Thursday, 21 April 2011

"That's Not What I Pay My Taxes For": David Cameron 2011

Apparently, over 80,000 people claim Incapacity Benefit because they are too fat or drunk to hold a job down. Well, not everyone can be an MP, Chairman or Chief Executive.

Dave "I shall wear morning dress at the wedding  after all"* Cameron, drew a distinction between the "undeserving ill" and "people who are incapacitated through no fault of their own".  Er, Dave, remember the righteous claiming that promiscuous gays who caught HIV/Aids through unprotected sex were martyrs of heterosexual oppression and were not to blame for their lifestyle choices. (4,030 on Incap with unspecified AIDS versus 1,830 for obesity).

Here's what I don't pay my taxes for (in no particular order as all are equally undeserving):

Overseas Aid
Wasted defence expenditure
Translation services
Giving prisoners televisions
Climate Change and associated Green Fraud
Benefits for immigrants
The European Union
Sham Charidees
The Electoral Commission
The Charidees Commission
MPs and Councillor's allowances
Footballer level salaries of Town Clerks and Senior Civil Servants

There will be more....

*The only decision left open to him and it was probably made by his spin-doctors.


Richard said...

I can think of a few more ...

Good post, and makes you think. In fact, I may put my own choices (similar to yours, but with added exasperation) on my own blog.

Cosmetic surgery (for 'emotional' reasons not disfigurement) on the NHS for a start. I could go on, and I probably will.

Brian said...

Blog away "con multo troppo exasperatione" and this meme might go viral and that means Incap Benefit all round. :-)
btw, personally, I consider the non-judgemental approach to AIDS/HIV is the most logical and moral option. Isn't medicine meant to be non-judgemental (except about Health Secretaries) about patients? Otherwise an awful lot of people who "accidentally sat on fluorescent tubes etc, would be sent home from Casualty walking stiffly.

Richard said...

Medicine itself must be non-judgemental, of course. If a person has AIDS, then they are ill and need the best attention we can offer. That doesn't mean that all discussion of the rights and wrongs of morality has to be eliminated from public discourse, though. If someone becomes ill through a reckless lifestyle (and you could include promiscuous homosexuals, drug addicts, smokers and bungee-jumpers in that), then it should be legitimate to comment on the circumstances while providing appropriate medical care - something which the gay lobby often imply is unacceptable and an indicator of homophobic hatred. It isn't.

Brian said...

Agreed. There are always safer ways of doing things and hazards should be engineered out wherever possible. Motorcycling, for example, is inherently dangerous (ever since the round wheel was invented) and a certain degree is part of the fun. However, brakes and cut-offs are fitted and moving machinery is shielded. Removing unnecessary risks allows the core activity to be safer and more enjoyable.
It's a pity the Armed Forces have had to be reluctantly cowed into the safety culture (Nimrod XV230 was a landmark). Expecting ATOs to defuse IEDs manually is a WW2 solution to a C21 problem. They should engineer the threat out by re-aligning roads and buildings and using robot armoured bulldozers etc. How many ATOs does the IDF lose? Almost none.