[ubermik]

Yeah dealing with this case specifically that is why she is suing them, but as a reason for the case she then cites that as a DIRECT result of this her child has been bullied, and has had her social development affected by not going on school trips, having luxury items this that and the other

The exact same things countless kids, even some who HAVE both parents ALSO have to endure or cant afford anyway, but in THIS instance its being claimed to be some huge traumatic causality that she now wants to be compensated for on behalf of her child

My point here is if that IS the case then we could also claim the exact same level of psychological trauma for all children living in a single parent family with no other income irrespective of the reason for that, because had her father been dead then financially it wouldnt be ANY different but she just wouldnt have anyone to blame, that is the ONLY difference here

Same would also go for working couples on low wages or no wage who could when rent and council tax is taken into account be worse off than this woman, so what of their kids?

Obviously as a society we could take the line that we shouldnt let kids be traumatised to such an “allegedly” horrendous level, but if we believe that IS the case then that wouldnt just apply to the convenient hot political topic of the alleged amount of deadbeat dadas bu would apply to ANY child being raised on a similar income whether her dad is at home, dead or otherwise engaged

But thats ONLY if we believe her claims are valid

Where the CSA is concerned I agree, they had a function and they ddint fulfill it, no arguement there at all, but thats now what I have been disputing at any point in this thread, purely the validity of her claims and the significance of them in relation to other kids being raised on the same income in the same or a variety of other circumstances

[ubermik]

No you are still missing the point and getting caught up in the specifics of this one case

I am NOT saying all the other mothers will do anything like suing, the comparison revolves around the fact that we are being asked to believe that THIS father not paying is MASSIVELY and NEGATIVELY affecting his daughters life and is SOLELY to blame for a whole list of trauma worthy occurences

But what if instead of just not paying he was UNABLE to pay for many reasons?

The daughters life would not only be EXACTLY the same financually, but it would ALSO be IDENTICAL in every financial aspect to the life of countless other kids who are fatherless, whos fathers just CANT Contribute towards them and obviously the ones who just dont

The reason for not paying isnt important here, its the claims of the significance of the lack of support, because if true then every non supporting single parents child whether through death, unemployment, dissability, incarceration OR lack of botheration of the father is EQUALLY guaranteed this level of trauma and negative psychological impact PURELY because as a single parent they dont get enough money for their kids

If it helps with you understanding the point just pretend for a moment that the father hasnt been found at all and NOW they finally discover he died 10 years ago but wasnt identified at the time

The exact same scenario would be there, but without any unwillingness to pay, he was simply living impaired

Would that now magically remove all of the claimed traume at the root of the case?

And what of a child whos father died the day after they were born? They didnt have a sperm donor/biological wallet to contribute to them. So are we to assume they are unnavouidably negatively traumatised without exception because of that?

Or is this just a mother who is either a crap mother, has had a lot of bad luck and has now seen an opportunity to try and lay the blame for that onto someone else?

Because scores of other people live with the same level of financial input and DONT have the long list of “causalities” of not having that extra money to splash around, they seem to do just fine and dandy. Just not this one it would seem

[ubermik]

Well one of the political reasons for trying to brainwash the moronic majority into believing we are creating global warming applies to you then, or will do

the price of copper has over the last few years gone through the roof because china is trying to buy up as much of it as they can from all over the world in response to their massive economic and social growth, inline with acquiring supplies they have put a massive investment into africa over the last decade and have some quite tasty trade deals that then creates a shortage in the rest of the world, pushes up prices and therefore the all crucial inflation which in turn affects employment

A roll of 2.5mm twin an earth has more than doubled in just the last 12-18 months or so and is still rising, so much so that most wholesalers dont give prices now and you have to ask the price when you need it

So a fairy tale adaptation of something like global warming gives the west the excuse to try and stiffle growth in china, and should africa start to develop too in a big way many of the resources we rely on are in abundance there anyway so their development could be even more financially impactive

The west IS in no uncertain terms not only fighting for its economical stranglehold on the world in the short term, but its financial existence in the long term and it doesnt seem to be letting inconvenient truths get in the way and certainly isnt taking any prisoners

[ubermik]

LOL, well that makes two of us then :lol:

As an electrician with a few GSE’s I’d hardly say I fell into the bucket of “intellectual” folksies really haha

[ubermik]

Learn to type faster then coz it only took about 2 minutes to type

[ubermik]

@smiley wrote:

Why are you all arguing about a scripted incident?

You’re just falling for the corporation’s plans.

They pay her a lot of money to say it, everyone argues about it, publicity = loads of money, we all forget about it eventually, she lives the rest of her life happily in her new mansion.

You bunch of sad acts.

Dumbed down, scripted television, for dumbed down people!

You might be, everyone else seems to be argueing about the use of language in society as whole

You seem to be the only person specifically talking about big brother that I can see

[ubermik]

@abitofmary_j wrote:

did anyone watch the guy sayin on BB Bigmouth with the Gorgeous George… why weren’t the other 2 kicked out for sayin the N word also…. to which GG replied they were statin what was said and not directed to anyone….

I just wonder how someone could actually turn round and let a word like that which isnt used in the English Language roll of one’s tongue so easyily…. says alot for her upbringing I say…

In which alternate reality ISNT the word nigger either A) not part of the english language OR B) Isnt used daily?

Coz it sure aint this one lol

If A) it wasnt part of the english language it wouldnt exist to begin with

If B) It wasnt used nobody would say it, nobody would have an overreactive tizzy fit about it and we wouldnt even know what the word was or meant

But back here in REALITY it IS used, it IS part of the english language coz “shock horror” those ickly blackie people ALSO speak english you know, its NOT an entirely different language when its spoken by a black to the language it is when spoken by a white, its STILL english

The word nigger IS used daily BY niggers the world over, its ALSO used by wannabe white niggers who have probably bumped their head or had a bodged labotomy and just THINK theyre black, which they then in turn learn that way of talking and use that word BECAUSE they hang around with BLACKS

So screw a persons upbringing, its more to do with peer groups, so UNLESS youre saying “GOOD WHITE PARENTS” shouldnt let their kids EVER hang around with black kids they WILL both learn and use the word nigger the same as black kids who hang around with the same groups will ALSO learn

So to then turn around and says its bad ONLY when a white kid says it is not only lacking in any form of intellect, its also inherently racist

[ubermik]

Ahhh aguardian reader I guess then? lol

Nope, as expected you dodged the entire point to regurgitate the pavlovian response the media has trained you ever so well to offer as a knee jerk reaction on such matters

The point here has NOTHING to do with fathers paying, thats a totally different topic

But if you want to include that it DOES show that a mans right to be a father is totally ignored and is totally unimportant in modern society as that doesnt in any way shape or form ever come into the topic

Theres always a mass furrore about men who dont pay, but hardly a murmur about putting an equal amount of effort into giving men an equal right in parenting, making sure they HAVE the “access” to their kids they are “granted” when, as millions of mums do its obstructed because they see it as an inconvenience

Even the wording makes it sound like a MAN seeing his own kids is a privelidge

But THIS thread is purely to do with the one aspect of this, hence the comments in the header

IF as we are being told this has had SUCH a massive impact on her because she ONLY had to live on the EXACT SAME amount of benefits that many kids with no father or an unknown, disabled or unemployed non resident father ALSO have to live on

Then what about all THOSE kids?

Suppose the mother hadnt even known who the father was as is hardly an uncomon scenario?

Suppose he was disabled?

Dead?

Unemployed?

In jail?

In ALL of those instances he also wouldnt have been paying this money, so we are being asked to believe that she ALSO would have had a traumatic life as a result are we? Because the reason wouldnt alter their standard of life in any way, and the case itself is based purely on the claims that the absence of that money has seriously and unmistakenly negatively affected the standard of live to a level where sueing is a reasonable action

So, as I said to begin with, IF the claims are right, that a child having to be raised on JUST benefits alone is such a big deal then that WOULD also stand equally for all the kids whos fathers dont contribute for the other reasons where they genuinely cant because of disability, because the mother got pregnant during a drunken party where she passed herself around a roomful of strangers, where they are dead (living impaired lol), disabled, jailed etc etc etc

So, if its SOOOOOO massively traumatic with THIS girl, it HAS to be with all kids raised JUST on benefits

So this fathers contribution is irrelevant, because had he been killed the circumstance would have been identical

So the thread is about the significance of the claims re all the other kids being paid for WHATEVER reason where ONLY benefits are there for them to be raised on, and what implications an acceptance of this as a valid point and case has on all the other kids where there just isnt even a contribution that is there TO be collected to begin with

But if you check the original header slayer you WILL notice that that WAS already very clearly and concisely pointed out as to EXACTLY what the question, point and relationship to the case was

Which again you CHOSE to deliberately ignore to push your own pavlovian brainwashed views

[ubermik]

Saying global warming doesnt “exist” is as stupid as saying snow or sunshine doesnt exist and that THEY are political myths to tax us higher

The natural unnavoidable phonomenon of global warming quite clearly exists, its proven beyong any shadow of a doubt as something that is happening, cant be slowed down, avoided or made worse by mankind

Politically tho, AND in order to tax us and to stop poorer countries from developing its being claimed we ARE the cause that it CAN be avoided and that its NOT a natural phonomenon

The planet will and always has undergone warming and cooling before, during and will do after mankind was here hence the reason we has a mini ice age in the bronze age and temperatures so hot (about 4 degrees higher than they are now) a mini global warming in the middle ages

The planet is and always has been warming up and cooling down in cycles covering centuries, the ONLY difference now is that all of the impirical data about that is being conveniently ignored so that the complete opposite can be pushed to justify not only local political agendas and taxation but to also be used as a reason to stop the industrialisation of africa, china and to an extent russia to try and maintain the wests financial stronghold on the world

Because if they dont then russia, africa and russia will within 50 years be the three strongest financial powers in the world due to their rapid organisation, development, natural resources and cheap labour

The west dont want that to happen if they can avoid it in any way at all including lying through the skin of their teeth about what global warming is and isnt and what is and isnt the cause

[ubermik]

Global warming IS a fact tho, its just not something that can be stopped or caused, the planet just does it of its own accord but its not linked to the planet wobbling, thats just caused by fat birds doing aerobics

[Author]

Posts