You make good points, however, if the alternative is doing nothing on benefits then it's the lesser of 2 evils right?

Yes it's harsh but the sooner you learn there's no free ride in life the better

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

and me. I was paying £100 a month rent at 16 back in 1986!!

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

If we are using the f~ck word then you're a f#cking drama queen.

At the heart of Mr Cameron’s speech was the suggestion that young people would no longer be eligible for welfare.

“Today it is still possible to leave school, sign on, find a flat, start claiming housing benefit and opt for a life on benefits. It’s time for bold action here,” he said. “We should ask, as we write our next manifesto, if that option should really exist at all.”

Instead, young people should have a “clear, positive choice” to go to school or college, do an apprenticeship or get a job.

“But just choose the dole? We’ve got to offer them something

And to be fair why is being a dole scrounger a career choice ? it wasn't when I was school, why should it be so now ?

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Oh well thats me told.

And if you are a youngun leaving school expecting everyone else to pay for you, your weed, your illigitamte kids, fags, sky, Iphone, Stella and everything else that apparently is your God given right then I would suggest Mr Cameron is talking to you.

You lazy work shy bastad.

And I don't mean Ghost eagle by that (I dont want another yellow ) I just meant in general.

Edited by dannyh (17 Feb 2015 4.40pm)

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

As blantant a giveaway as forgetting to wipe the jizz off your chin.

Lend me a Tenor

31 May to 3 June 2017

John McIntosh Arts Centre
London Oratory School
SW6 1RX

with Superfly in the chorus
[Link]

I'm sorry, what difference does it make if he just 'suggested' it? Surely it represents the same ideological basis on which he would enact it?

What the Tories have very cunningly done (after all, w@nkers do tend to be very cunning) is frame the whole thing around the popular image of the 'benefit scrounger'. Even though so much information has come out proving just how exaggerated an issue this is, even though benefits have been squeezed and squeezed and squeezed in recent years, and even though the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that there is no correlation between removing benefits and people looking for work, it's still so appealing: it's difficult to defend that sort of lifestyle, even if only a few thousand people live by it.

But of course we're not talking about a policy which will only affect the long-term unemployed; we're talking about something that will affect the hundreds of thousands of kids who will seek benefits for totally legitimate reasons. Maybe you work in construction and you break your leg, or maybe you try to set up a business and it goes tits up. Where previously the state intervened to provide you with financial support, if Cameron gets his wish it no longer will and you will instead be forced in to a joke job just to pay the bills. That's cunning, really f*cking cunning because it means not only do the Tories get to pander to the Daily Mail readers who genuinely believe the country is buckling under the millions of benefit scroungers, but it means the Tories enter the election with record employment figures, while their mates in big business find a new pool of workers willing to work for pennies on insecure contracts.

And so, to wrap up in typically dramatic fashion, they are all c*nts and are first against the wall come the revolution.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4