Crouchie's Lawyer

Do you ever fuse the two together?

And the differnce is what? You cant truly say that you are happy that your tax money is funding a benefit spunging conveyer belt of babies born into a family completely dependant on your tax contributions? Does this not frustrate you? Or do you look at it in a fairy namby pamby way thinking 'Well I guess I can be proud Im financially supporting a child. That kind of makes me a bit like a parent!'

Then it is still rape and therefore wrong. Even if it is Joke rape, I would say it is probably worse as Clowns can be quite scary and even if you werent scared of clowns before, you would be after. Not really a joke

The reason I have said they are not my views is because the thread would just end up like it has, a sl*g off INS thread. I wanted to ask everyone else their opinion as Im genuinely interested. And as I mentioned earlier, to find what suggestions people would have to combat the people who abuse the benefit system. Call me a fascist if you will, and yes, I probably do have fascist views, however, I am not homophobic or rascist, I do not protest my views or lobby for laws to be changed to favour my views. I just look at how much the UK has changed since I was a child and Im only 25. I wonder what the UK will be like when I have children. Kids are stabbing each other with knives on a daily basis. Respect has gone and IMO if it continues it wont be long before soceity breeds nothing but Vicky Pollard's. If I am called fascist for caring about the state of soceity my kids will grow up in then so be it. Sitting back, being PC and keeping yourself to yourself will only IMO worsen things. But hey, what do I know, Im only a fascist!

Define joke rape then

Im going to place mine on my Mrs' face

I appreciate this is some what of a michael taking exercise, however I will play along. You are a f*cktard for starting such a pointless thread, your opinion is wrong and you should not be allowed to think such thoughts and everything else that others have said about my threads (which have generated a lot of debate I may add). To answer your question, rape is never a joke. Surprise secks is different and normally between two people who have feelings for each other or are together, genuinely accomanied with consent. I know someone who was been raped by a taxi driver and even after about 8 years or so, is still being counselled for it.

I hope this clears up your p*ss take questions. If you do not wish to answer the initial question then why bother commenting on the thread?

No offence but now your just being a tw*t. If you cannot accept other peoples views then you need to question are you really a good innernet forum moderator/admin.

See its people like you who have fueled the fire about my threads. You dont seem to understand that I do not wish to 'remove' people's basic rights. My opinion is that I do not believe, if you take someone elses life on purpose, you should have rights of your own. I do not believe in capital punishment, I think spending the rest of your life behind bars is far more punishing than taking the easy way out and being hung/injected/electricuted etc. My personal view is that if by extending the detaining period by another 3 weeks it saves lives, then the inconvenience of an additional 3 weeks in jail is IMO worthwhile. People have said that there is stigma associated with being arrested on terror charges and being released, I would doubt that stigma is significantly reduced if you were released on day 21 rather than day 42. And yes, I think it is absurd that people can freely breed till their hearts content and have it supported by the state and ergo the tax payer - me. Not bothering to get a job, knowing full well they will have a large house and benefits given to them from the state. Call me a 'Daily Mail' reader or a 'left wing lunatic' for my opinions if you will, but afterall they are only opinions, it doesnt mean they are right or wrong. I do not lobby or protest for my thoughts/beliefs, mearly discuss them with people.

Its the portsmuff water IMO

Thats a different point. I agree, you shouldnt penalise the majority for the 'minority which abuse the system' but do you think something should be done to close this 'loop hole'. Maybe a system whereby if you are receiving benefits already for children and are not working, you should not be able to increase your benefits if you have more children?

You say crap, however it has stimulated a lot of debate. This is a forum ponty so surely debate is a good thing? I admit, I may have misworded the initial HR thread post, and possibly shot from the hip a bit, however just because your views dont agree with others views, it doesnt mean that the others opinions are 'crap' as you call them.

Good point. I am not suggesting this BTW, just curious. However, I believe the thought of jail or a fine would be more of a deterrant and as such, there would be less 'mistakes' or accidents. It would also deter kids from becoming sexually active at a young age, although how this would be implemented I dont know due to not being able to imprison/fine someone under 18?! Again, I must stress for the f*cktards out there who just love to dig people I am not suggesting this, merely asking the question.

How would you suggest then? Im all for big families if they can be financially supported, I just dont know if its right to have more kids and expect others to pay for it?

Please read THE WHOLE THREAD before posting. Ponty, Im surprised you of all people say this. As I have said, I am neither for, nor against it, just after peoples opinions of if it would work or not and what they perceive to be the benefits. This is afterall a forum to discuss things! Again tombletomble, I have not suggested it. It is not in the pipeline as we speak after 'me suggesting it'. I have not suggested anything, merely asked for peoples opinions on what they think of a particular point.

Whoops, yeah, sorry mean ADHD!

Just a question, no hidden agenda. Im only after peoples opinions on if it would work, what they perceive the advantages/disadvantages to be. Please do not spite me with comments because you do not deem it to be IYO intellectual, or worthy. Should the UK bring into force a (free) licence in order to have kids, with a fine or imprisonment should this law be broken. If so, what would/should the criteria to obtain a licence be? I know a lot of it is paper spin, but when you see articles about people who have no job, live in state provided property, live entirely off of benefits and have umpteen children and still complain that they dont have enough room in their house, it hits a nerve. That lady who earnt £170k a year in benefits just because she had loads of kids, she knows full well that if she has more kids, here benefits will increase. This IMO is wrong. As I said, Im not saying Im for the idea or against it, I just want peoples views on it.

I question why he has more than one of some model supersoaker? Like the backpack stylee ones? Is this in the hope that one day he may get a friend to play with?!

The original purpose was misinturpreted (sp?) somewhat, however, I am big enough to admit, I dont understand all things HR, however some of the replies directed at me have been a little harsh. I think this is because they mis understood what I meant. I was not saying abolish the HRA.

This thread should be in golden posts IMO, I have propper lol'd at it about 4 or 5 times! Good sport Draino. Although I would never wish such pain on anyone, Im glad it happened, as it has made me lol!

Nah definitely Fat B*stard in Austin Powers

She was wasted. No doubt. Lol at when PS said 'Sitting here now, you have changed a lot' and she says 'I dddddonnnt ffffiiiinnnnk iivv chhannngeeeed' PS then says 'Oh you have, a lot' major lolage, the face the ugly bint pulls after that too!

Oh god damn it 9 I'd leave her looking like a plasterer's radio

Im super weak, I think Stephen Hawkins is stronger than me. I cant chose. I dont think there is any I wouldnt!