Sunday, March 10, 2013

Bishops bludgeon, condemn, object, attack, warn... or subtly nudge on welfare reforms

Just who elected the

Rt Rev Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester
Rt Rev John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
Rt Rev Graham James, Bishop of Norwich
Rt Rev Paul Butler, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
Rt Rev Richard Frith, Bishop of Hull
Rt Rev Nick Baines, Bishop of Bradford
Rt Rev David Rossdale, Bishop of Grimsby
Rt Rev Alan Smith, Bishop of St Albans
Rt Rev David Walker, Bishop of Dudley
Rt Rev Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter
Rt Rev Humphrey Southern, Bishop of Repton
Rt Rev Chris Edmondson, Bishop of Bolton
Rt Rev David Urquhart, Bishop of Birmingham
Rt Rev Jonathan Clark, Bishop of Croydon
Rt Rev Trevor Willmott, Bishop of Dover
Rt Rev Adrian Newman, Bishop of Stepney
Rt Rev John Wraw, Bishop of Bradwell
Rt Rev James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle
Rt Rev Peter Burrows, Bishop of Doncaster
Rt Rev Keith Sinclair, Bishop of Birkenhead
Rt Rev Clive Young, Bishop of Dunwich
Rt Rev Tim Thornton, Bishop of Truro
Rt Rev Steven Croft, Bishop of Sheffield
Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill, Bishop of Lichfield
Rt Rev John Inge, Bishop of Worcester
Rt Rev Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells
Rt Rev Stephen Conway, Bishop of Ely
Rt Rev Alistair Redfern, Bishop of Derby
Rt Rev James Langstaff, Bishop of Rochester
Rt Rev James Bell, Bishop of Knaresborough
Rt Rev Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol
Rt Rev Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark
Rt Rev Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
Rt Rev John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford
Rt Rev Ian Brackley, Bishop of Dorking
Rt Rev Jonathan Frost, Bishop of Southampton
Rt Rev Stephen Platten, Bishop of Wakefield
Rt Rev David Thomson, Bishop of Huntingdon
Rt Rev John Holbrook, Bishop of Brixworth
Rt Rev Tim Dakin, Bishop of Winchester
Rt Rev Peter Hancock, Bishop of Basingstoke
Rt Rev Andrew Proud, Bishop of Reading
Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, Bishop of Hereford

to office?

Nobody. That's right. Nobody. While even the Pope of Rome is elected by a conclave of cardinals, the bishops and archbishops of the Church of England are secretly selected by the CNC, nodded through by the Prime Minister and rubber-stamped by the Queen. It is a state of affairs which His Grace tried to change during the recent interregnum while he (re-)occupied the Chair of St Augustine, but there's seemingly no appetite for injecting the merest whiff of democratic accountability into this opaque and otiose process.

Were the Church of England to do so, an episcopal interjection on any aspect of government policy would have rather more legitimacy and resonance. As it is, anything they speak into the increasingly secular political sphere is not unreasonably met with the rebuttal 'Who elected them?'.

Notwithstanding, these 43 bishops have written a letter to the Sunday Telegraph objecting to one aspect of the Government's reforms to welfare. It would have been 44, but nobody bothered to ask Pete Broadbent. These bishops have been joined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, which is quite a sizeable cackle of clerics. No wonder the media is portraying this as an 'attack', 'objection', 'condemnation', 'warning' or some seriously eschatological church-state conflagration.

In reality, it is nothing of the sort. Most of these bishops may well be poring over The Observer with their toast and marmalade this morning, but all they are doing is seeking to nudge the Government to accept the most subtle of nuanced amendments to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

Benefits have historically risen in line with inflation, and this year rose by 5.2 per cent. This seems just, since it is governments that cause inflation and economic policy that sustains it, which diminishes the wealth of all, especially the poor. Since the poorest and most vulnerable of society are already living hand-to-mouth day-to-day, it is incumbent upon those in authority to ensure that 5-per-cent inflation is met with a 5-per-cent increase in welfare, for any less would be to aggravate hardship and suffering. But the Government intends to limit annual increases to just one per cent for the next three years, irrespective of the rate of inflation - which Treasury forcasts predict will be well above one per cent.

This is unjust and profoundly uncompassionate, and so His Grace today adds his name to the 43 bishops (44 with Pete Broadbent, and 46 including the Archbishops). He does so not because he objects to the broad direction of Iain Duncan Smith's reforms, but because we're talking about 11.5 million children. The Children's Society observes:
The poorest families will pay the biggest price. A total of 60% of the resulting savings will come from the poorest third of households, compared to only 3% from the wealthiest.

Matthew Reed, Chief Executive of The Children’s Society, said: 'Millions of struggling families now face the double blow of rising costs and cuts to support. If this bill is passed as it stands, it will make life so much harder for 11.5 million children and their families.

'This hardship penalty punishes families from all walks of life, whether they are working or looking for work. But the poorest children will take the biggest hit. This is unjustifiable. The government must not balance the books on the backs of children.'
The tone of the rhetoric is unfortunate, not least because few in government understand poverty as well as Iain Duncan Smith: they are not all well-heeled multi-millionaires insulated from the worst effects of the worst recovery from the worst recession in history. Some of them genuinely care. And it is because they care that they must be persuaded and urged to reconsider, for we are not calling for the indolent sluggard to be indulged, but for children to be fed, clothed and kept warm. We are not calling for the irresponsible to be handed £400,000 worth of accommodation and enough welfare cash to feed a horse (literally). No, we are talking about children on the bread-line, through no fault of their own: it is invariably the churches that step in when families become desperate.

The Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu said: “I hope that the Government will listen to the concerns being raised on the impact the changes to the Welfare Benefit Up-rating Bill could have on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, our children. In difficult times it is right as a nation, committed to justice and fairness, that we protect those that are most in need. Even in tough economic times we have a duty and responsibility to care for those who are struggling."

The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued a statement saying the welfare reforms would have a 'deeply disproportionate' effect on children. "Politicians have a clear choice," he said. "By protecting children from the effects of this bill, they can help fulfil their commitment to end child poverty."

His Grace probably doesn't agree with His Grace's definition of poverty, but both His Grace and His Grace are of one mind when it comes to protecting the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Time and again, throughout Old Testament and New, the Lord exhorts us to care for the poor, sick and infirm. It is a fundamental test of righteous government. If the Conservatives were pursuing a truly compassionate agenda, it would be wholly in order for them to sustain the level of benefits paid to the weakest and poorest. While few people have much sympathy for the sick-note-culture of the 'shirkers' and 'skivers', the decision to cut the financial support paid to households with young children is wholly unacceptable and makes a mockery of claim that 'we're all in it together'.

What kind of 'Compassionate Conservatism' enacts provisions which will lead to a couple with two children, earning £26,000 a year, losing more than £12 a week while 8000 millionaires receive a tax cut worth an average of over £2000 per week? Some 2.5 million families, where no one is in work, will be £215 per annum worse off.

It beggars belief that children are not protected from the one-per-cent uprating, for they are our future. If our elected politicians appear to forget that, it is for our selected bishops and archbishops to speak truth to power.


Blogger graham wood said...

It is tempting to assert yet again that if the £53 Million PER DAY this government kindly donates to the corrupt European Union was diverted to the needs of poor children in the UK, then that should be an urgent priority.
But then perverted ideology is far more important than human needs.

10 March 2013 at 09:46  
Blogger Angharad said...

A very apt and sensitive post for Mothering Sunday Your Grace.
Statistics will tells us that there are 3.6 million children living in poverty in Britain today. Millions of other children are deprived but live just above the poverty line, their lives are no easier.

Much of Ian Duncan Smith's vision is concentrated on the income coming into the home. Child poverty goes much further. It is about Poor Housing, absent parents, poor education, debt, domestic Violence, alcohol and drug abuse. We should be tackling poverty as a whole, only then can we hope to give children living in poverty today, a better quality of life.

10 March 2013 at 10:31  
Blogger len said...

Cameron`s' big society 'is rapidly becoming Cameron`s' broken society 'with an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor.

That children are living in poverty in a Country such as the UK is a National disgrace.

It is perhaps a mark of a Godless Society which has turned inward that the poor the weak and the defenceless have to pay the price of the excesses of the minorities who seem to control the finances of this Country.

10 March 2013 at 11:00  
Blogger Pat Maguire said...

So much that I agree with you .. but then again so much that I disagree with. Some bits I just don't know where you get it from!

I am perplexed with your statement "because few in government understand poverty as well as Iain Duncan Smith" - when I understand that "He married Elizabeth "Betsy" Fremantle, daughter of the 5th Baron Cottesloe, in 1982" and "live(s) in a rented house on his father-in-law's estate" and "His wealth is estimated at £1 million, much of which has been earned by working as a high end after-dinner speaker." (Wikipedia - not always accurate but ...)

10 March 2013 at 11:35  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

It is time for some democracy in the CofE. Whilst the parishioners on the Church Electoral Roll appoint the Church Wardens and the PCC, and they in turn appoint the Rector, it seems to stop there.
Surely a "Conclave" of the Rectors and Vicars should appoint the diocesan Bishop, rather than having one thrust upon them. The Bishops in turn could then elect one of their number as Archbishop.
Personally, I tend to ignore the views of the Bishops and Archbishops on all subjects except for their religion. Their views on what the government should or should not do on any matter other than religion have no more validity than the views of 43 football managers, 43 Celebs or 43 bankers.

10 March 2013 at 11:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Interesting, can't see +Gloucester. Well done that man !

Anyway, for those wealthy individuals who did sign, the Inspector General makes the following plea...

Please Please Please open up your spacious palaces to the needy. Just one of your palaces could accommodate at least 3 families from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. Your redundant churches could be turned into hostels for immigrants seeking a better life payable by us, at least until our scant housing can be allocated to them.
And dispose of your treasures, your silver and gold for this end too. (...Well, if you are putting people up, that will probably look after itself, if you catch this man’s dfrift...). And what is a vicarage without an African asylum seeker living there ?

Do this, brothers in Christ, and do it for the good in your hearts.

10 March 2013 at 13:42  
Blogger Flossie said...

I have long been pondering on a collective noun for clergy, and a 'cackle' seems to fit the bill perfectly.

A tad simplistic, but I am generally opposed to the state taking on roles which could and should be undertaken by individuals and small organisations. We must take care of the poor and needy, but once the state takes over this role completely the people withdraw from it, which in turn fragments society and absolves them from the need to care. If we wonder why we have an uncaring society we only need look to state intervention. People look at state 'handouts', however well deserved, and say 'why should I?'.

It is noticeable that the ones who shout loudest for the state to care for the poor are the ones living in Islington with second homes in Tuscany.

10 March 2013 at 13:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Archbishop, it’s worse than you think. Millions of children having to go without ‘game boy’ or whatever the contraptions are called. And designer footwear and scruffy but expensive clothing, and mobile phone top ups, and MacDonald's.

One young but poor scallywag in this town was so depressed about this, he went and found a paper round. It really has come to this.

Meanwhile, the number of families in the UK that have starved to death has reach an all-time high – Zero.

Don’t let it ever be said the Inspector General has no feelings for the truly feckless...

10 March 2013 at 13:59  
Blogger Mike Stallard said...

Look, I am an OAP living off a tiny Church pension and the State provision. My wife, a mother and full time nurse, has no pension at all because we couldn't afford it at the time.
So we get on with it as best we can.
Please will you tell me why we have to support a growing army of bludgers?
I do not see anything in the Holy Texts which tells us that we ought to. In fact, quite the opposite actually.
So what, prithee, are these comfortable old fellows blathering on about?

10 March 2013 at 14:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Children aren't so very important to the culture of abortion and contraception. Why, there are careers to be established, and bank accounts to be filled, and besides which children are messy and annoying and time consuming. But when adults want access to free money, then you start hearing cries of "Do it for the children." You aren't giving money to children. You are giving money to adults on the assumption that those adults will spend some of it on their children. And of course it sounds so reasonable.

In the United States, relief was originally restricted to widows and orphans. But up went the cry "It's not fair! The children are being punished for decisions not of their making." And so little by little we expanded the criteria. In so doing, little by little we established the culture of illegitimacy and fatherlessness that so plagues us today. We made it perfectly possible for a woman to "marry the state." She no longer needed a husband. She only had to keep getting pregnant to keep the checks flowing. Thus we have women with children by several different fathers, and men competing to obtain access to that money be shacking up with these women.

All for "the children." Have they benefited?


10 March 2013 at 14:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Let’s hope collective experience leads to a better society...

This man wants to see millions of children stand up and say “We are poor because our mum went out of her way to raise us as a single parent. She rode the benefits system until it collapsed under her and can’t get up with her still on it. I am NEVER going to do that to my children”

10 March 2013 at 14:14  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well now.
The pound it plummeteth. Just now, the USDollar stands at 1.493 to the pound; and the euro is close to parity at 1.148 to the pound.

Meanwhile, the so-called "elected" government not only donates all that money daily to the euSSR.

It's just announced another aid package to the Afghan Ministry of Mines: while closing our own coalmines, as Dr. North pointed out last Thursday, and importing expensive wood chips from the US.
Afghanstan's doing well, isn't it? Let's not forget we're leaving our equipment behind for them as well.

Talk about loving our enemy. Why, we're giving even more equipment away -- to the Syrians, as Hague announced on Wednesday. [(And our generosity is so appreciated we get Arabs crowing about how the Scots want to leave the UK, that has been so evil to them as a 'different' people. Met one the other day.)]

And then there's all the aid we send to India... et al.

And for all this giving away, we have no representatives in Parliament to save anything for our own. Pay them, as we do, and the members all get whipped into shape by ... whom?

And the rest of the Lords are mostly party-placemen as well.

So I say let's have a few more stroppy and independent-minded Churchmen in Westminster. Somebody has to speak up for the British.

10 March 2013 at 14:30  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I shall risk a prediction, that espousing sexual morality only becomes fashionable again, politically, and for the politically minded Bishops, when the country can literally no longer afford to support single parent families (which almost always means single mothers), especially with many children from different fathers. Then facing a revolt from taxpayers, keen to see their dwindling taxes spent on genuine essentials like the, by then, crumbling roads, hospitals and armed services, a politically desperate Government will rediscover our ancient truths about it being necessary for children to be born into wedlock. Then hey presto, sexual morality will be back, regularly wheeled out for political and mainstream religious sermons. Of course before the "new" and "responsible" message is transmitted, there will have to be a widespread program of public education explaining what the word "marriage" used to mean. So how many years into our national dysfunctional future is that change then ?

10 March 2013 at 14:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Twenty pence on a litre of fuel is enough to give the kids a treat”

Why oh Why oh Why don’t we just do it !

10 March 2013 at 14:44  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 March 2013 at 14:47  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Compassionate conservatism! Thats a good title. But where does it take us. Carl speaks of the professional single mother. Another mouth to feedd and a another state pay check. As the Inspector says, these benifits are not for the children, they benifit the mothers to squander as they wish and spoil the kids with flat panel TV's (if they werent nicked during the riots) and all the essentials of modern young peoples lives. It's not fair if we don't have all the same stuff.

This sounds very lacking in compasion but it is how many see the situation. Is that because the media sensationalise the obscure stories and ignore the plight of the majority who do have difficulties.
Ultimately we have a problem with society that expects everything and many will do nothing to get it. I believe it was on this blog that reported the vast percentage of gross national income spent on social services.
We need a revival to see a change in social attitudes. I posted this link for the Revival Hymn and do again as it is so powerful.

10 March 2013 at 14:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Pat: "I am perplexed with your statement "because few in government understand poverty as well as Iain Duncan Smith""

In his wilderness years, he spent a lot of time going around looking into it firsthand as part of his Centre for Social Justice. That's not to say he experienced it firsthand or that he necessarily needs to in order to have informed opinions about it.

10 March 2013 at 15:33  
Blogger Anglican said...

It is imperative that children do not suffer through the negligence of their parents, which is happening more and more in our increasingly broken-down society. This is fostered by asinine governments who think that marriage is unnecessary for the upbringing of children and that every young girl should be showered with contraceptives (which are seldom used).

But how to do this? Putting such children into state care would make their condition a hundred times worse. The only long-term solution is to foster Christian values in society – but the government is intent on the opposite.

10 March 2013 at 16:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

From BBC news on the letter...

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said "simply increasing benefits" would not tackle poverty. "For too long the welfare system has kept families trapped in a cycle of benefit dependency and made it impossible for many to contemplate moving into work and off benefits. "We are fundamentally changing the system so people are helped into work and out of poverty, whilst providing support for those where work is not a realistic option. "Benefits have risen twice as fast as wages over the past five years, and even in these difficult economic times, they will continue to rise each year."

So there you go sponges. All you need to do is equate yourselves with the notion of work.
Hey, come back – what did this man say ?

10 March 2013 at 16:38  
Blogger len said...

Whilst it may be true that many do not want to work there are many that do.
We are talking about' children' here inspector perhaps we should send them up chimneys to sweep them as soon as they can stand or get them making garments as they do in third World countries?.(which we are well on the way to becoming)

10 March 2013 at 16:44  
Blogger len said...

Inspector, (in case you are wondering).. yes I work in full time employment(manually) and I am past retirement age and see no prospect of retiring(God willing my health holds out)because my pension plan turned out to be virtually worthless.

10 March 2013 at 16:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. This benefits thing is grossly exaggerated. Did you know there are NO fit and able claimants below retirement age in Gloucester. Neither are there any young people over 16 ‘in poverty’ at home and in education who need to work a couple of hours in the evening for a bit of cash. We know this because our cleaning teams language of choice is Polish.

The feckless can go hang. This man just isn’t interested in them. Cruel attitude, well, compare that to spiritual salvation. If you don’t make it, you are binned. Now THAT is something to be concerned about...

10 March 2013 at 17:00  
Blogger David B said...

Inspector, no doubt it has escaped your notice that the main thrust of the OP concerns children.

While you may think they are a feckless bunch who need to be set to work, I've been rather put off the idea by considering the fate of Tom, the hero of a Victorian novel by the Rev Charles Kingsley.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with it.


10 March 2013 at 17:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B.

This man wants to see millions of children stand up and say “We are poor because our mum went out of her way to raise us as a single parent. She rode the benefits system until it collapsed under her and can’t get up with her still on it. I am NEVER going to do that to my children”

Let’s hope collective experience leads to a better society...

10 March 2013 at 17:19  
Blogger David Hussell said...

A return to traditional marriage would be a great way to reduce child poverty. And poverty is about much more than weekly income as the cultural and spiritual qualities of life are every bit as important.

10 March 2013 at 18:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David H.

That’s it exactly Sir. What’s missing from the bishops letter !

10 March 2013 at 18:48  
Blogger Fantana said...

You Grace, I'm afraid I'm with the Office of Inspector General on this. Poverty in the UK is purely relative and from what I can see the poorest in the land are now living at well above the standard of living I enjoyed as a child in the fifties in a lower middle class mortgaged home with father working full time.

10 March 2013 at 19:27  
Blogger Berserker said...

The real problem is that once benefits are given they are hard to take away or change. Hoi Polloi think it is their right even if they have never contributed a bean to the Exchequer.

The rot started in the 80's and 90's. The Disability Living Allowance was introduced in 1992 to help massage the unemployment figures and Housing Benefit in the form we now know it (previously low cost schemes like rent rebates) was introduced in the Housing Act of 1988 and with the simultaneous deregulation of the private sector which massively reduced tenant protection and the right to independent assessment of 'Fair Rents'

HB expenditure tripled between 1986 and 1997 and yet claimant numbers actually fell by about 20%! And the bandwagon has been rolling on ever since.

If there is poverty in this country it is those poor old pensioners who ration there one bar electric fire use and are increasingly sniped at for their free TV License (in France at 60 years of age not 75 as here) and the Fuel Allowance. These were brought in like Pensioners' Credit to help ameliorate the appalling pensions in the UK and keep the old b......ers happy. After all, they do get off their backsides and vote!

All is political

10 March 2013 at 20:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Fantana, you are so damn right Sir.

This man remembers going to bed hungry one night in the 1960s. His mother asked him not to eat the last of the bread as it was to be his father’s breakfast the working day tomorrow.

Family poverty today ? Don’t make the Inspector spit...

10 March 2013 at 22:13  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

Our Lord, in his humanity, was an Orthodox Jew. The Torah sets forth clear principles for conducting economic and socisl affairs and, in particular, for caring for the poor.

In part, Jesus' hostility towards the Pharisees was their man made schemes for avoiding these responsibilities. Because the welfare system has become corrupted and needs reform, let's not forget this in our rush to condemn those dependent on it.

It is right the Church advocates for children in the name of Jesus Christ.

11 March 2013 at 02:01  
Blogger Flossie said...

Poverty is in the eye of the beholder to some degree. Unlike OIG I don't recall going hungry as a child but I certainly had to do without a lot of things that some of my contemporaries had, as there were quite a lot of us and only one income.

We certainly wouldn't have considered ourselves poor, though, as we were a happy family with two parents. My mother made a small income go a long way - she was a very innovative cook, grew her own fruit and vegetables and was a handy needlewoman - and would sooner have had her toenails pulled out than receive state assistance.

I do think Iain Duncan Smith has the right idea. Family breakdown is a huge factor in the poverty equation. Family members look out for one another - the state makes a very poor parent.

11 March 2013 at 06:42  
Blogger Flossie said...

Poverty is in the eye of the beholder to some degree. Unlike OIG I don't recall going hungry as a child but I certainly had to do without a lot of things that some of my contemporaries had, as there were quite a lot of us and only one income.

We certainly wouldn't have considered ourselves poor, though, as we were a happy family with two parents. My mother made a small income go a long way - she was a very innovative cook, grew her own fruit and vegetables and was a handy needlewoman - and would sooner have had her toenails pulled out than receive state assistance.

I do think Iain Duncan Smith has the right idea. Family breakdown is a huge factor in the poverty equation. Family members look out for one another - the state makes a very poor parent.

11 March 2013 at 06:42  
Blogger David Hussell said...


Yes you are right. The State makes a very poor parent. Legislation to increase the reach of the State is introduced, often for the right reasons, such as care and compassion, but the result is that the very clumsy arm of the State does more harm than good, introducing as many injustices and anomalies as it solves. State action can never be a substitute for a loving, caring family. OK when there isn't, effectively, a family the State should and indeed must, step in and do it's ineffective best, but the firm emphasis must always be on individuals taking responsibility within their own family and friendship groups to bring care and compassion, as well as moral instruction and, if necessary, correction.

11 March 2013 at 08:21  
Blogger Preacher said...

The government has no interest at all in social welfare, only on balancing the books. It surprises me that so many intelligent people swallow the propaganda that spews forth from the corridors of power.
Yes there are people that abuse the system & they are so good at it that they will abuse ANY system or none. If a return to the poverty of bygone ages is what we want then we are on the right track.
With more & more working people on the dole & looking for jobs, we are presented last week with a man who has suffered four heart attacks, three strokes & had a leg amputated being told he is fit for work LOL!.
We send billions to the EEC. While we cut back on our own people. If Dave had the integrity to honour the promise of a referendum to leave or stay in the sinking ship of Europe the problem would not exist. Broken & empty promises is all we have to show from our leaders. Remember the fiddles of some of the peoples representatives not so long ago? how many more were not found out?. Honestly, some of the comments posted today are right out of a Monty Python sketch. "When we were young we lived in a shoe box", "You're lucky. Our box never had a lid!".
If we adopt the attitude of "They have no bread?, then let them eat cake". We will suffer for our lack of compassion.

11 March 2013 at 10:36  
Blogger Jon said...

Inflation isn't really caused by the UK government - it's more complicated, than that.

In the case of UK inflation currently, a lot of it is coming from rising fuel costs and falling sterling (which are two sides of the same coin), and whilst the government isn't exactly acting in favour of stronger sterling, the actions of our trading partners affects the bilateral value of our currencies against one another as much as the actions of our own government.

Other than that, Your Grace, I can't find much fault with what you're saying.

11 March 2013 at 12:58  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Preacher: The government has no interest at all in social welfare, only on balancing the books. Balancing the books? They don't know enough to to do that; all they know is cookin' 'em and feeding foreigners with our flesh and blood!

nb: Today the dollar is at 1.489 to the pound; 1.145 to the euSSR's thing. Before we know where we are, they'll compensate by putting up the donation to our masters' coffers.

As for British children ... they'll be the first in history to receive no inheritance! Everything our ancestors fought for and built over the milennia has been handed over to foreigners. Why, even the churchmen are tying themselves to euros.

These children we're worrying about today? Given the present rate of retrogression, they will inherit: no industry; no skills; no access to natural resources; no knowledge of how to use them; no freedom or independence; no culture; no rights --

Actually, I shouldn't be surprised if they weren't trying to turn Britons into the gamma strand for the Brave New World setup.

11 March 2013 at 13:13  
Blogger non mouse said...

... "millennium"

11 March 2013 at 13:15  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

Your Grace, I too am with the Inspector. I ask you this - how many of those children in so called poverty has a parent who chooses to indulge themselves with a daily packet or more of ciggies ? The only children in poverty in this country are those that have become so from their parent's choice.

11 March 2013 at 14:20  
Blogger peter_dtm said...

Your Grace

I am sure you are aware what REAL poverty is - it's where children DIE of STARVATION after living on rubbish tips.

IDS is correct - it is patently ludicrous that 'families' on benefits have a higher disposable income than those who work & pay NETT tax into the system.

1) Any company paying under minimum wage to be taxed by the amount needed to allow the state to make up the pay to minimum pay (that would be at least 1.3 times the amount it would cost to pay people properly; so guess what will happen ?). Any attempt to avoid this charge will result it a similar amount as a fine against the owners and directors of the company - IN PERSON. Doubled for each individual case (so underpay 3 workers - pay 5.2 [2 x 2 x 1.3] times the shortfall)
2) Minimum wage to be enough to rent/feed/cloth one adult.
3) NO other state subsidy to people on minimum wage.
4) No one on benefits to receive NETT more than 75% of minimum wage. EXCEPT
for one year after losing their job; the state will maintain rent/mortgage/car payments on a loan basis (similar to the student loan system)
5) The necessities of life are shelter; adequate food; adequate clothing END. TVs; computers; designer clothes are NOT required.
6) On benefits - no smoking; minimal drinking allowed; but drunkenness to result in incarceration iand some suitable communal work (road repair; ditch digging; graffiti cleaning......)

Children : a maximum of 50% if minimum wage to be allowed per child under 16. Children between 16 & 18 to receive 25% of minimum wage - half to their parents; half as an allowance.

Over 18 s to be treated as adults; if living at home then their benefits to be cut by 50%. and paid out on the basis that they are between 16 and 18

Until you make some of the unemployable NEED to work; they will continue to scrounge of the tax payer.

I have been unemployed; made redundant etc; so has my wife. We got jobs.

The stupidity of having RELATIVE poverty is insulting to us and even more so to those who are in REAL poverty; watching their families die.

There is no real poverty in the UK.

It is NOT the tax payers job to subsidise companies who underpay workers; so any form of pay 'top up' is morally wrong.

It is not the tax payers job to fund non-workers to the extent they can afford luxuries and anything beyond shelter; food; clothing is a luxery.

11 March 2013 at 18:50  
Blogger Hope said...

Real poverty in the UK now includes the 73 disabled and sick individuals who die needlessly every week due to IDS's benefits reform. (Govt. figures quoted in Parliamentary debate in January.

In fact a substantial number of these deaths are from starvation and cold (to say nothing of the national scandal of fuel poverty deaths of the elderly every winter). Other vulnerable and disabled people continue to perish in their droves from suicide, hounded by the DWP.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that there are certain sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance.

These sins include:

* Oppression of the Poor (Ex 2:23)
The blood of over 10,000 dead, cries out to God against Iain Duncan Smith, the DWP, and Atos. (Govt. figures).

* Defrauding workers of their wages (Jas 5:4)
cf. Poundland

To be pedantic, Smith's "Job Snob" forced labour philosophy is far closer to the dictum of Satanist Aleister Crowley:

"The slaves shall serve" (Crowley's Book of the Law)

Continuing to revel in such sins would seem to have placed IDS fully out of communion with the RCC.

His boasts of Christianity have as much substance as the bogus degrees and diplomas he notoriously listed on his C.V.

11 March 2013 at 20:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hope, so people die – what of it ?

We all want to remain independent to the end, but when we are reduced to relying on charity, to wit, government provisions, the end is nigh.

We live, we cry. We laugh, we die. Then we go back to our creator...

11 March 2013 at 20:54  
Blogger len said...

Hopefully we have found our Creator before we return to Him Inspector?.

Which brings me to the Words of our creator(who fed the hungry masses with compassion not judging them as to whether they were' deserving enough' to be fed) “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

We are talking about' children many of those commenting seem to
have supposed(by their comments) that the children should be punished for the 'sins' of the parents.

12 March 2013 at 04:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, you blasted hypocrite. You are only interested in your brothers and sisters who have been born again. The rest go in the bin in your sad interpretation of the word. One does believe Jesus would kick your behind for that…

12 March 2013 at 18:46  
Blogger len said...

Inspector, If you believed the Word of God then you too would see that Jesus did not speak just to hear the sound of his own voice.

The need to be born again is a direct command from God.

The ' hypocrisy 'is all on your part because you call yourself 'Christian' but do not obey the Words of Christ.

12 March 2013 at 23:12  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

I found this disgusting notice on the board at work, telling us there will be a Rally for Real Marriage at Trafalgar Square London on Sunday 24th March at 2pm.
Real Marriage meaning, yes you've guessed it, between a man and a woman yeeeugh.
How dare they? Whoever put it there obviously doesn't realize that it's against our Equality and Perversity policy. You can't just make any announcement without getting the approval of Stonewall.
Of course I tore it down and I hope nobody here dares to mention it to any one at all.

13 March 2013 at 13:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older