Fox (n): carnivore of genus vulpes; crafty person; scavenger; (vb) to confuse; -ed (adj): to be drunk.

Monday, 25 June 2012

These people.


IT'S the culture of entitlement that sticks in the throat.

The idea that you are due something for not doing much, that someone else ought to pay for the roof over your head, and that however many children you have and however much they may cost the price for all of it will be covered, somehow, by another.

The scroungers, the cheats, the fraudsters who constantly have their hands in our pockets without so much as a by-your-leave or even a thank you.

They make tens of thousands a year, these little sods, while the hard-working classes slave and have to suffer cutbacks and decide they can't afford another child and turn down the heating.

It's about time we all stopped pussy-footing around it for fear of upsetting these leeches and had a proper, informed debate about the something-for-nothings who are bringing the nation to its knees.

So let's start with Dishface's plans to discourage people having more than three children. Why stop there? Two is the maximum required to sustain the population, and seeing as there's 62million of us already perhaps it should be only one, like they do in China.

As with all things the Government does this new policy is best illustrated by picking a particularly fecund family who cause a lot of trouble, so let's start the forced abortions and fines for over-breeding with the Windsors.


This shameless little lot - immigrants, originally - have boasted about their lifestyle in a series of TV documentaries. The matriarch comes from a long line of feckless layabouts and herself spawned four children, far more than necessary. One of them runs a charity and another only works three days a week, but they both do better than the other two who enjoy a lavish lifestyle the sources of funding for which are obscure.

Three of the four have created broken homes by wilfully getting divorced, the grandchildren seem to fall in and out of bars most nights, and one of them has had noted issues with drugs, Nazis, racist comments and even been questioned over killing rare birds.

One has just married a girl who's never done a proper job in her life yet blows around £35,000 a year on clothes and make-up - all paid for by someone else. The family's agog for her to start breeding too, to boost their claims upon the state.

A shocking bunch. They should all be spayed, according to Dishface's rules.

"Quite simply," he says, "we have been encouraging working-age people to have children and not work... this is difficult territory but at a time when so many are struggling isn't it right that we ask whether those in the welfare system are faced with the same kinds of decisions that working people have to wrestle with when they have a child?"

Of course we should, and about time. Did you know there is a group of 136 people who expect the state to pay their children's wages? Not just their offspring, either, but their spouses too sometimes, and they're earning a comfortable whack - 46 of them earn over £30,000.

We spend £3m a year providing jobs to the relatives of MPs, and while I'm sure there are some working hard for it you also have the likes of Derek Conway, who was suspended and then stepped down after being found to have employed sons Freddie and Henry as researchers when they hadn't actually done much research.

Outrageous. As Dishface says, these people should have to make the same kinds of decisions as ordinary parents who can't all get their youngsters a job someone else pays the wages for.

Then there's housing benefit being removed for the under-25s, forcing the unemployed to work for a living and limiting their financial support for two years.

Quite right. We'll start that policy with a man who was supported by his parents his entire life, who is one of four children, who thought nothing of staying out all night at 14, getting boozed at 16, who bought his first home with a mortgage he can't have afforded on his wages as a 'researcher'.


Neither his father, grandfather and great-grandfather had proper jobs, preferring instead to juggle other people's money while taking the occasional bit as a fee for the juggling, and he associated in his youth - and in fact is related to - those aforementioned feckless layabouts the Windsors.

He picked up girls at 'sherry parties', he not only demanded the state pay for his home but thought it right we pay for his wisteria to be trimmed as well, and he had four children himself without consideration for whether an over-populated island really needed them.

His cash benefits amount to £142,500, plus more for mortgage interest, council tax, heating, water, electricity, gas, two further free homes we pay for when he has two of his own (one without a mortgage), travel costs, food and oh yes, we pay for his parties too.

And what does he do for that money? Well, he watches football.


He plays fruit ninja.

He flies his tennis coach out to Tuscany while London is having riots.

He also makes lots of 'policy decicions' every day, and says that he gets up at 5.40am to start reading missives from a little army of people who do as he tells them without wondering if he actually has a mandate to make them do these things.

And he says lots of very sensible stuff about how we should crack down on the feckless and withdraw state support from those who don't earn it.

"We have created a welfare gap in this country," he said. "Between those living long-term in the welfare system and those outside it. This has sent out some incredibly damaging signals. That it pays not to work. That you are owed something for nothing. It created a culture of entitlement."

He's quite right. Those living off the state in Buckingham Palace and Westminster think they deserve a comfortable lifestyle and that those who do not have the same lifestyle are wrong in all they do.

These people think that £20.30 a week child benefit for your first youngster, and £13.40 for successive children, is not only enough to pay for them but will even leave parents with a profit.

These people think that paying tens of thousands a year in housing benefit to under-25s, most of whom are working and on low income, is a way of the poor making money rather than private landlords.

These people think that they can have as many children as they please, but that other people can't.

But thankfully there is one man who wants to change all that, who wants to even out the unfairness and make everyone work and pay their way. He will stop the reliance on the public purse we are all disgusted by and make the scroungers knuckle down and earn.

I'd happily vote for that, but it seems that as the Prime Minister can't enforce any of these grand schemes while in Coalition and he also can't get elected on his own we'll miss out on all these lovely reforms and have to put up with the corrupt, degrading, them-and-us hierarchy we're stuck with.

Then he'll be made redundant and we'll have to pay him even more.

Man's a prophet if you ask me.