Britains biggest whinger - Polidicks

[quote=Dailymail] [B]Is this Britain's biggest whinger? Retired youth worker, 61, has written a letter to David Cameron EVERY DAY since March[/B] [IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/03/article-0-145BC399000005DC-548_634x415.jpg[/IMG] Having his say: Mr Lindsay-Cameron is bitterly opposed to Government cuts and writes about issues ranging from policing and benefits to Europe The 61-year-old has only had five replies to his handwritten notes so far - and none from Mr Cameron himself - but is determined to keep going. The campaigner now has more than 300 supporters - who donate writing paper, envelopes and stamps to his cause.[/quote] [URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183142/Is-Britains-biggest-whinger-Retired-youth-worker-61-written-different-letter-David-Cameron-EVERY-DAY-March.html[/URL] [video=youtube;tUffFDg6XT8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUffFDg6XT8[/video] I feel sorry for the PM having to hear his rants every day! Hopefully Britain will realize that it doesn't need whingers like him trying to make the weather look pessimistic! [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don't copy/paste entire articles." - rilez))[/highlight]

Good, Camerons a fucking wanker and anything that makes his day more difficult or annoying only serves to arouse me.

I can understand why.

Eventually runs out of things to say "Dear Mr. Cameron I cannot buy lemonade for 1.99 anymore, fix this travesty"

"[B]For the vast majority of people in the UK money is the means of our survival[/B]" So true, I mean in Devon we are still trading livestock and magic beans to survive, fuck money, go the 1%! He also looks like he is gonna cry :{

misread the title as "Britains biggest weiner" and got excited

[QUOTE=Zambies!;40182974]Eventually runs out of things to say "Dear Mr. Cameron I cannot buy lemonade for 1.99 anymore, fix this travesty"[/QUOTE] Mr. Cameron "Buy lemons and make it yourself"

[QUOTE=J!NX;40183162]Mr. Cameron "Buy lemons and make it yourself"[/QUOTE] *lemons at the time cost more than the lemonade*

[QUOTE=livelonger12;40183185]*lemons at the time cost more than the lemonade*[/QUOTE] Then he could of bought some Ade and made it himself.

One day, people will remember the reason the Conservatives were voted in as because they pointed out there was no money, and said they'd try to fix it. Then they will stop fucking blaming the government for the fact there is no bloody money. Letter 1 - This always annoys me. I don't think David Cameron really gives a toss where/what you eat, where you send your children to school, who you decide to mix with, how much money you earn or your preferred choice of life style, anymore than I give a shit what he does for these categories. I don't think I'd want to eat or go to school with Cameron, he just doesn't sound like the kind of person I'd get on with. Does that stop him from running the country? No, it fucking doesn't. Stop acting all upset because you are both fundamentally different people. Letter 2 - Well don't write one then, god knows the PM probably gets enough of this crap everyday without your load of rubbish adding to the pile. I suspect he knows that civilization will go on once he has left office without your input. Letter 3 - Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive to say apart from "I don't like it". Stop writing your poxy letters and it won't cost you a thing. Why should the taxpayer pay for your shitty letters? Finally, stop representing yourself as the voice of "ordinary people". I go to university (as a result of doing work at school) and have a massive debt, and have to live off not very much a week. Happily, I have a job which helps me pay my way. I am fairly ordinary as far as my life situation goes so stop writing that you represent me with this utter bollocks. Complaints with constructive suggestions - crack on. Pointless moaning - fuck off.

[QUOTE=Matriax;40184578] Finally, stop representing yourself as the voice of "ordinary people". I go to university (as a result of doing work at school) and have a massive debt, and have to live off not very much a week. Happily, I have a job which helps me pay my way. I am fairly ordinary as far as my life situation goes so stop writing that you represent me with this utter bollocks. Complaints with constructive suggestions - crack on. Pointless moaning - fuck off.[/QUOTE] Some will not have the opportunity to go to university. Instead, the only opportunity will be a workfare trap. Are you okay with this because things are going well for you? Because you have managed to ride this surf? Not everyone is able to do so, not to mention you've also got to factor in the vulnerable. Some are going without food to pay rent! This is absolutely surreal -- you have companies valued at billions of pounds spending billions on a stylistic workplace. Never mind feeding and housing the poor, or just at the very least giving them a fucking wage for their job. Governments are outright failing to protect the vulnerable of society.

Not having the opportunity to go to university is fine. I occasionally think that me going was a mistake. However, just because I have worked to get where I currently am does not mean I should be responsible for those who do not. That doesn't mean to say there aren't people who have worked hard and are still not doing well for themselves, but as far as I am concerned that is life. Occasionally its crap, occasionally its good. There's not really much the government as an entity can do about that. You have to make it so that doing work always pays better than living off benefits, that's how society works. You cannot just keep pumping money into a welfare state that produces nothing. [QUOTE=livelonger12;40184970]you have companies valued at billions of pounds spending billions on a stylistic workplace. Never mind feeding and housing the poor[/QUOTE] [B]Because its the company's money[/B]. Someone, somewhere has worked hard to create that company that is now able to sustain itself and give itself a decent working environment for it's employees. It's up to that company how it wants to spend its own money, not you.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;40184970]you have companies valued at billions of pounds spending billions on a stylistic workplace.[/QUOTE] So? As long as the money is being spent - and thus going back into the economy - I don't see the problem. It would be worse if the company hoarded all of their money instead.

[QUOTE=Matriax;40186350]Not having the opportunity to go to university is fine. I occasionally think that me going was a mistake. However, just because I have worked to get where I currently am does not mean I should be responsible for those who do not. That doesn't mean to say there aren't people who have worked hard and are still not doing well for themselves, but as far as I am concerned that is life. Occasionally its crap, occasionally its good. There's not really much the government as an entity can do about that. You have to make it so that doing work always pays better than living off benefits, that's how society works. You cannot just keep pumping money into a welfare state that produces nothing. [B]Because its the company's money[/B]. Someone, somewhere has worked hard to create that company that is now able to sustain itself and give itself a decent working environment for it's employees. It's up to that company how it wants to spend its own money, not you.[/QUOTE] Considering the fact that having a degree is basically required to get a job now it is not fine to not have the ability to go to university. The only alternative is to somehow get yourself some immediate experience in a field that will always be in demand or at least secure and to be good at that job. In case you hadn't noticed, achieving the latter option is pretty fucking difficult right now in the UK. As far as I'm concerned you're dumb as shit, some people can find the jobs or money to keep themselves alive and even live luxuriously, some people work multiple jobs and struggle to keep their home and their families fed. There is a lot the government can do about that, offer incentives to companies to pay their workers better wages, increase the minimum wage, actually bolster industries so they can take on new workers as well as create apprenticeships to get people into those jobs. You don't just sit there and leave shit in its current piss fucking poor state and say "you can't have a welfare state and just keep propping it up." It's not a fucking welfare state, you give people the opportunity to work and they'll jump at the chance, contrary to popular belief most people [i]aren't[/i] content to sit around all day mooching off tax payers money.

A++ Journalism, Daily Mail. Would be outraged again. They should be saluting this guy.

semi-crazy guy crying cause he is poor.

"Whinger"? He has no right to be upset that the government are doing a shitty job and fucking him and many other people over?

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40186447]Considering the fact that having a degree is basically required to get a job now it is not fine to not have the ability to go to university. The only alternative is to somehow get yourself some immediate experience in a field that will always be in demand or at least secure and to be good at that job. In case you hadn't noticed, achieving the latter option is pretty fucking difficult right now in the UK. As far as I'm concerned you're dumb as shit, some people can find the jobs or money to keep themselves alive and even live luxuriously, some people work multiple jobs and struggle to keep their home and their families fed. There is a lot the government can do about that, offer incentives to companies to pay their workers better wages, increase the minimum wage, actually bolster industries so they can take on new workers as well as create apprenticeships to get people into those jobs. You don't just sit there and leave shit in its current piss fucking poor state and say "you can't have a welfare state and just keep propping it up." It's not a fucking welfare state, you give people the opportunity to work and they'll jump at the chance, contrary to popular belief most people [i]aren't[/i] content to sit around all day mooching off tax payers money.[/QUOTE] Your first point is absolute bollocks. It's easier to get a job if you have a degree, that is not to say it is impossible to get one without. Then again, people who get degrees get saddled with huge amounts of debt, so that kind of makes sense doesn't it? Raising the minimum wage isn't actually the magic wand of money generation you think it is. The money has to come from somewhere. Increasing the minimum wage for employees may mean that a company has to lay off someone in order to accommodate the new higher wage. So great, someones now a bit better off, but someone else is now unemployed. Excellent plan. Unless you think that the government can subsidies that, in which case you may as well give out benefits instead. And oh yes, the country hasn't got any fucking money. "Bolster industries" - you may have to elaborate on that, because so far that means fucking nothing. The current strategy is to try and get the private sector to grow, while lowering public sector jobs. So yes, the government can back people up who are currently unemployed. Once they get employed, the system is being made so that employment will always be beneficial over living off the state. I am aware people will jump are the chance to work, when did I ever say people were content to sit around "mooching off tax payers money"? Stop making assertions, and add some backbone to your argument before you call me "dumb as shit". [QUOTE=Jellyman;40186672]"Whinger"? He has no right to be upset that the government are doing a shitty job and fucking him and many other people over?[/QUOTE] Two of the example letters here are time wasters. One says "the big society will always exist" which is true, and an irrelevant piece of information. The other is asking for stamps to keep sending letters. If he wasn't sending letters filled with rubbish, he wouldn't need the sodding stamps. Like I said, complaining is fine so long as you have a workable solution. This person does not.

[QUOTE=Matriax;40184578] Complaints with constructive suggestions - crack on. Pointless moaning - fuck off.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Aman VII;40186522]semi-crazy guy crying cause he is poor.[/QUOTE] god forbid he exercises his right to free speech to inform the government of what distastes him. he is one of the people and he is expressing what he feels needs fixing. it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, the fact of the matter is he has every fucking right to whine. is the government not merely there to serve the people? is the government not there to help and protect the people? is the government not there to keep us organized and out of barbarism? if your answer to any of these is "no" then you should probably go fuck yourself

[QUOTE=Matriax;40184578]One day, people will remember the reason the Conservatives were voted in as because they pointed out there was no money, and said they'd try to fix it. Then they will stop fucking blaming the government for the fact there is no bloody money. Letter 1 - This always annoys me. I don't think David Cameron really gives a toss where/what you eat, where you send your children to school, who you decide to mix with, how much money you earn or your preferred choice of life style, anymore than I give a shit what he does for these categories. I don't think I'd want to eat or go to school with Cameron, he just doesn't sound like the kind of person I'd get on with. Does that stop him from running the country? No, it fucking doesn't. Stop acting all upset because you are both fundamentally different people. Letter 2 - Well don't write one then, god knows the PM probably gets enough of this crap everyday without your load of rubbish adding to the pile. I suspect he knows that civilization will go on once he has left office without your input. Letter 3 - Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive to say apart from "I don't like it". Stop writing your poxy letters and it won't cost you a thing. Why should the taxpayer pay for your shitty letters? Finally, stop representing yourself as the voice of "ordinary people". I go to university (as a result of doing work at school) and have a massive debt, and have to live off not very much a week. Happily, I have a job which helps me pay my way. I am fairly ordinary as far as my life situation goes so stop writing that you represent me with this utter bollocks. Complaints with constructive suggestions - crack on. Pointless moaning - fuck off.[/QUOTE] the conservatives weren't voted in though thats the worst part

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;40186985]god forbid he exercises his right to free speech to inform the government of what distastes him. he is one of the people and he is expressing what he feels needs fixing. it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, the fact of the matter is he has every fucking right to whine. is the government not merely there to serve the people? is the government not there to help and protect the people? is the government not there to keep us organized and out of barbarism? if your answer to any of these is "no" then you should probably go fuck yourself[/QUOTE] Yes cause we totally said he doesn't deserve to have free speech, great leap you achieved there. And just because he is practicing his free speech it doesn't make him immune to response.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40187011]Yes cause we totally said he doesn't deserve to have free speech, great leap you achieved there.[/QUOTE] you were saying that he's crying because he doesn't have money and that this is a bad thing. no it isn't.

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;40186985]god forbid he exercises his right to free speech to inform the government of what distastes him. he is one of the people and he is expressing what he feels needs fixing. it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, the fact of the matter is he has every fucking right to whine. is the government not merely there to serve the people? is the government not there to help and protect the people? is the government not there to keep us organized and out of barbarism? if your answer to any of these is "no" then you should probably go fuck yourself[/QUOTE] Free speech - fine. Wasted on some people. I'll say again, his complaints would carry far more weight if he considered how to fix the problem rather than just bitched about it. Bitching without a fix is pointless. Yes the government is there to serve the people. The people, knowing this, should probably give some more constructive feedback other than "it's shit" otherwise again, the feedback is pointless. With constructive criticism, we can have debates and open up discussions which might lead to solutions. An endless parade of crying drones is not very useful. I would suggest that if all you're capable of doing about a problem is whinging about it - without pausing to think about what you in the PM's situation might do - you can go and fuck yourself.

i already know what i'd do if i were the prime minister. i would spill my coffee, fuck up, and accidentally invade france by lunchtime on the first day.

[QUOTE=Bobie;40187005]the conservatives weren't voted in though thats the worst part[/QUOTE] Well, they got the highest share of the popular vote (2 million higher than Labour's 8 million) and a higher share of the seats in Parliament. I think the words you're looking for are "the Lib Dems weren't voted in though". The Tories could have formed a minority government, either way, they'd still be in power and would still have been voted in. Unless Labour/Lib Dems had formed a coalition, in which case you'd probably be pretty justified in thinking that the government wasn't legitimate.

Whinger if only the government would suppress this sort of thing

[QUOTE=Matriax]...but as far as I am concerned that is life.[/QUOTE] Okay, let's suppose everyone agrees with this form of reasoning. If things are shit, then just let them be. So let's go back to before women had an equal wage, if life was the way it was for them then they should just keep hold of their stiff upper lip mentality. Oh, what about child labor? Ah, that's just life. You completely miss the principle question: if things can be better, then why not advocate for them to be better? Why should living standards fall because of a few layabouts? Why do people want things to get worse when they should continue to get better? [quote=Matriax] There's not really much the government as an entity can do about that. [/quote] Of course. It can do a lot with taxing the poor though but not much with taxing the rich. I think you actually forget what a government elected by the people is supposed to do: it's supposed to support everyone, not just the elite. [quote=Matriax] I am aware people will jump are the chance to work, when did I ever say people were content to sit around "mooching off tax payers money"? [/quote] [quote=Matriax] You cannot just keep pumping money into a welfare state that produces nothing. [/quote] And you must create jobs to offset the poverty caused by diminished welfare. Otherwise, you will have abject poverty and that is what happens: homelessness increases and people begin to starve and die, despite abundant food and housing being available. [quote=Matriax] It's up to that company how it wants to spend its own money, not you. [/quote] The money Apple spent on creating a fashionable workplace could of been spent on reducing the effect of poverty. That money could of been spent on social housing projects or money to help feed the poor. I do agree that it is indeed the company's money, but my comparison ultimately questions if that kind of money is available to such entities in this world and is being spent as such and that there are indeed homeless veterans/children dying of starvation in first world nations, then shouldn't it at least be considered that the money is better spent on those who are most in need? I mean, shouldn't people be annoyed that this wasn't spent on creating jobs, something actually beneficial to the community or properly taxed to actually be spent on helping the poor. Think about it, people are actually dying because there wasn't enough money available for them to survive and then think about the absurd amount spent on something fashionable when it could of saved those poor people. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] There is no problem with this guy sending letters. It's not the fact that he's sending letters either. The point is that he's advocating a voice for the poor. How can that at all be a problem? He's doing better than almost any daily mail/sun article ever has done in their existence.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;40203307]Okay, let's suppose everyone agrees with this form of reasoning. If things are shit, then just let them be. So let's go back to before women had an equal wage, if life was the way it was for them then they should just keep hold of their stiff upper lip mentality. Oh, what about child labor? Ah, that's just life. You completely miss the principle question: if things can be better, then why not advocate for them to be better? Why should living standards fall because of a few layabouts? Why do people want things to get worse when they should continue to get better?[/quote] As if you've picked one tiny bit of all he wrote to criticise.. His statement of 'that's just life' isn't general, he's saying that people can work really hard and not improve their own standard of living - that's not to say that their standard of living won't increase in line with the rest of society's. [quote]Of course. It can do a lot with taxing the poor though but not much with taxing the rich. I think you actually forget what a government elected by the people is supposed to do: it's supposed to support everyone, not just the elite.[/quote] In the UK it does, everyone in the country has free access to education and health care with higher education being a lot more accessible than most countries. The government supports people if they're unemployed, disabled or retired too. In regards to taxing the rich and taxing the poor, as a percentage of income, the 'rich' pay considerably more tax - especially when you consider working tax credits, child benefit and other costs low-income people incur. From the recent personal tax changes, generally everyone has received a tax cut - with the tax cut given to the lowest paid people in society actually costing the most. [quote]And you must create jobs to offset the poverty caused by diminished welfare. Otherwise, you will have abject poverty and that is what happens: homelessness increases and people begin to starve and die, despite abundant food and housing being available. [/quote] Seems fair, in the UK the employment rate is actually quite good, something like 93%, so I think it's more a case of allowing people to be paid more money - something I suggest is done by reducing taxes and reversing national insurance (otherwise the fixed cost of a business increases which is ultimately passed onto consumers, resulting in inflation) [quote]The money Apple spent on creating a fashionable workplace could of been spent on reducing the effect of poverty. That money could of been spent on social housing projects or money to help feed the poor. I do agree that it is indeed the company's money, but my comparison ultimately questions if that kind of money is available to such entities in this world and is being spent as such and that there are indeed homeless veterans/children dying of starvation in first world nations, then shouldn't it at least be considered that the money is better spent on those who are most in need? I mean, shouldn't people be annoyed that this wasn't spent on creating jobs, something actually beneficial to the community or properly taxed to actually be spent on helping the poor. Think about it, people are actually dying because there wasn't enough money available for them to survive and then think about the absurd amount spent on something fashionable when it could of saved those poor people.[/quote] How would you actually allocate $5 billion to feed the poor? Once that money has been spent on food they will just go back to being hungry again, and will remain poor. This building is one of the best ways that the money could be spent - it will provide employment both directly and indirectly to the local economy. Construction companies have particularly suffered since the financial crisis and this is a great boost to them. Don't forget that the profits of the construction companies will be taxed and the wages of the construction workers will be taxed too. Also the building is in the US by an American company, bit off-topic.. [quote]There is no problem with this guy sending letters. It's not the fact that he's sending letters either. The point is that he's advocating a voice for the poor. How can that at all be a problem? He's doing better than almost any daily mail/sun article ever has done in their existence.[/QUOTE] As the article says, he is literally just whinging - read what he's putting in the letters, a waste of the paper they're written on. You really think the Daily Mail or the Sun has never done effective investigative journalism? If it wasn't for the Daily Mail, you wouldn't even know this guy writes letters..

[QUOTE=livelonger12;40203307]Okay, let's suppose everyone agrees with this form of reasoning. If things are shit, then just let them be. So let's go back to before women had an equal wage, if life was the way it was for them then they should just keep hold of their stiff upper lip mentality. Oh, what about child labor? Ah, that's just life. [/QUOTE] My point is that no matter what you do as a government, some peoples' quality of life is still going to be bad. That is just the way things are, a government attempting to form policy for absolutely everyone is going to miss people out. That is just what happens. And yes, in that situation the best thing to do is stick with the stiff upper lip and keep going. It's not the governments fault, it might not be your fault but it certainly isn't bloody my fault. As for women voting, that clearly is a governmental policy issue. [QUOTE=livelonger12;40203307]You completely miss the principle question: if things can be better, then why not advocate for them to be better? Why should living standards fall because of a few layabouts? Why do people want things to get worse when they should continue to get better?[/QUOTE] How would you make them "better". You are just assuming that since this man is having a pretty bad time of it that the government can make his life "better". I don't want these things to happen, it would be wonderful if the government could give this man, me, you and everyone else enough money to live on comfortably for the rest of our lives without having to life a finger. Unfortunately, that's not how the system works. [QUOTE=livelonger12;40203307]Of course. It can do a lot with taxing the poor though but not much with taxing the rich. I think you actually forget what a government elected by the people is supposed to do: it's supposed to support everyone, not just the elite.And you must create jobs to offset the poverty caused by diminished welfare. Otherwise, you will have abject poverty and that is what happens: homelessness increases and people begin to starve and die, despite abundant food and housing being available. [/QUOTE] Right, the first job of government is to protect the realm, not looking out for your financial interests. I'm not sure what more you want them to do, the personal tax allowance has increased to £10,000 from 2014, in 2013 - 2014 it's already at an all time high of £9,440. They have set up schemes to significantly assist with first time house buyers, and are currently attempting to make sure that people live within their means by getting them to live in appropriately sized houses. That's another issue taken into consideration here, the country is to of housing space. There are some cap sides of the bedroom allowance such as children having to share rooms, but you know what? Since the government is supporting you, there are going to be a few concessions. As for supporting to rich, I guess this is back to the age old, bollocks argument about why they cut the 50% rate of tax. I guess you've decided that all people who earn lots of money automatically become complete arseholes incapable of doing anything but raking in more money at the expense of society's poorest and hence deserve to have their ill gotten blood money taken off them? Consider for a second that most of them have probably worked very hard to get where they are, and don't much appreciate being told that they're the problem and they need to be fleeced for 50p of every £1 they earn. Besides, raising the tax rate to 50% barely raised any extra money, as people just found ways to avoid paying the tax. Such as leaving the country. You're forgetting also that it's generally people who have a larger income who start businesses and create jobs, and therefore create wealth. We are attempting to make this country a competitive place to invest, where job creators will want to spend their money. If you bang on a large, punish the rich because it's all their fault 50% tax rate, they'll just go somewhere else. No company, no jobs, but at least you get warm fuzzy feeling because you stuck it to the nasty evil rich guys, right? [QUOTE=livelonger12;40203307]The money Apple spent on creating a fashionable workplace could of been spent on reducing the effect of poverty. That money could of been spent on social housing projects or money to help feed the poor. I do agree that it is indeed the company's money, but my comparison ultimately questions if that kind of money is available to such entities in this world and is being spent as such and that there are indeed homeless veterans/children dying of starvation in first world nations, then shouldn't it at least be considered that the money is better spent on those who are most in need? I mean, shouldn't people be annoyed that this wasn't spent on creating jobs, something actually beneficial to the community or properly taxed to actually be spent on helping the poor. Think about it, people are actually dying because there wasn't enough money available for them to survive and then think about the absurd amount spent on something fashionable when it could of saved those poor people.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry. As long as the company pays tax properly, you cannot touch the rest of their money. End of. We are not a communist society, it is not the governments job to relieve companies of their fairly earned money and spend it on other things. We are a capitalist society, it is not a perfect system, there are going to be issues. [QUOTE=livelonger12;40203307]There is no problem with this guy sending letters. It's not the fact that he's sending letters either. The point is that he's advocating a voice for the poor. How can that at all be a problem? He's doing better than almost any daily mail/sun article ever has done in their existence.[/QUOTE] It's not a problem, it's just fucking pointless. I'm getting bored of reiterating the same thing over and over again on this point now. Edit - added "financial" to "look out for your financial interests"

[QUOTE=Bobie;40187005]the conservatives weren't voted in though thats the worst part[/QUOTE] (p sure they were)