Chomper Higgot

And trillions in tax breaks to the hyper wealthy.

I think they are anti-war against the aggressors, and in particular this specific aggressor.

It was never in dispute. But neither was it the issue you were referring to in your post: Wriggle away.

It was never in dispute. But neither was it the issue you were referring to in your post: Wriggle away.

I’m sure Putin agrees. He often does agree with the right wing and to Biden point of view. Or have I got that the wrong ways about?

I think it’s all UK residents, I’m not aware of a nationality requirement.

I don’t recall ever disputing any of that. But thanks for posting anyhow.

Legal challenges on the way: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/21/rishi-sunak-likely-to-face-legal-challenges-over-net-zero-u-turn

Mind reader? You seem to know a lot about this guy for whom I have related only very limited information. There is no ‘entitlement’ for that which is excluded by the rules of entitlement. If the rules say a person is above the wealth threshold then unless they meet the ‘continuing medical care clause’ they must pay towards their care. Hiding wealth or falsifying statements in order to get access to ‘free’ care that one is not entitled to is scrounging. But of course ‘scroungers’ can’t possibly be people who have personal wealth, ‘scroungers’ are by definition poor people.

I think he’s more concerned about his mother not making the contributions she is required to make out of her money that he hopes to inherit. I doubt he regards himself as a spounger, but clearly spoiling it is his intent.

I’ll take your word on that.

One could. And I suspect most who do also swallow and regurgitate conspiracies of all kinds.

You mean you were talking about any other country on the planet except the one that is the subject of the thread. Gotcha.

She’s just like Brand, she’s realized there’s more money to be made spewing conspiracies than there is in telling the truth.

You should try The Guardian, never had been ‘Pro-War’.

You were responding to my comment about a guy who was using his legal skills to get free old age car for his mother, we were not discussing general NHS care until you embarrassed yourself with a lack of knowledge on the matter. Having posted your comments regarding the fairness of people who have saved and accrued wealth having to pay you’ll have difficulty claiming you were not engaging in a discussion on care in old age. But I’m sure you will at least try.

Sorry, I like dealing with the reality of how it is. Your fanciful thoughts on why some folk aren’t sufficiently wealthy to fund their own care in old age are just that, fanciful. Your statement “For those who have worked, paid tax and NI, NHS care is not a benefit. It's an entitlement” reads like an assertion of fact, all be it misinformed.

Incorrect. Care in old age is means tested. I thought you worked in the care industry and if so how are you not aware of that fact. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/help-from-social-services-and-charities/financial-assessment-means-test/#:~:text=A financial assessment or means,savings less than £23%2C250.

Can you tell me the last time the UK electorate were not able to replace the UK Government by means of an ejection?

Forgive me, it was a typo, an error on my part. My intended term was ‘asylum seekers’

The failing Government’s failing policies are not going to continue beyond the next election.

If you’ll be more precise on who the ‘dealers’ are I’ll be able to say whether I agree or not.

“this is a typical online tactic employed by trolls” I’ll bow to your expertise on the matter.

He, the (corporate ) lawyer, earning more than a few quod, would like tax payers to pay for his mum’s care to protect his inheritance.

I’ve been in discussion with one this past few weeks, a guy who’s mother needs continuous care, he’s a lawyer and trying everything he can think of to get the NHS to pay for her care in order that she doesn’t have to use her own money. Money he hopes to inherit when she dies. Maybe it’s right that people on low incomes should pay taxes to take are of someone with significant financial means in order to pretext the inheritance of their children. But of course that, as with your own objection, is individuals looking for the state to take care of them, not individuals taking care of the duties of the state. I’m a supporter of the charity ’Soldiers off the streets’ but my support doesn’t run to taking a soldier off the streets and taking them into my own home. That I don’t take a soldier off the streets into my home does not diminish my support for the ‘soldiers off the streets’ charity. The argument that individuals should take i asylum dealers is nonsense.