Should Workshy & Incompetent British Layabouts Be Immediately Given The Old Boot?

Hmmmm.....whoever can you mean, Mick?

Why use old boots when you can create new jobs, prosperity and much needed taxable income with new boots, Mick. Should shine up the new boots nicely, too

Steve

Booting suggests some form of motion is transfered to the layabout from the kinetic energy stored in the boot/arse interface. Fat chance of that.

I presume we are talking about the kept boy who has just been elected to the leadership of the layabout party? He satisfies every known criteria for old Konservative values (Eton and drinking for Cambridge) but he is expected to do a Bliar on the Tories? How will we tell them apart?

I am so pleased that after their failed sociological experiment of allowing the 'middle classes' to run the party from Heath to Howard the tories have reverted to type and realised we all desperately want to be governed by toffs.

Gee, I just assumed Mr Parry was referring to Fritz...

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Gee, I just assumed Mr Parry was referring to Fritz...

Just because he spends his days composing 6698 posts of verbose nonsensical twaddle on a hi-fi discussion forum doesn't necessarily make him a work-shy incompetent layabout now does it! Mick, you're so judgemental!!

EW

He probably looks better in the shower than Mick does, as well. Should we ask Mrs Mick for an informed opinion?

I think the gym membership may have paid great dividends

Why do you insist on going on about 'layabouts' Mick? You're obviously a very self satisfied man and very certain of your own infallibility.

It always slightly makes my skin crawl when you post these things. There are layabouts and people who don't contribute to society in any constructive way at all levels of the financial spectrum in this country yet I always feel you think it is a feature of the poorer classes.

As Jeffrey Bernard once said, "You can find a better class of person in the gutter than in the drawing room of any gentleman's club"

If nothing else why not try to pity without loathing if you could. You'd be surprised how much happier you could be.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

The christians had a stab at defining one's worth by suggesting that one answered for one's actions at the pearly gates. (or whatever)

Defining worth is extraordinarily difficult and frought with danger where ignorance of a person's behaviour and actions could completely change how you view a person.

Take a number of unemployed persons.

a)Deals in drugs.
b)Does voluntary work.
c)Does bugger-all except get fat and damage his health with fags and booze.

Does (a) rate higher than (c)?
Some might argue that (a) is providing a valuable service to the community while (c) is complete waster.

Shayman

First of all, I am very happy. I work hard but I live very well. Just this week for instance, I have had 3 superb meals in very good restaurants and will be doing so again tomorrow.

I have no objection to anyone being a layabout as long as the taxpayer does not fund it. Regrettably this is not often the case.

My ethos is simple, if you don't work, you don't eat and you you don't eat you die.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Hammerhead:
I think the gym membership may have paid great dividends

What a crap looking karaoke............

3 meals in one day Mick!
Bloody hell what a gourmand.

It's worth paying a little extra in tax so that nobody is living in the gutter. Applying the MP logic, that means those starving don't mug you for your nice watch, your phone or wallet, or break into your home.

You can advocate hanging and flogging but these don't actually deter those at death's door.

quote:

Applying the MP logic, that means those starving don't mug you for your nice watch, your phone or wallet, or break into your home.

Whilst I agree with Mick's angle, this is a good point.

I see the welfare as a sort of an insurance policy to prevent a riot from angry have-nots.

quote:

Originally posted by kuma:

Whilst I agree with Mick's angle, this is a good point.

I see the welfare as a sort of an insurance policy to prevent a riot from angry have-nots.

It worked well for Denmark until now with very low levels of crime compared to Britain. Thatcher was probably directly responsible for more crime growth than anyone else in British history. She cut of benefit to the young unemployed while simultaneously waging her class war on manual workers.

The rising drug culture and immigrant gang system fed by lifelong unemployment may soon change things over here. The Danes ability to leave their garages open all day with lawn tractors and power tools all neatly on display may well be of historical interest.

The failure to provide employment for second generation immigrants has excluded them from the lifestyle they see all around them. What happens then? They copy the example of the young American poor and turn to drug dealing and street crime.