himself about he was eligible.

My dig about opinions and facts wasnt actually aimed at you. I like the fact you've provided some evidence, always adds weight to an argument.