3,000 are trapped on poverty line
Tuesday 26th October 2010, 2:30PM BST.
Full-time mum of six, Tina Setters, with children Josh, 5 and Lisa-Marie, 3. Mrs Setters said people needed more help to cope with the current financial pressures. (Picture by Tom Tardif, 1043350)
A 72-YEAR-OLD pensioner is trying to get a job in a local factory to help save her from the poverty line.
The woman wants to get off supplementary benefit but also says she would be unable to survive without help from her grown-up children.
Her comments follow news there are still more than 2,000 households said to be living on the poverty line in Guernsey – 10 years after a living standards survey highlighted the problem and the need for action.
These are islanders trapped in so-called ‘relative poverty’ – on such low incomes that their standard of living falls below the minimum expected and experienced by most of the rest of Guernsey.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
10 years of vastly increased wealth within the island, yet there are more on the poverty line.
How does that work, anti-Arnalds?
Report abuse
The thing that strikes me is the lack of facts and the wording of the article.
“said to be”, “so-called”, “most of the rest”.
It all seems to be based on opinion; and then compared with an actual report conducted ten years ago.
Report abuse
The people who have paid their contributions over all the previous years ideally would never need to claim benefits BUT we don’t live in an ideal world. I guess in many ways I would be one of those on the poverty line as I am on benefits after a life threatening illness and happy to recieve anything that is given to me. .
I adjust my lifestyle accordingly and hopefully will be back in the land of the earning in the very near future.
Report abuse
I never really comment on here, but I feel I just want to put my pennies worth in everyone ! :-) I think the whole system needs to be sorted. I do believe most live beyond their means and then require and EXPECT help from the States, have children, receive the allowance, child goes to school, then conveniently have another child, bingo allowance again until the child is at school, its a vicious circle. I myself am a recently married woman, mortgage, and would love to have children, but can’t as at the moment money would not allow us too, if we went ahead and did it simply because “we can” then our house would be on the line !. Yes there is no right time to have children but we are too proud to think of more important things. On the other hand my retired mother never got help for 6 years to find a states house as she was living in private rented accomodation trying to find £950+ a month for rent ! Yes her choice to live in private rented but at the time her husband was working, he was then taken very ill and unable to work, got into serious financial trouble and you can work out the rest, evicted, one big mess then the states had to help ! Worked all her life, paid her insurance stamp, tax all the rest of it and when she needed the help there was no one ! …..
I wish the system helped the people that need the help not the people that refuse to work because they want a care free life all paid for them and just get it handed to them on a plate, go out drinking every weekend, where are their children then?! Expensive clothes, tattoos, afford to smoke, Sounds awful but Guernsey needs to wake up and realise the reality ! Why do many of us locals retire elsewhere? or emigrate we are going to be one of the many soon – Guernsey will have no locals left, its not the good old Guernsey now anyway !
Report abuse
A few years ago I was fortunate (?) enough to be working with someone who couldnt afford to have their child’s teeth sorted out , as they were on supplementary also as well as both working , the teeth got paid by SSD, Not 2 weeks after this my colleauge came into work with a very impressive tattoo which had allegedly cost £600.
Guess he knew where his priorties lie …
Report abuse
Arnald…This is the trend that has continued for the last 20 years in the UK and British Commomwealth. The Rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer as wealth increases vastly in the Nation as a whole.
We have a duty to support the weak and the vulnerable…children and old people are in that catagory. It is usually the most well off that moan and complain about the lowest/non earners in society being helped with “OUR MONEY” as they like to put it.
Please don’t demonise single mums…3000 people on the poverty line just isn’t 500 single mums with 2500 children between them.
Being such a small percentage of the population and they very often the weakest and most vulnerable people that need our help the most. With a tiny percentile of your hard earned wages…you are putting clothes on a childs back and food on the table.
There are thousands on this island struggling to live…pensioners, single mothers, working families, foreign workers.
Anybody with no imagination, intelligence or empathy can point to a social group and blame them… it is easy to find a scapegoat, far harder to come up with a constructive solution to a problem that affects us all in one way or another.
Report abuse
Surely the system requires an overhall so that benefits are paid to those that require them out of genuine circumstance (such as long term disability or elderly who are unable to increase their income through work).
IMO benefits should only be paid for the first child, should the individual then decide to have a second child (despite not being able to afford the first one) no further benefits (over and above what is already being paid) should be paid. I know that this may appear harsh but if we remove the hand-out mentality over time it would result in a change of attitude.
The second point to make is that benefits (such as the £14.60 per week paid in child allowance to all families) should be removed for those families that are over and above a preset income level and diverted to fund genuine benefit payments. If the correct framwork were in place I for one would give up this benefit if the saving were put to a genuine beneift use.
Report abuse
@PW Fudgedonut.
I am not at all “well off” and yes I do resent my hard EARNED money going to help those lazy buggers who choose not to work. They could just as easily choose a different way of life. We are not living in the Dark Ages, there is CHOICE about whether or not to have children. It is irresponsible to breed with the expectation that someone else will pay for the childrens’ upkeep. OK so it isn’t the childrens’ fault. The blame lies with the parents. It’s high time Mark Dorey sorted the benfefits system out once and for all. Pay for one child only, anything more than that is not a mistake. If you don’t learn how tough life could be from having one child then tough. Work like the rest of us.
Why should pensioners who have worked hard all their adult lives and paid their stamp have to go without food and/or heating because somebody somewhere deems that baby machines are a much more deserving cause as far as benefits go?
Report abuse
Yes ‘Fudgedonut’, and what will happen to these kids when they grow up ?? 90% of them will have hundreds of kids too and end up sponging off the taxpayer.
Id be more than happy to know that not one penny of my taxes would go towards these kids. Then they could grow up seeing that having so many kids, but not being able to self support them isn’t the way the world should go. Id love to have children but cant afford too. Half my wages a month go towards my mortgage. Wheres my help ?? Judging by how much some spongers get off the system i obviously chose the wrong path !!
Its a disgrace.
Report abuse
For a small number of individuals in this island life is no doubt hard but, unless circumstances conspire against you or you have some serious problem that prevents you from working there are still plenty of jobs out there.
Report abuse
“yet there are more on the poverty line.”
The article states ‘relative poverty’. If you have two mobiles, that’s one more than me so I’m relatively poorer than you; but I’ve still got a mobile. The man with two cars, I’m relatively poorer than him; but I’ve still got a car.
There is no poverty in Guernsey. Relative poverty measures are all subjective.
Report abuse
To stop people abusing the system I think the States should provide vouchers that are only reedemable at certain clothes shops and supermarkets, so they cannot be used on anything else. This way they would ensure the kids got the benefit they were meant to get and NOT the parents. The parents have a responsibility before they think of having another child, they obviously dont care about the future of their kids which is unfortunate. Pensioners should not be tarred with the same brush because the majority of them have worked hard and contributed to the system all their lives and just want to be given some of it back in their later years.
Personally I do not think foreign workers should be given benefits at all. If your parents are both born and bred in Guernsey this makes you ineligible to work for EEC countries and claim benefit if you were to emigrate – so why are they getting benefits here? There are so many wrong social systems in place with our laws – it’s about time they were reviewed and updated.
Report abuse
Fudgedonut, I’m totally with you on this one! Couldn’t have said better. I wonder though if anyone had an idea the States would listen…
Report abuse
Just as long as these low income people are non smokers I have no problems with the way benefits are handed out. I’ve spent several years on benefit when my daughter was a baby and since but to be honest I always had at least as much as all of my full time working friends because I didn’t spend it on cigarettes etc. Had a car and a holiday etc etc…Benefits are rated at a basic wage not that or a homeless/jobless person.
Report abuse
I am also a tax paying and hard working citizen and I would like to communicate my disgust at most of these responses. Supporting families is exactly what I want my taxes to be spent on. I do not want to live in a community where there is poverty and I expect my contributions to be invested in eradicating it. What you might call “individual responsibility” is to me neglect. You speak of people in need being selfish, but I cannot think of anything more selfish than a lack of social responsibility towards your fellow citizens. To allow poverty to settle on a family you believe to deserve it through some “mistake” or other is not justice, or fairness, it is abuse. And abuse of the weakest in our community is something that our society should condemn.
Report abuse
@ PW Fudgedonut
The subject of the article, a 72 year old pensioner, has five children so why are they not helping her?
As to your list of those struggling to live I do get the impression that a number of young single mums on the island choose that direction in life so they can live off the benefit. The UK has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe.
These young single mums can still afford to smoke, buy designer clothes and have expensive tattoos. They should get their priorites in order.
Report abuse
Fudgedonut I think if you read the comments properly you will find no one is having a go at just single mothers, the point is the vast majority of people do not have kids they can not pay for and don’t expect the States to pay for them. The benefit system should be there to help the needy get back on their feet at present it forces people to become reliant on them if you are on benefits there is no incentive to save and help yourself, no wonder they can afford tattoos cars holidays the states pays for everything else quite happily so long as you have no money. The other end of the scale is our pensioners the way they are looked after is shocking and shames me, the ones that get the most are the ones that know how to play the system and for some reason feel it is their right to do so. I know this through experience not speculation
Report abuse
ok i work casual hours, so i can fit in around my 4 kids. i also get topped up by sup each week, as what i earn a month leaves me with 110.00 a wk t live on. yes there r spongers, but also single mums like me, who are trying to care for our kids
Report abuse
Bob Since posting the above, the press have deleted two posts from people and my post has been amended also.
It makes what I wrote slightly irrelevant in that the two posts I responded to (at the time the only other posts other than Arnalds) WERE simply having a serious go at single mothers.
I agree with what you say. I think you agree with me also that we have to take care of the most vulnerable in our rich society.
Report abuse
I just wondered,
Do financialy better off families tend to have fewer children than poorer families, I think so. Does that mean having more children makes you poorer. If thats the case why help them with taxpayers money!
Report abuse
I think people are assuming that all single parents are ‘baby making machines’ soley for the purpose of claiming more money. Some parents have lost a partner/spouse or split up for various reasons, lost jobs/ been ill..not all had their children and expected the states to pay for them. some have had no choice but to claim. Unless you know every single benefit claimer and their circumstances, please do not make sweeping assumptions. If your partner died and you had to claim would you like to be paid only for the first child and refused help for child two and three? I doubt it.
Report abuse
I bet 3/4 of the people on benefits dont need to be! I know someone who “claims” to be so broke she cannot afford bread, yet she has a nice fancy holiday each year, a lovely Merc in the drive, credit cards maxed out, fancy outfits each week! now I work a full time yet, I go to night school, I help out with a friend who has a child so she can attend night school and I also have a mortgage yet I do not have fancy holidays, dont own a posh car and rarely spend on clothes so how can she be on the poverty line?! Oh and she claims benefits while working? how does that work? someone please explain!
Good to know that all my hard earned money is going on her holiday while I havent had 1 since my early 20′s (many moons ago now) it’s simply not fair! The states make it too easy for lazy people simple!
Report abuse
I think those that have loads of children then milk the system shouldn’t be able to. I agree with many who have said benefits for one kid but no more. I also think benefits should not be a way of life, and should only be available for a time period of say 1-2 years.
Report abuse
Vee, why come on here and complain, complain to the states? They need to know of people like this milking the system. Spongers should be hung out to dry by the SSD.
Report abuse
Perhaps it is wrong to tar every single mother with the same brush – but can you explain to me why these women get themselves into these situations if the reason is not solely to get as much off the States as they can get? We tried something once (I know it is a little radical, but hey, lets give it a go) it’s called birth control.
If this makes me appear to be morally superior, so be it – I do have morals – shame that other people don’t appear to have the same values.
Report abuse
It’s clear that there are an awful lot of people who think that just because someone pleads poverty then it’s perfectly OK for them to be given handouts. Well it’s not.
Ok so Ali has made comments about various circumstances, fair enough. But what makes alot of people mad is that there are far far too many abusers of the system. Why will nobody in authority explain why they are allowed to continue taking money which should be used to help those who really do need and deserve it.
Does the person who “can’t afford a loaf of bread” yet drives a merc and takes holidays all whilst wearing the latest fashions and claiming benefits care that there are many elderly people out there who can barely afford one meal a day, which isn’t always a hot meal, and are to afraid to heat their homes because of the cost. I doubt it.
I also know of someone who is pleading poverty and receives states assistance yet buys the majority of her weekly grocery shop in M & S, drives a brand new car and takes 2 holidays a year. How is this fair?
Explanations and fairer distribution of funds please Mr Mark Dorey.
Report abuse
Vee
Just as a point, it is up to you to report anything to the SSD if you think there is a fiddle going on, They wont act on anonymous complaints though so you have to be prepared to put your name to it , this will not get disclosed to that person.
How do I know this , well I am currently on benefits as previously mentioned , to all intents and purposes I look, and more importantly feel well enough to work, however the medications I am on would leave me as a danger to the general public and I am “uninsurable” should something happen while working. I am aware that someone made a “comment” about me and I had to prove my situation with home visits, medical references etc. If there is any doubt in their claim they will be placed under supervision.
Its worth making enquiries if you think its worth it , if their claim is genuine then you wont know anything but it has been dealt with, if its false then obviously you will know through the media
Report abuse
Ha – what a joke – poverty in Guernsey! Even in the darkest dankest reaches of the ‘worst sink estate’ on the island, the occupants live in luxury compared to most of the planet.
NO-ONE in Guernsey is being shot at or persecuted.
NO-ONE in Guernsey is dying of Cholera, starvation, Ebola etc.
NO-ONE in Guernsey has to walk for days to get dirty water to drink and wash with or medical treatment.
NO-ONE in Guernsey is executed for being homosexual or not toeing the party line etc etc.
Poverty in Guernsey means you arent able to hit the town on both Friday AND Saturday nights….
Report abuse
If this is based on “relative poverty” then won’t you always have people at or below the line of the majority? If we gave everybody £1m there would still be relative poverty because those with just £1m, would still be poorer than those with £1.1m.
Is there any way that poverty can be judged by roof over head, food on table, clothes on back etc? Surely it’s the responsibility of a civilised society to make sure that the basic provisions of food, security and shelter are being met, not to judge poverty relative to material wealth.
Report abuse
Instead of giving these single mums free handouts, why dont the States give them free child care. That way they can go out and earn a living instead of sponging off the taxpayer. It would also put off those woman that are the baby making machines if they have to work to support they’re kids.
Report abuse
Somebloke
I like you ! (not in a prosecutable way though LOL )
Report abuse
I’m afraid this is another very poor (if you’ll pardon the pun) piece of reporting by the Press.
Arnald please take note…
The repoter is mixing up definitions of poverty. The terms “poverty line” and “relative poverty” are used – two differnt things. Poverty line is the point (if one falls below it) that basic human requirements cannot be fulfilled – such as food, basic habitation, running water etc. We have a welfare system that stops people falling below the poverty line – the poverty line itself is quite high in the Island as you would expect. No one – unless by choice – lives below this threshold or as its know “abject poverty”.
Slightly more complex is relative poverty – relative poverty is a calculation where a baseline is artificially created to determine the number of people in “relative poverty”. Example would be the lowest 10% of household incomes live in relative poverty – all well and good so far. So in a street where there are 100 households and 90 of them have an income of say 100k – that means that the other 10% live in “relative poverty” even though their income is 90k.
Point being that figures for small populations such as Guernsey can be highly scewed and are of course very subjective.
I’ve no idea how these figures were gathered by I suspect that either the stats were not understood or scewing of the results by the relatively high average incomes of Guernsey households (for example some households with incomes of 25k may be considered in relative poverty!).
Still awake? Well done!
So to summarise I suspect relative poverty is just that and that those near the pre defined poverty line are kept above it by welfare.
Report abuse
I think the whole benefits and pension system should be overhalled completely. I feel so sorry for the pensioners who should be living comfortably now afer many years of working and not struggling with higher food prices/utilities/medical expenses/you name it. How does anyone live on that amount a week?
A case in point both my parents are receiving pensions in the Uk and they are very comfortable as they don’t have to pay for medical expenses plus they receive free daily care for my father and top of that they had their central heating installed completely free of charge! When they got burgaled last year the social services paid for stronger locks on their door. Pensioners do not DESERVE to be poor on this Island and neither does anyone for that matter. Give more benefits to the older people and make people who are on supplementary go back to work when their children are older. We all know people with older teenagers who haven’t worked a day since their kid was born and why should they, they get their dentist/doctors bills paid on top of the money they receive. I believe in the benefits system but it should target the right people.
Report abuse
Whilst I tend to agree with the general sentiments about teenage baby making factories I hope it is not aimed at the mother of six in the Press story
MRS Setters is 36 years old and had her last two children at the grand old age of 31 and 33
Her off the cuff quotes about relative poverty in the full story relate to PEOPLE needing more help in the current difficult financial circumstances
No hint at all of a ‘me,me,me’ attitude
I also agree with Toady who correctly points out that the place to complain about abuse of the system (any system)is the relevant authority so that something can be done about it to the benefit of us all
Report abuse
Children are a privilage not a right. Dont have more than you can cope with! Cut off benefits after the first child.
@expat – free child care?! are you completely insane?! Thats got to be much more than the hand out itself.
Poverty simply doesn’t exist the same way. I don’t see homeless people very often – certainly not in the region that is suggested.
Report abuse
I’m finding a way out of poverty by opening a local branch of Torches-n-Pitchforks.com (as seen on TV). Once ownership of one of our highly competitive packages of Torches and Pitchforks, Banners and Chant-Sheets reaches a critical mass a rally will be held to forcible evict baby-factories, chav-breeders and work-dodgers from their luxury homes filled with state of the art technology. Looting is an optional extra. Terms and conditions apply.
If your going to get the mob going, make sure you visit Torches-n-Pitchforks.com/from-indignant-to-baying/direct-action/info
Report abuse
HSSD don’t do anything though Ray and there in lies the problem.
To all of you dogooders above who belive butter wouldn’t melt I just want to clarify that my comments are aimed at lazy scroungers in general and it seems that they all have something in common. Yep you guessed it. Children.As in plural i.e more than one. These children are used as the excuse to keep these people from working and HSSD are fully aware but are too scared to do anything about it for fear of retribution.
Have you ever stood inside HSSD when the scroungers have been harassing staff because they “don’t get enough”? I have. I suggest you try it sometime. Some of you may then start to think differently.
Meanwhile pensioners are left to suffer. How very wrong is that?
Report abuse
‘Poverty line’ in Guernsey can only be the description used where someone is living on less than the median wage. We don’t have beggars on the street living in cardboard boxes.
I doubt if any of these 3000 people have no tv or phone, let alone no roof over their head. All will have had access to free education, clean running water, democracy and (whilst ‘poor’) free healthcare and free legal representation.
States houses are continually upgraded and their tenants get new fittings and fixtures any time they break theirs. There’s none of the accountability the private sector have to live with.
I understand the Guernsey pension to be double that of the UK and the people I know who are on it (without benefit of additional private pension) seem to be doing very well indeed. Which I applaud.
If someone reaches pensionable age and still has outstanding debts or mortgage then I can see where their money might have trouble stretching, but where does individual responsibility end? (or begin?)
I don’t want to see benefit claimants in the workhouse, but I do despair of how very little poverty there actually is amongst those who don’t work. Where’s the incentive?
There could be more States Work Schemes to help top up benefits whilst increasing skills and experience.
Report abuse
No, Gilthead. Relative poverty will be a point beyond which someone is deemed not be able to afford necessity within a society. In our society that would mean quite basic things like heating and light. In a society where everyone earns £100K and some £90K, it would depend how expenses those basics were, not just a percentage split.
So in an affluent society as ours is, relative poverty is still a disgrace because it presumes that those people are not somehow able to afford what the rest of us would think as basic.
The fact that so many are needing to claim social security payments is a testament at how lopsided we are. It’s not just a case of ‘lazy scroungers’, are people really telling me there are thousands of single mothers or thousands of jobless? Clearly there are not.
Relative poverty is a function of social inequality, not of moral standards. Moral standards are eroded by social inequality, not the other way round.
Report abuse
Cheesedoff
re your paragraph about being inside HSSD.
Unfortunatley I have, still do, and will be again shortly and have commented on previous forums about the number of younger people in there ( not necessarily with children but usually ) on their expensive Iphones openly talking to their drug dealers and ordering drugs for the weekend .
I have also previously suggested that a plain clothes officer may be deployed within the waiting area , I doubt if this would be implemented though as it would be deemed a waste of taxpayers money.
I look forward to the day coming soon when I no longer have to claim benefits and return to my working life
Report abuse
Cheesed Off has hit a winning formula. Number of children squared divided by hours of actual work done plus one, times number of tattoos, equals expected tax-payer fury as a ratio to media portrayal, percent. Anything above 70% indicates curtain-twitching rage. 80% is disgusted comments outside newsagents, 90% letters to the Press based on coincidental evidence.
I look forward to my PhD in the post as I can’t be bothered to go and pick it up. Pass me my remote.
Report abuse
Expat…well done. Someone coming up with a constructive idea. Perhaps this is something that our politicians could look into…
As for the rather ridiculous posts of people who claim to know people who are claiming whilst driving Mercedes cars and having two holidays. There is no point in citing examples of “people you know” because it is unquantifiable, heresay and was probably only child benefit they were claiming which is a universal benefit anyway!
“Somebloke” is right and I agree with him (apart from the last paragraph)in the fact that there is no GRINDING poverty and no government oppression. However there is relative poverty. Secondary poverty is probably a larger problem which is hidden from view and virtually unquantifiable.
People who say “THERE IS NO POVERTY IN GUERNSEY” are guilty of complacency and ostrich syndrome. There are many who need serious help, without it, life becomes drudgery.
Frankly you could offer me triple what I earn now to look after 6 kids for the next 18 years and I would say thanks but no thanks. Work is good for the soul, but give alms to those who ask for them. If people want to stay in and watch Jeremy Kyle and soul crushing daytime tele then they are more than welcome to it. Just because I work hard I don’t see the point in hating and vilifying people who don’t. I feel sorry for them. They think they are cheating the system but in reality they are cheating themselves out of so many (real life )benefits.
Report abuse
“So in an affluent society as ours is, relative poverty is still a disgrace” No it isn’t.
No one starves, all are clothed everyone is housed and educated. Some people make different choices but government and the welfare system works very well.
Yes of course there are a few holes in the system and a hungry media is going to find a mother with 15 kids a pensioner with a one bar fire and an adult with limited mobility.
The exceptions, however, do not disprove the rule. Guernsey citizens are well looked after. Some might say, too well looked after.
Report abuse
Toady
I agree, it would be a good idea to also have plain clothes officers amongst the workshy drug users live/socialise to see EXACTLY where their money goes? A very good use of taxpayers money if it stopped money being wasted on these scroungers.
I hope you are well on your way to returning to work, you certainly sound as if teh time can’t come soon enough.
Scrazy Lounger
Coincidental evidence? No, fact is what it is. I have lived amongst some of these people and it’s scary how they are able to work the system to their advantage whilst not giving two hoots about those who genuinely need help but have to go without. Even scarier that they’re allowed to get away with it for years and years.
Report abuse
first of all it’s social security not health and social services. pedantic I know but if you cannot get evan the basic facts right…These comments are disgusting and I can’t beleive that people in my little island can be so malicious. Yes, there are people who are swinging the lead and perhaps a few of those are single parents but again I repeat myself: don’t make sweeping assumptions about things you know nothing about. Do you know all thier personal details? Do you know who SSD are investigating? Do you know who has been caught out? No. You don’t. I really hope that none of you need to claim and be lumped in with all those horrible scroungers..
Report abuse
Arnald – I sort of agree with you but my point is that “relative poverty” in relation to Guernsey is a misnoma is it not?
I would agree that relative (and abject)poverty in India is widespread and real. In Guernsey it is not.
Social inequality is a subjuct that we might actually agree on (fleetingly mayhaps). I strongly beleive that everyone should have an equal pop at life regardless of social back ground, wealth da de da. I fear we would not find much common ground on how to get there…but still.
And as you know even in utopia some will always be more equal than others!
Report abuse
Ali
Yes you are correct on the irrelevant use of the H, it is SSD.
And YES I am lumped in with the “scroungers”, a lot of those assumptions that you claim are false are there for all to see every day of the week, a lot of the time you only see them if yuou are in the same situation
Sorry you feel agreived at this but it is YOUR hard earned cash that is also going to fund things.
I am the first to hold my hand up and say that I am on benefits , my records will show that on many occasions I have requested to return to work as I don’t like the situation or anything to do with it. I have had abuse thrown at me while waiting for the SSD dept to open their doors telling me to “get a job” my response is “I have one but will take yours if you take my chemotherapy”
There is no-one for me to support and likewise no-one to support me, I have paid my contributions for the past 35 years since leaving school and I have been means checked recently . I have no savings which is a result of me having a business that failed due to many reasons including island apathy . Until recently I have never been off work for more than a couple of days and never want to be in this situation again I have also previously said that I am grateful for any benefits I recieve and I certainly don’t squander my payments on fripperies such as alcohol and drugs
My personal gripe is that I get no more than someone who has never contributed and basically someone who has no intention of ,to the States coffers while in a couple of months I will be back paying for them too.
Before anyone gets to me about my health, I am not overweight , I am a non smoker and rare drinker , I also have a good diet generally. I know the above is irrelevant but no doubt someone will say its all my fault
Report abuse
There will always be people at the bottom and top of the food chain. That is life throughout the plant and animal kingdom and it’s survival of the fittest.
However, anybody in Guernsey who has a can of beer in one tattooed hand, a mobile telephone in the other and a fag hanging out of their mouth is not truly impoverished.
Report abuse
Does this poverty line block the entrance to Kings Club? Fiona and Barnaby must have their tennis lesson tomorrow and I cannot park my Porsche Cayanne anywhere else.
Report abuse
Where i live there is 3 couples with children claiming supplementary benefit. I heard one bloke chatting to a mate saying he wasn’t working because he got more on the social.then you got the mother of 13(or more) on supplementary pregnant again from her new boyfriend of 6 months.where does it stop.I work really hard to support my family and it annoys me so much to think they walk around without a care in the world.
Report abuse
Neil
All that “being looked after” by the States means is that they become a forgotten problem. As time goes on, as this trend shows, the problem for both those on benefit and the tax payer increases. At some stage the States will have to say “we can’t look after them anymore”.
Without the provision of opportunity by the private sector, jobs that pay well, apprenticeships etc, the public sector has to pick up the slack.
Judging by most comments, the public don’t think they should pick up any slack let alone some of it.
People are in relative poverty; every default on rent, every bill paid late, every meal scraped shows that society is skewed.
Is it increasing or are policies being introduced to alleviate it? Are the private sector employers responding or are they pushing the wages, and so the expected proficiency of potential employees, beyond the capabilities of the local education and training facilities?
Instead of vilifying the growing number of benefit dependents, there should be intervention to break the cycle.
“These people” (Good one Cheesed Off!) haven’t got a masterplan. They play the game as they see it being dealt. The more they are “them” in people’s perceptions, the more it’s easy to be “them”. After all, who cares?
If you took away government welfare would they not be in greater relative poverty?
That’s where the baseline ought to be.
Report abuse
Arnald
By ‘well looked after’ I was referring to everyone, through all socio economic groups. I suspect there is an emerging issue over utility and rental provision at on or around the pensionable age though.
The picture editor could have found a better example of someone in poverty than a mother with 5 or 6 kids – but he/she got the predicted response.
As these calculations are based on average wages and suchlike do you think J Buttons arrival last year plunged 500 Guernsey families below the line without them even noticing? :-)
Report abuse
Saint Marcouf
“survival of the fittest”.
What on earth are you talking about?.
Report abuse
Neil (et al),
The original Townsend report went to great efforts to define exactly what ‘poverty’ means in Guernsey – see http://www.bris.ac.uk/poverty/Regional%20poverty_files/guernsey/02_GLS-2.pdf. Only having only one mobile definitely doesn’t count – in fact only 5% of those surveyed reckoned having a mobile phone at all was a necessity.
I’d be interested to know whether the Press actually took the trouble to use the definition of poverty from the report to assess the cases in this article. Just because someone receives supplementary benefit, doesn’t mean they are in poverty – in fact the Townsend report specifically says that 40% of households receiving SPB aren’t in poverty.
It also says that at the time the report was compiled, 3,000 households were in poverty. Compared to that, 2,000 households in poverty today seems a big step in the right direction!
But it’s obviously not a big enough step if the Press still feels the need to light the full-time-mum-of-six touchpaper and retire…
Report abuse
What a non-story. Given the definition of “relative poverty”, by definition a portion of any society will be in “relative poverty” no matter how well-off everyone is.
An equally meaningless headline would go along the lines of “1 in 10 people are in the bottom 10% of the earnings scale” Shock! Horror!
Report abuse
It is about time people in Guernsey woke up to the fact that there are people that are living hand to mouth in this island. Pensioners in my opinion are hardest off. I don’t think that all single parents should be targeted but there are alot of them over here that don’t want to work (single people as well) and are just given state handout. If single mothers are that badly off on benefits why do alot of them continue to have more children. Knowing they are going to struggle financially to bring them up. The fact is they don’t struggle they have better lives than most of us. I work part time because of my child, i get no handouts, and yet i cannot afford to see a dr. I see the ones that are struggling are the honest working families that try to do things right and provide for our families, we are the ones that are in the poverty trap.So to most benefit claimers stop and think, you all get your rent paid medical and dental fees paid and you have spare cash to go out and enjoy yourselves. Maybe we should take a leaf out of their books and join the benefit club.
Report abuse
Arnald. In your post of 3.32 – can I ask where the figures you state that everyone earns “£100k or £90k” come from?
Report abuse
Smurf
You sound as though you are the sort of person who SHOULD enquire as to what you are entitled to.
Do NOT neglect your own, or your families health for anything , forget the fact that you may not want to claim but if you are working and paying your contributions then its worth enquiring.
Report abuse
Everyone is so quick to have a go at single mums, but something you are forgetting THEY are the parent that stayed! How about having a go at all those useless fathers out there not taking reasonability for their actions.
Almost everyone loves the story of Robin Hood, he steals from the rich and gives to the poor. What a great guy taking from those that won’t really miss it (yes it’s always nice to have more money) and give to the ones in need. It is ironic when this happens in modern times people are out-raged bitter and nasty (how dare the poor take my money attitude.)
Your (tax payer) money is used for a lot of things Beau Sejour for example you may not use Beau Sejour so you may be angry that your paying for it and if you do use beau Sejour you have to pay again! What about the incinerator that cost millions! Repeat MILLIONS! Of tax payers money just talking about it NO not building it just talking. Put that all together and think how much of your tax money really go to helping out the poor 5p 50p £1 £5?? I’m more than happy that my tax money goes to help poor people yes some are abusing the system but they are a small % and I’m not going to judge everyone the same. I never use beau but I’m also paying for that in my tax oh well that’s life.
Report abuse
Ned B – From Gilhead’s post Oct27 2.48
Neil – “As these calculations are based on average wages and suchlike do you think J Buttons arrival last year plunged 500 Guernsey families below the line without them even noticing? :-)”
It’s not about the AMOUNT earned, it’s about how that amount relates to the cost of living. Ultimately yes; the more super rich come here then upward pressure is put on basic costs. If the low earners do not get wage increases that match the increased upward pressure, more will slip into relative poverty.
Report abuse
Ned B – I think Arnald is talking hypothetically, using the example of a hypothetical society where everyone is wealthy and some only slightly less wealthy than others.
From the comments above I can only assume that the Daily Mail can rest easy that its circulation numbers are in no danger of dropping off any time soon.
ChrisJ is one of the few to have actually looked at this issue objectively and in detail.
Yes, there will always be a spread of wealth in any community, but I would hope that we are still community-minded enough to want to ensure that this spread does not get too wide and that people do not get left too far behind. There is nothing in the article which suggests that those in relative poverty are spongers. We need to ensure that the opportunities are there for people to help themselves.
Even if you want to look at the issue from a selfish point of view, extreme differences in wealth do not help you as then the society functions less well and crime increases.
Report abuse
Arnald – I hate to disagree but you are talking about the poverty line and not relative poverty.
However your point is very valid except that super rich (as you put it) won’t make a fig of difference to the poverty line per se only relative poverty.
I apologise for being pedantic but it is a very different definition.
Where we would both be concerned is that inflation is high and wage settlements low thus creating a spiral downwards into relative (and possible actual) poverty for, potentially, increasing numbers in society.
I suspect your answer to this would be redistribution of wealth – which would of course work short term but I’m afraid much longer term action is required…
Report abuse
@ Saint Marcouf,
As a statement of fact I do not disagree with your post. However if this is a statement of your attitude then it is beyond callous. One of the great things about being TOP of the food chain and being part of (so called) civilised society is the fact that we have transcended the notion of “survival of the fittest”
My god man even cavemen worked out that it was better to share the resources of of a hunt because you may not be so lucky or skillful in the next hunt.
The “I am alright Jack” mentality that you seem to advocate is not condusive toward a psycologically or morally stable society.
Report abuse
Sorry folks my last post was submitted too early. Your last paragraph though, St Marcouf, hits the nail on the head though! And I agree 100%.
Report abuse
Gilthead
Agreed.
Redistribution doesn’t have to be as blunt as people think it is. The wealth created could be redistributed in a manner that directly invests in the community, such as not for profit businesses that provide services etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_business
it’s a good model. It allows the “generators” to make as much money as they like in their own business, as long as they invest, and they eventually get their investment back. It’s a win-win.
Report abuse
PW
The difference between sharing the spoils of a hunt is a very good comparison.
One of the things that took us a step up on the evolutionary ladder is our ability to co-operate with one another, which would always help out other people in times of hardship because they have helped you in the past.
We devloped in the way we have because we all pitched in, everyone, no matter how small the contribution, still contributed.
To extrapolote this I beleive even in cavemen times, if there was 1 caveman who never went hunting, and always eat the food brought back, but other than that just sat around doing nothing, it wouldnt take long before the other cavemen stopped feeding him until he learnt to pull his weight.
And therein lies the dilemma, as a species we learned to adapt, and co-operate, but we have never ever carried shirkers, until now, and if we continue in this manner, the resources that the working group create for one another will slowly be eroded as more and more is diverted to the ones who dont contribute (such is the case at the moment with the shocking cutbacks in the provision of sorely needed mental health services)!
Report abuse
@PW Fudgedonut.
Yes but cavemen didn’t sit around expecting other cavemen to provide for them and their broods. As you say sometimes they may not have been lucky but when their luck was in they would in turn share their hunt with less fortunate neighbours.
Luck is not what is happening with today’s scroungers, well not bad luck anyway. They are lucky that us hardworkers pay for them to have babies, flash mobiles, HD ready widescreen tv’s drugs, drink, nights out, designer togs etc etc and they in turn contribute what exactly?
Report abuse
Dave Haslam – I agree, but where does it say in the article that those in relative poverty are shirkers?
Report abuse
PW Fudgedonut
The survival of the fittest statement by Saint Marcouf in that context is wrong and is not a fact.
It was later used (propaganda) out of context again to promote eugenics.
Further, being born into money, winning money, or obtaining it by many other ways has nothing to do with being fit?
Sorry for going a bit off topic.
Report abuse
Arnald – short term I agree. By short term I mean within a generation.
Longer term, much tougher action is required.
Assuming that “money” is tied to resources and that is finite i.e. no more money can be created as resources are depleted – it then becomes impossible to redistribute wealth – let me expand…again lets assume the above but the worlds population (as predicted) doubles within the next 30 years – the redistribution model (however its acheived) will fail because there will not be enough money (wealth and resources) to distribute to the 12 billion humans. Suffering and deprivation on a truely biblical scale is the only outcome. And there won’t be anything anyone can do about it.
The only answer, as far as I can see, is for the international community to attempt to reduce the population of the planet by limiting the number of children that can be born per couple (one).
Report abuse
Cheesed Off said
“They are lucky that us hardworkers pay for them to have babies, flash mobiles, HD ready widescreen tv’s drugs, drink, nights out, designer togs etc etc and they in turn contribute what exactly?”
No, hardworkers haven’t paid for those things. They’ve paid for a provision of welfare. There is no way that any of those luxury items are affordable on any of the benfits. You are in some sort of fantasy land. If they were available for that kind of cash, why don’t I know about it?
What some people may do is have large debts, or work black market, or have rich parents. What they haven’t got is any more money than the next claimant.
By saying benefits are wrong because of a small minority of those included in relative poverty and advocating the ‘hardening’ of rules, you will put more of the more vulnerable into dire straits.
The fact is, we live in a brash culture. Some people want to be as brash as the next even without the means. They manage by a system, but the fraction of theat system will not be an overpayment of benefits. It is up to SocSec to determine that and not tubthumpers.
There are more spouses of the compfortably well off that offer nothing to society by staying at home, but are able to transfer their taxable allowance on to one earner. I bet the sums lost through this easily testable hole are far, far larger than any wannabe gangster.
Far larger. And that’s before examining the tax breaks using Guernsey’s world-beating financial instruments in order to mitigate that awful tax cost.
It may be distasteful to some people, but just because some people are more visibly playing the system than others, doesn’t mean they are the most gross offenders.
Report abuse
TL
It doesnt say it it in the article, but the debate has gone down that route as it invariably does.
My point is a cavemen would help the needy, but not the lazy, society now has the burden of having to provide for both.
We’ll all agree we are happy to provide for the less fortunate, but not for the ones who play the system or the ones who just cant be bothered.
Report abuse
Gilthead
Hmmm if we’re expanding the game then it can’t be now. It’s a great topic of conversation though.
Wealth is ultimately finite, which makes the pursuit of it somewhat academic, and frankly pointless.
Report abuse
Arnald,
‘There are more spouses of the compfortably well off that offer nothing to society by staying at home…’
Please, for the love of all that is holy, could you clarify what you mean by that?!
Report abuse
Arnald YOU are wrong. I have seen these items with my very own eyes.
Report abuse
@Cheesed Off
I wouldn’t bother even trying to debate with Arnald if I were you. You are quite correct – the chavvy scroungers on benefits do exist but Arnald will hardly acknowledge the fact, skirting around it as he does with curious, euphemistic phrases such as ‘brash culture’ (I think he’s means the crass, materialistic lifestyle that the benefit chavs embrace but you described it much better and much more truthfully in your own post that preceded his attack on you).
What you have to appreciate, Cheesed Off, is that your view does not fit in with Arnald’s romantic, neo-Trotskyist world view of a poor, oppressed, working class, downtrodden at the hands of heartless, faceless international financiers and other plutocrats. And while there may be some truth in what he says, getting preached at in this way does tend to get rather tedious after a while.
Back to the real world, I agree with Gilthead that the human population explosion is a far, far bigger problem, which is why I say that it is both irresponsible and selfish for anyone (not just single mums) to carry on producing more and more bay-bees ad infinitum.
Report abuse
ChrisJ
Apart from my typo, it’s not a difficult concept to understand. Some people have enough earnings through one income to easily satisfy their outgoings, so one of the couple stays at home. Yet they retain the tax allowance.
Since Guernsey is prosperous it is not difficult to imagine that there are many such households. I suggest that there are more of them than there are “benefit scroungers”.
I might be wrong. If anything is going to be means tested, why not start high up the tree, rather than the may-ormay-not be too invalid too work etc.?
Report abuse
Martino
Neo-Trotskyist! I’m under your bed too! I get around!
I’ve not even mentioned “working class”!
Brilliant! But you accept being preached at by baseless tabloidese!
I want to know where I can buy all this stuff for a hundred and twenty quid a week!
Report abuse
To clarify – people on benefits may well have all those things you speak of, but so does the rest of Guernsey. Somehow they get it, but they don’t get it through benefits. Why can’t you accept that the States do simply do not give out that much money!
Report abuse
One of the most important points we seem to have found here is this…there are people working hard who thru absolutely no fault of their own cannot afford doctors, dentist, for themselves or their children and receive no benefits because they are above the margin of benefit receipt.
Yet there are people who are getting EVERYTHING who have never ever contributed and have lifestyles that outshine people who are working hard. Okay that is completely wrong I concede that fact completely. It is the people working hard but not earning masses of money who are suffering. One worker families…these are the families that need to be helped. There are spongers and we all know somebody somewhere who gets on the gravy train and rides it to the end of the tracks and beyond.
@ cheesed off…the people you describe with all the mod cons cannot POSSIBLY be paying for this with benefit money alone. Either there is seriously dodgy and nefarious goings on and/or they are working on the side as well. In that case investigations need to be done.
Report abuse
hmmm – not possible to have a life filled with alcohol, drugs and computer games whilst living on benefits, eh Arnald? you see to be suffering from memory loss…..
Report abuse
Hi Arnald
“There are more spouses of the comfortably well off that offer nothing to society by staying at home…”
I’m surprised a thinking man like yourself makes such a generalised statement.
First: some mums that stay at home are not comfortably well off. I am aware of families who have chosen to sacrifice a more comfortable lifestyle to enable mum to stay at home and raise their children.
Second: Surely you of all people accept that there are other ways to contribute to society than financially?
I don’t think raising the next generation of taxpayers is contributing nothing to society. It may not contribute financially now, but it certainly does socially and may well reap benefits later on. That’s not to say working parents don’t raise good kids either, but to suggest that a mother raising her own children is contributing nothing to society is a ludicrous assertion.
Also, some stay at home mums contribute in other ways, voluntary work for example. I know some stay at home mums that voluntarily run a toddler group. This allows other parents and/or carers to socialise their children for a couple of hours a week for a minimal cost. Others volunteer for charities and I am sure contribute in different ways I don’t know of.
Finally, I would argue that a full time mum is a valid career choice. Just because she doesn’t take a traditional salary doesn’t mean she isn’t contributing to the family economy. For starters, one could argue that she is earning the money saved by not having to pay childcare costs – in this day and age that’s a fairly decent salary!
That’s not to say the tax laws as they stand are ideal. I am on record saying that I would not begrudge a higher rate of tax – providing it doesn’t hit the lower paid.
One way to do this could be to decrease the married person’s allowance once a singular income passes a certain level. However this could equally be said of anyone earning a high salary – reducing the personal allowance for high earners may well be an idea to raise some extra revenue. Either that or implementing a higher bracket for income above a certain level.
Report abuse
Gosh, well Arnald has put all us stay-at-home mums in our place, hasn’t he? Scroungers the lot of us. All that free dentistry and healthcare and oh…no, none of that. Just what our ‘comfortably well off’ lifestyle can afford.
So, where should we be, Arnie? In the workhouse? Presumably with the kitchen sink still chained to us and with the pots still close enough to be stirred. Or perhaps taking jobs from those not so ‘comfortably off’?
Bearing in mind that most of us have paid into the system before taking a break to have our kids.
I’m sure you’ll manage to come up with something spectacular that will take in latchkey children and where they should be put whilst their ’2 income families selfishly slave away for the luxuries they can’t live without’.
Report abuse
My wife and I are both lucky enough to have averagely paid jobs which we both enjoy. I am absolutley happy to see some of my hard earned cash go to those who through no fault of themselves find themselves in difficulty. I don’t want to make any sweeping strokes and attempt to put everyone in one category, however, it is absolutley clear that there are many people living in Guernsey who abuse the welfare system for their own benefit and the States of Guernsey ought to be ashamed of themselves for not taking a harder line on those individuals and for that matter on the system in general. The system is failing when so many people who work very haard end up with a lower quality of life than those on benefit who do not work and instead live off the state (for whatever reaso)n. There ought to be a reassesment of what ‘real’ poverty means in money terms and quality of life and perhaps include some of the ideas above like support for the first child and no more. If my money is to be spent anywhere at all I would wish it spent on something to benefit Guernsey population for long term like job training, family plannig etc rather on short term fixes after the event as is the case today. There should, however, be scope for individual assesment as clearly there will be some individual circumstances which merit enhanced benefits but for the rest the rules should apply evenly and fairly. There are plenty of jobs about (perhaps not ones people would like to have) however, I don’t think people have a choice on this. There are individuals in Guernsey who by any standards would be considered to be in real poverty and quite rightly the system should be able to support these people. For the others, it’s about time they got into the real world and took some responsibility for themselves, their familes and the island as a whole. I’m sure with some determination and no doubt some pain in the short term Guernsey for everyone could be a much better place on all levels. Come on you politicians!!
Report abuse
Have just done a brief fast forward on this topic, no chance of my reading every ones’ thoughts with 80 answers. Most of us posters pay tax and social insurance; at the present time, we have no means of knowing / saying where our contributions are spent. We used to get a multi coloured wheel graph with our tax returns, with % stuff, but % meant nothing, really. It does irritate me that a lot of my money seems to going towards social benefits; but, I know there are real needy causes in our community, genuine hardship, and so I can deal with that.
Report abuse
When did I mention mothers?
Report abuse
Mrs Meat/PLP etc
I was talking about the spouse. You put children into the equation. I think you’ll find that I’ve been supportive of mothers in my other posts, seeing as there are some who have to stay at home because of childcare costs and inconvenient employment hours.
I’m talking about those who have maybe ten years before retirement, if they had children they are grown up or in the latter stages of full time education. Those that are able to afford the lifestyle choice of doing, well, nothing much.
Yet they still get tax relief on income tax that they can transfer. My argument is that if you can means test the benfits for the borderline poor, why not for the obviously well off?
Of course mothers should be supported.
Report abuse
@Arnald – how would you even Begin to means-test every stay-at-home spouse and decide which ones should not get to keep their tax allowance?
You’re only talking about the tax on the sum allowed, not the whole allowance itself. Maybe less than £2000 a year. Times that by the number of means-tested couples who step over this arbitrary threshold and you’re not talking enough to plug any kind of tax hole unless you apply it to everyone. (At which point many people will be back on the job market, forced to do so by financial need.) The admin alone would cost much more than the revenue. It would need to be applied and reapplied every tax year.
If you apply the test to couples without children it would be discriminatory. And if you apply it to all couples you’re back to encouraging mums to reproduce just to get benefits.
Maybe some families can afford to have one spouse not working. As that spouse is fully supported by the other rather than the State, why should the State punish them?
As has been said here repeatedly: we are following the UK model of rewarding whole families for not working by not making it uncomfortable Enough. They create new generations who follow their example. They add nothing to society, except crime and anti-social behaviour. These families are rewarded for their feckless behaviour and rampant breeding by being given houses, benefits and freedom from responsibility.
Take away the incentives for THESE individuals to avoid work and you’re looking at much more money in the pot to pay for those who need genuine help.
The real people living in poverty are generally those whose pride stops them from allowing their burdens to fall on others. Finding Their hands amongst all the other greedy grabbing ones is a hard job.
Report abuse
Arnald – my apologies, I misinterpreted your post.
Report abuse
Arnald
Once again some fanastic thinking by your good self. The cost to the “pot” of transferable tax allowances is in the region of £1,850 per annum, maximum. Bearing in mind the current employment situation, if a “stay at home wife” goes out and takes a job that could potentially be filled by a school leaver or currently unemployed person, the cost to the “pot” is considerably more.
Let’s not let basic economics get in the way of your war against the middle classes though eh?
Report abuse
Phil
I don’t pretend to have the answers, why do you think I think I do? It was merely a suggestion to highlight the handouts other people get. But why would that person then go out to work? From where do you get a “war”? You don’t half rush to conclusions along with your ad hominens.
Where is the private sector creating the jobs that suit the economic climate, hmm? Hotel work? To get into the finance industry, the state would have to re-educate those 500 unemployed. We are only talking a few hundred all in who live with the cariactured lifestyle you seem fixated on. The rest of the 3000 will be the elderly and the vulnerable.
Do you want to take their benefits away? How much money will be saved?
Don’t let your complete ignorance of social needs blind your prejudice to every word I write.
Report abuse
Arnald
I’m not fixated on anybody’s lifestyle, and I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion.
Interesting to see how you think it’s up to the “state” to re-educate people to make them fit for employment. Are people not capable of doing anything for themselves, does it have to be the “state” that assumes responsibility all the time?
Report abuse
Isn’t the real issue the extent of social and economic inequality in the island, as opposed to the issue of “relative poverty”? You will always statistically have some degree of relative poverty, as many others have demonstrated on here already. I want to see the statistics that illustrate what has happened in, say, the last 10 years in terms of income disparities. I would hazard a guess that economic inequality has got worse, esocially in the so called “good times” for the local economy. This is of particular concern to my mind because of the wealth of data that is now around which seems to suggest that societies which have greater inequality have worse social and health problems than more equal societies. I am thinking in particular of the book “The Spirit Level” by Wilkinson which seems to show pretty conclusive evidence that greater inequality means more crime, more family breakdown, more mental ill health, more teenage pregnancies etc. Bearing in mind the clear evidence that is becoming available that suggests that crime rates, in particular, have risen in the last 5 or 6 years locally, is this not the real issue? Of course, accepting that income inequality is a problem in Guernsey would mean doing something about it and doing anything to reverse inequality trends locally would mean slaughtering some sacred cows, like, inter alia, daring to raise direct taxes for the very wealthy and other re-distributive measures.
Report abuse
Just get jobs and take care of yourselves!
Report abuse
Though I have heartily agreed with some of what you’ve said on other topics, Arnald, (I stress others, not this time), I am still at a loss as to why someone with so much professed knowledge, who has SO much to say (and so much time to say it), doesn’t put his money where his mouth (keyboard) is, and put himself (and his views) to the test by putting himself up for a proper position from which to pontificate, namely by running for election to the States.
Sadly, I suspect it’s a case of ‘all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxis and cutting hair’….
P**p or get off the pot, man.
Report abuse