Tuesday, 30 July 2013

Squeak piggy squeak (or Bedroom Tax).

A judge called Laws (is this for real?) has ruled that the Bedroom Tax does not breach human rights.  I spent a lot of time growing up making excuses for people like that.  They will typically be all condescending and pout their lips and furrow their brow and consider the fine details and explain how because of this and that and section 2 a b c iii technically it is not a breach of human rights.  But it doesn't need someone to high-jack the meaning of human rights by attempting to define them in a set of words to ultimately define human rights.  The Bedroom Tax clearly breaches human rights.  If you fuck a pig I don't need a book to tell me whether that breaches the pig's animal rights.

Oh SORRY! - Is that language too strong for you?  Try living the life of a vulnerable person being kicked out of their home.  Fucking Pigs!  That is nothing compared to what this government is doing to hundreds of thousands of people in the UK every day.

Apparently the Department for Work and Pensions said the cuts were necessary but insisted it was still supporting the needy.  Well maybe they (the DWP) are (analogously) a pig who has been traumatised by being raped by an overpowering alien species.  Maybe they simply CAN'T think straight.  Maybe the trauma has caused them to go cross eyed (both metaphorically and literally) and they cannot see beyond their own personal, limited, immediate, self interest.  These welfare cuts and the Bedroom Tax are simply NOT necessary.  Of course one can find a subset of details to make a case to attempt to justify the idea behind the cuts but it is disturbingly and excessively myopic.

Just less than average intelligence is probably enough to understand that if you have 100 three bedroom houses and 100 two person families that it takes a vicious sadist to determine that it follows no one should be allowed to live in a house.  The idea that people should be provided with somewhere to live and that it should approximately fit their needs is a reasonable standpoint.  But taking the given situation and throwing people out of their homes they have lived in for years with no satisfactory solution is nothing short of Nazi tactics.

I am a little upset by the perceived necessity for disabled people to fight the government on the basis of their disablement.  It is sadly playing into the hands of the bullies.  Eventually the bullies will make the appearance of a compassionate compromise but they will have effectively got the support of the disabled people and all their sympathisers and a lot of fuzzy minded middle people to accept the abuse of everyone else.  Think - Stockholm Syndrome.  The bully is beating you over the head tearing your eyes out and twisting your arm.  You complain your arm is hurting and when they finally stop twisting your arm you thank them.  I mean the fucking pig comes back to mind.  "Squeak squeak!  You are pulling my hair!"  So the rapist stops pulling the hair.

Just stand back and look at this country.  There is no justification for stealing from the poor.  It is clearly contradictory to suggest things will be better if poor people become poorer.  We know it is the inhumane irresponsible criminal behaviour of the people with the most power and influence in this country who have caused the problem.  But because the richer people are deluded into thinking they need "the bankers" they literally let them get away with it arguing that if they pursue the bankers they will leave the country and then where would we be.  This is so clearly the product of bullies at school I don't know why more people can't see it.  This is cultural Stockholm Syndrome.  See it the way the bullies see it and they won't hurt you so much.

1 comment:

  1. "It is clearly contradictory to suggest things will be better if poor people become poorer."

    And yet millions of poor people are dumb enough to keep voting for the system which steals their money and ruins the social fabric of society. Stockholm syndrome indeed!