If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   Cute jobless couple claim £17,680 a year in benefits, don't even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off: "Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn't go down that route" (w/pics)   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 103
    More: Dumbass, housing benefit, child tax credit  
•       •       •

34898 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 5:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-27 12:07:33 AM  
14 votes:
This is wrong and should be addressed. However, corporations take more in government handouts then all the welfare queens combine. Lets go after them first and then figure out what to do about the welfare cheats.
2013-01-27 06:03:01 AM  
8 votes:

Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.


Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.

Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you earn.
2013-01-27 05:38:07 AM  
7 votes:
One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?
2013-01-27 05:55:04 AM  
6 votes:
Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.
2013-01-26 11:56:32 PM  
6 votes:
This means that everyone who needs government assistance is a moocher and that safety net money is to now be sent to pay for tax cuts for the more deserving wealthy
2013-01-27 06:44:10 AM  
4 votes:

farkeruk: BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?

In the UK it's not so much that they'd be worse off (the benefits system stops that), it's that there is a benefit withdrawal rate that is the equivalent of a 75-85% tax rate. Someone on the £7/hr minimum wage will end up about £10 better off for a day's work after tax and loss of benefits. Take off say £3/day for bus etc, and you're left with very little for taking 8 hours of crap rather than spending it with your family.


Over here in the U.S. we have people like the family man who lost his $40,000 a year job, and did odd jobs for cash while looking for a new job. His problem is that he reported his $100 a week that he was making mowing lawns and the like. So of course they took away every penny of his unemployment insurance payments.

The biggest problem that we have in our system is that over here we punish those who want to get out and work, while we reward people who are dishonest and find ways to game the system.

Another example is my situation. I got hurt at work. Not just a little hurt, but a serious spinal cord injury that left me temporarily paralyzed, and in the hospital for nearly a month. While I wasn't working, I earning nearly $600 a week for work comp disability. For the last six months, I've put every last bit of energy into my recovery. I've worked through pain unlike anything that I've ever known. All so I can get back my life, and get back to work. So now that I'm back to twenty hours a week of work, I get a little more than $50.00 a week in disability payments.

By the end of the day, I can hardly move I'm in so much pain, and for what? To earn less then if I sat on my ass and Farked all day? I know there are people in my situation that are on full disability; and I understand why.
2013-01-27 06:03:10 AM  
4 votes:
Maybe we should take this as an indication that wages haven't kept up with the cost of living and if we want less people "sucking the government's teat dry" we might need to rethink not only what people should be paid but what might help reduce the cost of living?
2013-01-27 01:16:24 AM  
4 votes:

crypticsatellite: Also, cute?


British cute.


What's sad is that there is no job that pays more than government benefits. $28K a year ain't much to raise a kid on.
2013-01-27 09:14:55 AM  
3 votes:

neenerist: here to help: Raise the minimum wage. Tax companies that outsource into oblivion....
Necessities have become far too expensive, wages have stagnated and companies don't want to hire locally....

Raising wages and taxes will cause prices to rise. Math is cruel taskmaster.


I don't have the link handy, but a study was done on that, and found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage resulted in a whopping 0.01% increase in the price of products and services. The whole, "OMG, if we pay the poors more money, everything will get too expensive!" is a bullshiat myth.
2013-01-27 07:29:54 AM  
3 votes:

GoSlash27: In the short term, the taxpayer is the fool. In the long run, the moocher is screwing himself because the funding will eventually dry up.


THIS

I live my life by that quote from Apocalypse Now: "I'm in here, getting weaker and Charlie's out there, getting stronger". If you're in a jammy, comfortable place, you're probably going to get burnt when the jam stops. Far better to keep striving and be prepared for how things might change.
2013-01-27 06:45:29 AM  
3 votes:
My sister and her fiance were in the exact same position for a year after they had their child. They had a two-bedroom flat, which was disgusting, with horrific neighbours, and rising damp in the child's room which was one of the main reasons they moved out. They had a 50in television given to them second hand by someone else. My sister worked very hard to make sure the flat looked nice; but the furnishings were as cheap as possible and quite often, hand-me-downs from other people. Certainly, the two piece leather sofa was second hand. Admittedly, neither of them smoke, but they did spend money on a TV licence and two mobile phone contracts. The benefits they recieved while her fiance was between jobs were higher than his original wage. Thankfully, he managed to get a job paying higher, although eventually they realised they could no longer afford to pay the (subsidised by government) rent on the flat, and moved in with my mother. Although it is clear that some lifestyle choices differ between these two couples, I roundly refuse to get whipped up into a frenzy by the idea that it's easier to be on benefits than to find a job, or that two people managed to acquire a television.
2013-01-27 05:22:39 AM  
3 votes:
It's just being smart. Why work if you'll make less than what you can get for free? Only work if you can earn more than you can get by not doing anything.
2013-01-27 01:23:37 AM  
3 votes:
How do you get a job seekers benefit if you're not seeking a job?

GAT_00: Oh look, it's this story again.


Oh look it is this Communist again.
2013-01-27 12:09:09 AM  
3 votes:
I bet they even own a refrigerator.

This thread will be utterly trolltastic in no time, I can almost guarantee it.
2013-01-27 12:17:19 PM  
2 votes:

Sergeant Grumbles: Don't think we're quite there, yet.
Instead we're stuck where those ignorant of hardship thinking the poor can be punished and shamed into not being so, all while exacerbating what makes them poor to begin with.


Exactly:

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (takes away pensions)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (freezes pay increases)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (replaces workers with cheaper labor)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (replaces cheap labor with automation)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (fights government benefits programs)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (fights universal medical care)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (funds hit-piece in the news about moochers on benefits)

RICHIE RICH: Waaahhhh the government wastes my tax dollars paying for all these goddamned poor people!!!! Why can't they just stop being so poor????
2013-01-27 11:03:40 AM  
2 votes:
The top 1% always win by pitting the bottom two 49.5% against each other.

This is certainly a hit-piece designed by the super-wealthy to get one half of the working/poor class angry at the other half, so they will vote against the social safety net that costs the super-wealthy dearly.
2013-01-27 09:49:44 AM  
2 votes:
I've thoroughly enjoyed the number of people who quoted me, believing I somehow was saying that welfare in this country ISN'T abused.  I was saying that the abuse that happens to the welfare system in the UK is worse than the abuse that happens to the welfare system here.  You know, like saying, "You think it's bad here?  Check out what's going on over there."  That's not the same as saying the welfare system in the United States is not gamed by anyone.

Jesus Christ, people.
2013-01-27 08:52:45 AM  
2 votes:
Hrm.....either there are hordes of British people living on the dole, yet willing to make themselves targets for investigation and possibly losing their benefits by openly admitting they're flouting the rules, naming themselves, and even posing for "fark you gubmint, bring it on!" photos or....

Tabloids make shiat up.

I wonder...
2013-01-27 07:29:03 AM  
2 votes:
Any sort of means-tested welfare will always backfire. What we need in developed countries is a universal citizens dividend that everyone receives whether they are disabled and can't work, work all the odd jobs they can, has a steady job, or makes millions on real-estate. We could get rid of so many beurocrats and paperwork. And we can make any job worth having.
2013-01-27 07:27:12 AM  
2 votes:

farkeruk: digistil: "Of course there are people that believe we think ridiculous things, such as: 'We could easily get a job but why would we want to work - we would be worse off.' In reality, we spend 80 hours a week looking for work, but there are no jobs. Businesses say it's the austerity measures."

Trust me, I could find these people a job within a day. A friend of mine got made redundant recently and while looking for another job (he wasn't going to be unemployed for long), he got a job in a pub. It took less than a day of walking around town to get a job.

The whole reason why UK supermarkets, shops and cafes are stuffed full of Poles, Ukranians, Russians and Romanians is that those shops just can't get the staff.


Funny that, those are the sorts of jobs my hubby is trying to get there, and he can't get one, even though the last job he had, he held for nearly four years before marrying me and moving to Canada.
2013-01-27 07:19:24 AM  
2 votes:

BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?


First off there is no free housing for anybody and there is no 2000 a month in benefits unless someone has like 5 kids. But she is not getting a 10.00 an hour job, it's more likely an 8.00 an hour job with no bennies. It's 149 a month max benefit per person for food stamps.

For those saying that they hate those taking a "free ride" I suggest that they quit their job and try it themselves.
2013-01-27 07:19:10 AM  
2 votes:
Sterilize the farkers.
2013-01-27 06:55:13 AM  
2 votes:

barnacleboy: If they want to live like parasites then go for it. I'd prefer if tax payers money went to more deserving people, but at least I can look at myself on the mirror unlike these spineless farks who will never amount to shiat.


The problem with your judgment is that every single potential recipient of any welfare program can be argued by any moron that, no matter how much he had worked or how much taxes had he paid, he is a parasite who doesn't deserve any inch of any social safety net.

It all boils down to pettiness. Your kind should be happy that your society actually takes care of the poor. Instead, you kick and scream that they should be miserable and suffering.
2013-01-27 06:36:55 AM  
2 votes:
ALL OF YOUR THEORIES ABOUT PARASITES STEALING YOUR MONEY ARE CORRECT. NOW HERE ARE SOME BOOBIES.

BOOBIES!
2013-01-27 06:14:51 AM  
2 votes:
I've got family that are entitlement sponges ... liars and con artists, too, since they receive all kinds of benefits they legally don't qualify for.

I'm squeaking by working 50+ hours at a job and earning extra money on music and art projects, and they're not only bringing in more money than I am, but have all the free time in the world to drink, eat pills, smoke pot, party, play video games, eat out, and so on. They actually make fun of me "behind my back" for working (I guess they think I don't know how Facebook works).

Yeah, corporations need to stop getting government money (not to mention foreign countries), but so do welfare queens. The system is being abused on a rampant scale, and despite alleged initiatives to get people working and independent, entitlement workers actually advise people on methods of obtaining MORE in handouts.
2013-01-27 06:09:14 AM  
2 votes:

Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.


Except shiat jobs like McD's don't pay enough for a 2 bedroom apartment and all the expenses that come along with kids. A better solution would be to require work but don't cut off benefits entirely when they get a job. Reduce the benefits by the amount of money they get paid.

The trouble is that we've created a system that is incapable of making that sort of adjustment to benefits. It's not possible to say, "You made $1234.56 at your McJob this month so your benefit check will be reduced by that amount." There are half a dozen agencies (if not more), each with their own regulations and bureaucracy. Many of them are either/or scenarios where they either qualify for benefits or they don't qualify. There's no "you qualify for 30%". The whole damn system is out of order!
2013-01-27 06:01:27 AM  
2 votes:

carnifex2005: I got a 46" TV a year ago on Boxing Day for $400 CDN. That size TV isn't very expensive anymore.


In 2003 I paid $4500 for a 42" Philips plasma.  This past October, the ballast that fires up the tube went bad, and it was $250 just for the part to fix it.  Even though I had great memories from that TV, into the trash it went.  It also helped that it sucked up about 800 watts while it was on, which made it hot and drove up the electric bill.

I replaced it with a 55" Panasonic plasma that runs at 200 watts.  Cost?  $700.

Can't stop the march of technology.
2013-01-27 06:00:47 AM  
2 votes:

Ishkur: Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.


I believe this case CLEARLY demonstrates the Conservative point of view. This is the pinnacle of government wealth redistribution. Take from those who have worked hard and give to those who are able to work but won't.

/not conservative.
//Things wealth redistribution to people like this is a travesty and REALLY takes from those who actually need assistance and support.
///Jail them. Jail them both for crimes against their fellow countrymen.
2013-01-27 05:37:43 AM  
2 votes:
Meanwhile, the waves of non-Caucasian immigrants have been taking up the slack in the UK, while the entitled natives scream "this is our country, get out!" while sitting around doing nothing but sponging off the system.
2013-01-27 01:20:35 AM  
2 votes:
"Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.
2013-01-27 12:08:24 AM  
2 votes:
Oh look, it's this story again.
2013-01-26 11:58:19 PM  
2 votes:
......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.
2013-01-27 04:47:32 PM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: KK is rich because lots of bricklayers choose to give her some of their wealth. You can't stop them doing that and still call it a free country. This is just a case of you being butthurt that others with freedom don't make the choices you think they should.


What in the world are you talking about? Now you're simply not making any sense. Socialites and the idle rich are wealthy because they live on the dole--the only difference is it comes from their (also idle) family and not the government.

In a sense, it doesn't matter if welfare comes from the government or "nepotistically" from rich parents--it all inevitably comes from the rest of us suckers. Just as a dollar gets funneled from your tax bill to the poor, dollars are getting funneled from your labor to the rich and other idle aristocrats on the "wealth dole". This may have been your point about all wealth coming from work, and if it was, I take back my previous retort. But your comment failed to recognize that there are two money funnels at play, with both of them redistributing wealth to people not working. One small one going to folks on benefits, and one giant one going to the already wealthy business owners, who then choose who the beneficiaries are. I really don't see much of a difference is besides the fact that when it gets redistributed up to the rich it tends to stay concentrated there.
2013-01-27 04:08:39 PM  
1 votes:

fredklein: udhq: There are two types of people in this world: those whose struggles have given them a sense of gratitude, and those whose lack of struggle have given them a sense of entitlement.

You can usually spot the second type when they do things like conflate the words "poor" and "lazy".


Hmm. Interesting. You think that *I* have a sense of entitlement? Not the ones who stay on welfare forever, not the one who raise generation after generation sucking the public teat, but- Me?


Absolutely.

You obviously feel that you have some sort of intrinsic entitlement to unilaterally divide poor people into those who are deserving, and those who are not deserving by virtue of having the character flaws that you clearly posses yourself.
2013-01-27 03:03:03 PM  
1 votes:

fredklein: udhq: Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

So, bribe the poor and lazy for now so they don't revolt? Never mind that that just encourages the poor and lazy to remain poor and lazy, thus increasing the burden on everyone else. It simply delays the problem- eventually the ones working will no longer be able to support the one who don't- and when that happens, the poor and lazy will outnumber the working.

It's better to force the issue now, while the workers are still in the majority, and have a chance at winning.


There are two types of people in this world: those whose struggles have given them a sense of gratitude, and those whose lack of struggle have given them a sense of entitlement.

You can usually spot the second type when they do things like conflate the words "poor" and "lazy".
2013-01-27 01:29:36 PM  
1 votes:

farkeruk: I mean, raises my standard of living.


Wages or taxes. Pick one.
They're needed to maintain your society's standard of living. Skimp on one or the other, and that standard falls, and you'll have to pay more to maintain your own.
2013-01-27 01:01:13 PM  
1 votes:

Sergeant Grumbles: Entertainment is still a need, a part of basic subsistence.


It absolutely is not a part of basic subsistence. We didn't even have games consoles 30 years ago.

Lowering it for anyone else ultimately lowers it for you, no matter how much money you might have.

Go on... explain the math behind that.
2013-01-27 11:40:05 AM  
1 votes:

MayoSlather: It's also impressive how defensive the rich are of their fortunes. They go to great lengths to try and make a case for paying back less to society when they are already richer than most could ever dream. Lengths that include putting people that already have nothing in greater debt. If there were a hell there would be a special section of it waiting for them.


Particularly since it's society (and the backs of the middle class) that have allowed them to amass their fortunes.

If you work for a living, you're a sucker, since both the idle rich and the idle poor are mooching off of your labor. And rest assured, the rich are mooching far more off you than the poor. But since the idle rich control the conversation and steer the dialog, they've gotten you convinced that it's those lazy people on benefits who are the big problem!
2013-01-27 11:37:02 AM  
1 votes:

Sergeant Grumbles: Zasteva: Of course people should be forced to work to survive!

It's not even that. It's that increasingly, even if you do work, you won't survive. You won't make enough money. Your productivity is leeched away for executive bonuses and investors' capital gains, both of which whom have never had more money than they do now.

The lesson here isn't that "OMG, the dole pays TOO MUCH." but "OMG, honest work pays SO LITTLE".

I used to work making cell phone interfaces until my department was outsourced. I started making $18/hr with full benefits. When outsourcing didn't go well, they tried to restart the department staffed with part-time interns, all making less than $10/hr, no benefits.
Mrs. Grumbles' employer is a US national chain of pharmacies. They getting ready to pull a Circuit City and lay off a bunch of their store management, and give them the "opportunity" to return at a $4-$8 pay cut per hour.
What the hell can you even do? Corporations make the dole an attractive alternative to being farked over daily in every way imaginable. Don't even give me this "learn a valuable skill" crap. Can't think of anything more farking relevant in the world today than cell phone interfaces, and that didn't save me or my department from the same bullshiat.


I agree completely.
2013-01-27 11:19:11 AM  
1 votes:

aesirx: passing on something valuable to her child / children?


What are you passing on to your kids if you're breaking your back for a job that won't even let you break even?
2013-01-27 11:15:52 AM  
1 votes:

Zasteva: Of course people should be forced to work to survive!


It's not even that. It's that increasingly, even if you do work, you won't survive. You won't make enough money. Your productivity is leeched away for executive bonuses and investors' capital gains, both of which whom have never had more money than they do now.

The lesson here isn't that "OMG, the dole pays TOO MUCH." but "OMG, honest work pays SO LITTLE".

I used to work making cell phone interfaces until my department was outsourced. I started making $18/hr with full benefits. When outsourcing didn't go well, they tried to restart the department staffed with part-time interns, all making less than $10/hr, no benefits.
Mrs. Grumbles' employer is a US national chain of pharmacies. They getting ready to pull a Circuit City and lay off a bunch of their store management, and give them the "opportunity" to return at a $4-$8 pay cut per hour.
What the hell can you even do? Corporations make the dole an attractive alternative to being farked over daily in every way imaginable. Don't even give me this "learn a valuable skill" crap. Can't think of anything more farking relevant in the world today than cell phone interfaces, and that didn't save me or my department from the same bullshiat.
2013-01-27 10:36:20 AM  
1 votes:
I know that this story is in Britain, but seriously, in the US, more than half of our national budget goes to tax cuts, breaks and loopholes. That's right, we spend more on giving the wealthy and corporation favorable tax status than we do on ACTUAL SPENDING.

I don't care how lazy or undeserving you or NewsCorp believes the recipients to be, this is wealthiest nation on Earth, every tax dollar that goes to feeding a hungry person is a-ok in my book.
2013-01-27 10:34:45 AM  
1 votes:

Weidermeijer: Didn't ANYONE notice the hot chick in the article at the bottom???

OF COURSE, she isn't British... she's Lithuanian.


I'd let her satiate me, if you know what I mean. And I think you do.
2013-01-27 10:29:48 AM  
1 votes:
This is from the Onion, right? Right? Please?
2013-01-27 10:11:26 AM  
1 votes:
Since you have to proof to the unemployment people, even in Britain, that you are looking for work to qualify for the dole, maybe putting in a tabloid you do not even try is a great way to get your benefits cut to £0.00 a year. I don't think they thought through their cunning plan.

They are also going to be screwed during retirements. Basic rate is £80/week if you don't add to it.
2013-01-27 10:07:56 AM  
1 votes:

farkeruk: Flaumig: I have yet to encounter someone who can give me a legitemate reason why this is so bad. Oh sure, they can come up with plenty of reasons that are just different ways of whining "b-b-but it's not FAIIIIIIIIRRRR!!!", but no one ever comes up with an objectively good reason that people living "on the dole" are harmful to anyone other than themselves.

Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.

Well, let's see: perhaps it's because old people and children can't be expected to work, but 21 year old adults are perfectly capable of working. And well, I don't mind my money getting spent on educating kids, fixing roads, defence and people who can't work but I take exception to my money being spent on moochers.


They can be. Children were getting their hands and fingers cut off by looms and what not and getting lung diseases from being sent up to clean chimneys not so long ago. That sort of thing is a price worth paying if it means right wing newspaper owners can pay less taxes.

opiumpoopy: fusillade762: Bucky Katt: There aren't any jobs in Britain anyway. Cameron and Osborn have made sure of that. The UK economy is in danger of triple dipping. Even the ghouls at the IMF think there is a problem.

Yeah, that austerity did wonders for their economy *snert*

We haven't actually had any austerity in the UK...

/ do carry on with your talking points, though.


Go look at how much cuts your local council has to make because of less funding from central government, nitwit.
2013-01-27 10:04:42 AM  
1 votes:

dopekitty74: farkeruk:
Trust me, I could find these people a job within a day. A friend of mine got made redundant recently and while looking for another job (he wasn't going to be unemployed for long), he got a job in a pub. It took less than a day of walking around town to get a job.
The whole reason why UK supermarkets, shops and cafes are stuffed full of Poles, Ukranians, Russians and Romanians is that those shops just can't get the staff.
Funny that, those are the sorts of jobs my hubby is trying to get there, and he can't get one, even though the last job he had, he held for nearly four years before marrying me and moving to Canada.


I love that story about how easy it is to get a menial job--always from a bunch of people who've never done that kind of work in their lives, but somehow always know that there's tons of illegals and stuff working in those fields, because no white people will do "that kind of work."

Maybe you should leave it to the people who actually do "that kind of work" to know what the job market is like in those fields. I don't see the crew at McDonalds telling YOU how to update your resume.
2013-01-27 10:02:20 AM  
1 votes:

LiberalConservative: Lighten up, tongue in cheek etc. Sounds like the American system is out of balance then, and perhaps corporation's requirements need adjusting. But I do hope you realise the purpose of a corporation is not to benefit society. Rather their purpose is to make profit which just happens to produce other benefits to society like products, services, employment, taxes and so on. If you do not agree to that... what solution or system do you suggest? Socialism/communism/comunes? -That last bit was more tongue in cheek in case you missed it.


That's precisely what the government was designed for: To keep entities that are doing harm to society in check. And right now, the average multinational corporation is doing more harm to society than good...and getting away with it by buying out of all the governments it can, and refusing to do business with those it can't. And the people outside of the government are allowing them to get away with it under the guise of freedom...as in "we're free to rid your pockets of all that excess money, and we're free to pay you as little as possible, and if you don't like that...well, you're free to suckle off the ebil gubmint teat...like we do."
2013-01-27 09:53:17 AM  
1 votes:
"We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It's important she looks nice.
"We like a takeaway too, Why shouldn't we? It isn't like I'm some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It's silly to think I'd actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.
"Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It's actually really hard for us. We're in a lose-lose situation here."


yeah, uh--that is not a real quote.
2013-01-27 09:46:31 AM  
1 votes:
Here is an uncomfortable truth: Western-style democracy/capitalism is not sustainable in a closed system with limited resources. Technology replaces people in the workforce. That is technology's purpose, from an economic perspective. As technology advances, less people are needed to the same work. We have now largely exploited the easily obtainable natural resources here in the continental US - so the major gravy train that has kept America at the economic forefront is drying up quickly. Employment itself is a finite resource needed by employees, and one that is growing more scarce as technology negates the need for people. This trend is going to continue until the proverbial tipping point is reached. What that tipping point will bring into existence is anyone's guess - but history and fiction do not offer many promising outcomes. Global climate change and water wars will only acerbate the problem.

Doom awaits us. DOOOOOOOM!

I make light of it, because what else can you do? The older I get, the more I think I should take over the world and become a benevolent dictator, despised in my own time, but later realized as someone who Did What Needed Doing.
2013-01-27 09:45:19 AM  
1 votes:
I think its great that we have advanced to the point in society that not everyone has to work. These people are now free to pursue more meaningful things in live without having to be tied down to a meaningless job just so they can pay bills.

I know if I didnt have to work and pay biulls, I would do other things that would help people more than my current crappy job.
2013-01-27 09:41:17 AM  
1 votes:
Three words for the best fix:

Basic Income Guarantee
2013-01-27 09:37:26 AM  
1 votes:
Whoa. Just read some of the posts. People here actually believe what The Sun reports?

/must believe The Enquirer about Bat-Boy being Oprah's love child as well.
2013-01-27 09:32:24 AM  
1 votes:

Flaumig: I have yet to encounter someone who can give me a legitemate reason why this is so bad. Oh sure, they can come up with plenty of reasons that are just different ways of whining "b-b-but it's not FAIIIIIIIIRRRR!!!", but no one ever comes up with an objectively good reason that people living "on the dole" are harmful to anyone other than themselves.

Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.


Well, let's see: perhaps it's because old people and children can't be expected to work, but 21 year old adults are perfectly capable of working. And well, I don't mind my money getting spent on educating kids, fixing roads, defence and people who can't work but I take exception to my money being spent on moochers.
2013-01-27 09:19:17 AM  
1 votes:
It's hard to believe that anyone would brag to reporters of how they are taking advantage of the welfare system, and thus jeopardize their dole.
2013-01-27 09:08:00 AM  
1 votes:
Let's see, the war on poverty where you take money from one person and give it to another has been going on for close to 70 years, spent TRILLIONS of dollars and has enslaved more people without raising them out of poverty?

That war? As George Bush would say, Mission Accomplished liberals!
2013-01-27 09:05:58 AM  
1 votes:
That paper published articles like this 2-3 times each week.

And FARK activates the DERP machine for each of them.
2013-01-27 08:59:52 AM  
1 votes:
My brother is on disability, and he has a nice TV too. Because it was gifted to him. A disabled vet I know has his own home, two cars, and a small sailboat. He inherited them. Maybe people shouldn't get outraged about things when they don't have all the pertinent facts.
2013-01-27 08:54:27 AM  
1 votes:

LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.


There's a bit of a difference there, in that the trust fund kiddies and retirees aren't living on the government dime.

But then, expecting people to work is socialism - to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities, and all that. Just dispensing checks without requesting anything in return is corporatism...
2013-01-27 08:49:05 AM  
1 votes:

LostGuy: Any sort of means-tested welfare will always backfire. What we need in developed countries is a universal citizens dividend that everyone receives whether they are disabled and can't work, work all the odd jobs they can, has a steady job, or makes millions on real-estate. We could get rid of so many beurocrats and paperwork. And we can make any job worth having.


Yeah, it makes a lot of sense although it could be a hard sell to some. But the benefits are that low paying jobs aren't effectively taxed at sometimes 80% or more because of all the welfare lost by the way the system works, without having to punish some 2 year old kids because of who they were born to.

Pretty sure it would never be implemented in the US even if it was massively successful in every other developed nation, I mean look at healthcare systems where the US can steadfastly maintain the worst of all possible worlds (for non-millionaires, and even just a millionaire is probably not 100% safe if they get the wrong illness and their insurance guy wants a bonus this year). After all a citizens dividend would also be paid out to blacks and hispanics, not just white people, so the majority of the white poor would vote/campaign against it.
2013-01-27 08:45:19 AM  
1 votes:
It's sad to see that self-respect and dignity are no longer considered to be worth anything.
2013-01-27 08:39:00 AM  
1 votes:
The parents probably bought the TV and furniture for these two as gifts.

Now, it's time they both grew up and go to work.
2013-01-27 08:31:18 AM  
1 votes:
And you all missed the actually cute chick at the bottom of the article.
2013-01-27 08:29:18 AM  
1 votes:

thepeterd: Gina could easily earn £110 an hour as an escort, probably more with that pretty month. I am assuming Gina is the one on the right in the photograph...


She wouldn't get £110/hr as an escort. She's not ugly, but she's really at a massage parlour standard. OK, if she got back-to-back clients, she'd get £100+, but a lot of the time, the girls in a massage parlour are sitting around waiting for a client.
2013-01-27 08:23:27 AM  
1 votes:
Raise the minimum wage. Tax companies that outsource into oblivion and encourage home grown replacements of those companies. Any able bodied person on assistance longer than six months has to go to school or work a couple days a week. If they are in public housing that work can be done maintaining/administrating the complex.

Necessities have become far too expensive, wages have stagnated and companies don't want to hire locally.

That said... this article is a steaming pile of bullsh*t. If it's not I'm sure whoever handles their case will be giving them a talking to very soon.
Hurr durr poor people be stealing mah monies!! Most of you idiots don't even pay taxes.
2013-01-27 08:15:22 AM  
1 votes:
Skiving?

Also, that's two people and a baby living off the equivalent of $30,000/ yr.

When the job market doesn't pay a living wage, what do you expect to happen?
2013-01-27 08:10:40 AM  
1 votes:

LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia).


In America, I believe that unemployment benefits are scaled to what you paid in, so here even full time min. wage work won't generally cover the bennies of a guy who was "too expensive" for a corporation to keep.

LiberalConservative: Or we could just hate on corporations because it is fun and socialism is so awesome.


Because expecting corporations to actually leave society better than when they took it is socialism, apparently.

/Meanwhile, you might wanna steer clear of false dichotomies.
2013-01-27 08:10:00 AM  
1 votes:

clapperton: I work with a Guy that likes to play the system. He has a baby with his batshiat crazy girlfriend (she's 21, its her 3rd kid with her 3rd baby-daddy) . When I say batshiat crazy, I'm talking diagnosed, unmedicated, split personality disorder. One personality even tries to kill him sometimes. Needless to say, she's receiving disability and all sorts of other benefits. So back to him, every January and July he calls in to work at least 2 or 3 times a week because he has to recertify for his handouts so he has to show he doesn't make much money. He even brags about it at work. We all biatch about how much of our paychecks is taken out in taxes, and he brags because he is collecting it.


Oh, I'm SO jealous of that lifestyle and the welfare money she's collecting.

The handout certification is probably so he doesn't make too much money to reduce her benefits, as they're together. Once a woman with kids from multiple fathers enters the system, shes better off single. The system is set up to keep men away from their children and out of the woman's household, or him not working if they're in the household. Mom is bat shiat crazy, the dad being around is probably saving the state a lot of foster and other costs.
2013-01-27 08:06:19 AM  
1 votes:
There's just no incentive to find work when we've got a better lifestyle than if we were to go out and work for 35-40 hours every week. Why would we give this up?

I was always told "Don't go past the principal's office if you don't have to"
2013-01-27 08:05:07 AM  
1 votes:

LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.


That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.
2013-01-27 08:01:44 AM  
1 votes:

LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.


I remember FL trying to pass that in 2011. Link

I did volunteer while I was on unemployment, mostly to take my mind off the fact that the 30+ job postings I'd applied to last week had either been filled already or the hiring manager wasn't taking 'check-up' calls on the positions. It was incredibly disheartening and discouraging spending hours of my day filling out job applications and typing up cover letters and catering my resume to each position (and yes, I was qualified for the positions for which I was applying) ... and hearing nothing in return. I volunteered at a public library and helped out at the front circulation desk so that I could keep my customer service skills sharp and 'advertise' myself, per se, by frankly telling anyone who asked why a woman in her mid-20s was a volunteer and not an employee my situation in the hopes that one of them might say, "Well, my company is hiring for some positions, here's my card".

Three months before my UA ran out, I moved from FL to another state. Within six weeks of my move, I had interviewed, been hired and had started training at a full-time temp job.

tl;dr: I volunteered while I was unemployed to stay sane and to maintain my customer service skills.
2013-01-27 07:56:52 AM  
1 votes:

IlGreven: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

Another solution? Maybe corporations could offer jobs that pay the job-seekers more than they get sitting at home.

But no, that would cut into a corp's profit, so that's right out.


Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia). This may vary elsewhere due to minimum wage rates and size of welfare payments. Is a balance i guess. If corporations are not paying enough to provide incentive to work I would expect government to impose increases to minimum wage; its in their best interest to do so since reducing welfare claims helps government budgets. Or we could just hate on corporations because it is fun and socialism is so awesome.
2013-01-27 07:54:39 AM  
1 votes:

Lernaeus: I've got family that are entitlement sponges ... liars and con artists, too, since they receive all kinds of benefits they legally don't qualify for.

I'm squeaking by working 50+ hours at a job and earning extra money on music and art projects, and they're not only bringing in more money than I am, but have all the free time in the world to drink, eat pills, smoke pot, party, play video games, eat out, and so on. They actually make fun of me "behind my back" for working (I guess they think I don't know how Facebook works).

Yeah, corporations need to stop getting government money (not to mention foreign countries), but so do welfare queens. The system is being abused on a rampant scale, and despite alleged initiatives to get people working and independent, entitlement workers actually advise people on methods of obtaining MORE in handouts.



So report the cheating family to the relevant authorities. They will investigate.

When I was 19, I was on benefits as an unmarried mom with no skills. I decided to go to college to be a scientist. I was accepted as a transfer from a community college into a good 4year college for a astro/physics degree and that summer began to volunteer as an intern at a local observatory. Our local paper got wind of my bootstrappiness thru the community colleges' PR person and the did a little story in the paper about how a welfare mom went to college and was now in an internship at an observatory.

That next week I had to embarrass myself by getting written notes from the head of the facility where I was interning, promising that I was not being compensated for my internship in any way -- because a paper pusher at the welfare office saw the article.

Oh, yes, if you report on someone, they will come.
2013-01-27 07:48:54 AM  
1 votes:

LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.


I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.
2013-01-27 07:45:46 AM  
1 votes:

LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.


Another solution? Maybe corporations could offer jobs that pay the job-seekers more than they get sitting at home.

But no, that would cut into a corp's profit, so that's right out.
2013-01-27 07:37:31 AM  
1 votes:
A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.
2013-01-27 07:22:35 AM  
1 votes:

GreenSun: It's just being smart. Why work if you'll make less than what you can get for free? Only work if you can earn more than you can get by not doing anything.

^ That up there.
Who's the bigger fool: the man who refuses to work because he doesn't have to, or the man who works to support him?

In the short term, the taxpayer is the fool. In the long run, the moocher is screwing himself because the funding will eventually dry up.
2013-01-27 07:11:07 AM  
1 votes:
*In Canada, you barely make enough to survive on welfare unless you also have subsidized housing, and each new addition to the family only adds approximately 50$ to your benefits(last i checked which was several yrs ago) You do also get child tax benefit, but even still, you don't do nearly as well as this family.

*my hubby is IN England, LOOKING FOR WORK, and they won't give him a damned cent, even though when he first went over, i was making minimum wage here in canada, and not full-time hours, and am now unemployed.

*my ei runs out in a couple of months, neither of us can find work in our respective countries, I'm afraid I'm never going to see him again at this rate. It'll be a year in may since he left to go looking. :(
2013-01-27 07:08:34 AM  
1 votes:
According to Wikipedia, unemployment in the UK in January of 2012 was at 8.3% Link. According to a report from Moody's, Food Stamps (not the only type of benefits, but certainly one type of benefit) gives the best return on investment for government spending (I had a link for this, but Fark didn't like it. Google Mark Zandi Stimulus Impact 2008).

The way I see it, with unemployment this high, the best "stimulus" a government can provide is in the form of welfare to the unemployed. So I don't begrudge these people their benefits. I certainly wouldn't trade places with them for anything.

/at least, that's what I keep telling myself so I don't have the urge to go homicidal
2013-01-27 06:56:22 AM  
1 votes:
Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.

not as pathetic as you making overbroad conclusions after reading a sham article from a propaganda newspaper, but i digress.
2013-01-27 06:46:06 AM  
1 votes:

EvilEgg: Lsherm: EvilEgg: "Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.

Article said 47 inch TV.  Not huge, but big enough.

The one in the article hardly looks 47"


I recently got a 47" TV. In this room it does look huge. Unless that couch is deep enough to also be a footstool for normal sized people and these are secret British giants that is NOT a 47" TV. It *might* be a 37" TV. I mean come on, Look at that tiny end table with the laptop that barely fits on it. I'm not sure that little end table is ever 1.5 feet across and yet that TV might just barely be twice the width of it.
2013-01-27 06:43:46 AM  
1 votes:
Humanity is an interesting mix.

Some people will go to great lengths, working darned hard, tryign to make de when they victim of a setback and reluctant to take a handout unless they just can't avoid it.

Others will turn down a higher paycheck for a much lower amount of free money, and will mooch, fake, lie, pretend to have whatever status it takes to keep getting that money.

It is hard to make a system that helps the former that isnt abused by hordes of the latter.
2013-01-27 06:36:49 AM  
1 votes:

digistil: "Of course there are people that believe we think ridiculous things, such as: 'We could easily get a job but why would we want to work - we would be worse off.' In reality, we spend 80 hours a week looking for work, but there are no jobs. Businesses say it's the austerity measures."


Trust me, I could find these people a job within a day. A friend of mine got made redundant recently and while looking for another job (he wasn't going to be unemployed for long), he got a job in a pub. It took less than a day of walking around town to get a job.

The whole reason why UK supermarkets, shops and cafes are stuffed full of Poles, Ukranians, Russians and Romanians is that those shops just can't get the staff.
2013-01-27 06:34:16 AM  
1 votes:
After looking over this thread again, I see the Sun was once again wildly successful in leading today's two-minute hate.
2013-01-27 06:21:34 AM  
1 votes:

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


To be fair, this is the Sun. They've been known to completely take things out of context in order to humiliate someone in difficult circumstances, in the name of sensationalizing a non-story.

This likely how it went:

"Of course there are people that believe we think ridiculous things, such as: 'We could easily get a job but why would we want to work - we would be worse off.' In reality, we spend 80 hours a week looking for work, but there are no jobs. Businesses say it's the austerity measures."

The part in bold is the portion the Sun printed.
2013-01-27 06:21:32 AM  
1 votes:
If they want to live like parasites then go for it. I'd prefer if tax payers money went to more deserving people, but at least I can look at myself on the mirror unlike these spineless farks who will never amount to shiat.
2013-01-27 06:21:29 AM  
1 votes:

jtown: Or perhaps government sponsored homes should be dorm style...


I like this idea, as long as you're only applying it to those who need long-term housing help. It'd suck to have to sell your house and pay to store all your possessions just to get your unemployment check. ;)
2013-01-27 06:20:49 AM  
1 votes:

BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?


In the UK it's not so much that they'd be worse off (the benefits system stops that), it's that there is a benefit withdrawal rate that is the equivalent of a 75-85% tax rate. Someone on the £7/hr minimum wage will end up about £10 better off for a day's work after tax and loss of benefits. Take off say £3/day for bus etc, and you're left with very little for taking 8 hours of crap rather than spending it with your family.
2013-01-27 06:14:11 AM  
1 votes:
I always get a kick out of people who claim they're entitled to welfare money because their parents pay taxes. For one, I seriously doubt their parents pay £17,680 a year in tax, and even if they did, don't these morons realize that taxes are meant to pay for things we benefit from every day like schools, roads, police, military, a court/legal system, trash/waste disposal, and (seeing as this is the UK) healthcare?
2013-01-27 05:44:58 AM  
1 votes:

a login name very similar to this one: I think were all missing the more important underlying story here: where the fark does this guy get his hair cut?

[img.thesun.co.uk image 620x467]


I was going to ask roughly the same thing. Same place this guy does, I presume.
i.imgur.com
2013-01-27 05:32:17 AM  
1 votes:
"Danny's mum, 45, works as a carer."

I wonder if when the market gets tight she says, "I couldn't carer less..."
2013-01-27 05:28:48 AM  
1 votes:
I wonder if there are British people who read the Enquirer or the World net Daily and think it's really about stuff that actually happens in America.
2013-01-27 05:27:38 AM  
1 votes:
It is supposed to be a safety net, you farking morons, not a frakking hammock!
2013-01-27 05:20:16 AM  
1 votes:
I got a 46" TV a year ago on Boxing Day for $400 CDN. That size TV isn't very expensive anymore.
2013-01-27 04:00:19 AM  
1 votes:

EvilEgg: "Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.


Article said 47 inch TV.  Not huge, but big enough.
2013-01-27 01:53:50 AM  
1 votes:
When the idle poor become the idle rich,
You'll never know just who is who or who is which,
Won't it be rich when everyone's poor relative becomes a Rockefellertive,
And palms no longer itch, what a switch,
When we all have ermine and plastic teeth,
How will we determine who's who underneath?
And when all your neighbors are upper class,
You won't know your Joneses from your Astors,
Let's toast the day,
The day we drink that drinkie up,
But with the little pinkie up,
The day on which, the idle poor become the idle rich.
When a rich man doesn't want to work,
He's a bon vivant, yes, he's a bon vivant,
But when a poor man doesn't want to work,
He's a loafer, he's a lounger, he's a lazy good for nothing, he's a jerk.
When a rich man loses on a horse, isn't he the sport?
Oh isn't he the sport?
But when a poor man loses on a horse,
He's a gambler, he's a spender, he's a lowlife,
He's a reason for divorce.
When a rich man chases after dames,
He's a man about town, oh, he's a man about town,
But when a poor man chases after dames,
He's a bounder, he's a rounder, he's a rotter and a lotta dirty names.
When the idle poor become the idle rich,
You'll never know just who is who or who is which,
No one will see the Irish or the Slav in you,
For when you're on Park Avenue, Cornelius and Mike look alike.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever way, same as it ever was.
2013-01-27 01:48:58 AM  
1 votes:
Fox News + boobies = The Sun.
2013-01-27 01:29:08 AM  
1 votes:

violentsalvation: The Sun and the Daily Mail sure report a lot on people like this. They must handsomely compensate the lazy bastards. Either that or they just feel THAT entitled that they are willing to talk about it. Maybe both. I dunno.


Or perhaps the reporters could lie to them as to what the interview is about.
2013-01-27 01:25:54 AM  
1 votes:
The Sun and the Daily Mail sure report a lot on people like this. They must handsomely compensate the lazy bastards. Either that or they just feel THAT entitled that they are willing to talk about it. Maybe both. I dunno.
2013-01-27 01:24:14 AM  
1 votes:
That was odd.
2013-01-27 01:22:58 AM  
1 votes:
How do you get a job seekers benefit if you're not seeking a job?
2013-01-27 12:54:46 AM  
1 votes:

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


It happens here, too.
2013-01-27 12:19:24 AM  
1 votes:
I honest thought it was going to be a story on the Royal Family.
 
Displayed 103 of 103 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report