How true that is, but most people are wise enough to know all about the smoke and mirrors game and simply don't believe anything unless we've sussed it out for ourselves.and are always justifiably suspicious.
'They would like us to go back 100 years ago when we - the people believed everything the goverments told us,brainwashed to be underdogs and inferior, by giving them no rights. keeping people so poor and overworked,they had no time to think properly because of malnutrition. We know the upper classes didn't want the proletarians educated fearing that they'd learn to think for themselves - or of anything except making the rich richer.
Lowering wages and puttin folk out of work-- how stupid, how are people supposed to live, and as it is forcast that thousands more houses will be repossesed have they planned where all these people will go. Sofull of their own importance, their tiny pea brains havent reached that far.
Most people now , especially since the wars, and being more educated - know better.
'They' dont get away with 'everything' nowadays, but still far too much.
Aless passive nation would be out on the sreets complaining.
A bit of trivia;;
In the Boer war they lowered the height for recruits by 3 " as the nation was so under nourished.

Ladies,

We must not confuse education with common sense. To a large extent you can buy an education, but you can't buy common sense. And I've never seen a better case than with the inept shower that are currently in office. They might have qualifications, but if it wasn't who they were, they'd be totally unemployable.

They are unemployable- that's why they are in post- no where else to put them. Imagine leaving your 8 year old in a pub.

I would expect the 8 year old to be with a parent or guardian at all times if in a pub and I take it there were no minders or security staff with them that might have noticed one member missing.

Maybe this is too simplistic but, couldn't one parent contact the other and ask if the child was with them?

I don't think Cameron or Osborne have ever had a proper job.
They worked as advisers in parliament, though who on earth would want their advice!
Cameron is clearly mentally challenged and is one of the thickest Prime Ministers we have ever had.
There's no one to vote for anymore, they are all crooks as far as I am concerned.

The problem is that people think educated means intelligent.
Educated thickos get on in the world, and of course they are the well to do.Thats why we have a government like this lot.
How they would get on in a state school I wouldn't like to guess.
....................................
About leaving the child. When my son was 3 weeks old I took him to the local shop to --show off.
As I started walking up the road someone opened the shop door shouting, HAVENT YOU FORGOTTEN SOMETHING. What does that make me?

Osborne has never held down a real job, unless you count folding towels in Selfridges or data inputting for the NHS. The muppet even changed his name to make himself more "electable". - His given name was Gideon.

Camoron [sic] has never had a real job, but managed to lose some nuclear missiles under the Thatcher government ('89). - They have never been recovered.

Frankly, I don't believe either of them could run a proverbial in a brewery, never mind the country. And as for that Clegg chap, best not get me started, the Dr. has warned me about my blood pressure.

Re: Osborne and Cameron- there you have it Rebonnk. These are their qualifications. Ozzie's as a data inputter - same as he does now- inputs numbers to fit the hole. Cameron losing nuclear missiles - he loses everything- votes most of all. Clegg- well puppet comes to mind.

Not totally off topic...

We continue to accept mediocrity and failure when we need to stamp it out.

Yesterday I had the financial report for some shares I hold. I quote, "The board has reviewed the KPIs* above and compared them to the business plan and is disappointed to report the decline in the year."

Yet, they've increased their staff, increased their own remuneration packages and now have the cheek to seek re-election to office for the good they've done. I'll tell you, they don't get my vote!

It's the same with politicians. You can count the good ones on one hand. People complain about them, yet vote for them year after year. Whilst this situation continues things won't change.

Then again, if our vote actually made any difference, we wouldn't get one would we?

*= Key performance indicators

I have a 3 year old grandson who is good at putting numbers into the right holes, but he's getting a bit bored with it. Perhaps I should ask ozzie
whatthe next stage is. Or ask the child what he thinks Ozzie should do next.

By the way I prefer the name Gideon !

another tale...........and very true.
I cant think I've mentioned this before but if so, well here it is again.
We're back to the social services, of course.
A woman I know is always 'desperate ' for money She has 2 children 2 and 10. In between partners at present.!
The social workers feels sorry, and she gets anything she asks for.beds appliances , and money.
Every time she gets a cheque-- which seems to be often, she has a tattoo 'to cheer myself up'
. 14 up to now.
I didn't say a word !!!

What is it with tattoos, why do they have to have them, is it some kind of status symbol?
I don't think they are at all attractive.
Beckham has them all over his body, and it must be a goulish sight for his kids, who surely, when the see the father marked like that ask for themselves to have tattoos.
Tattoos used to be confined in British history to sailors in the Royal Navy and then only on the forearms, as far as I know, but now it seem a whole cultural things.

Sorry ot veer off topic.

I'm no fan of tattoos, but to each their own.

I do object to people having them removed on the NHS, they chose to have them why should we pay for their mistakes?

But what really tickles me is how these tattoos look on skin that isn't in the first flush of youth. Putting it mildly, it ain't nice.

I agree with what you all say but --come on...Tattoos withsocial services money when it's supposed to be for food.

Of course, you are quite right, it's not on. Perhaps only giving vouchers for food/clothing/bedding etc. would be the answer? - Mind you, last time I suggested such a thing I was called a fascist.

Last week, I was on the bus and overheard a young lady(18ish) in discussion with someone on the phone. She claimed that she only got £90/fortnight for her and her child to live on. Now, that isn't much and no doubt she actually had other benefits, but she looked very well dressed and her child and pram looked absolutely lovely. I do seriously wonder about how these people survive.

I don't know a lot about the benefits system here but, correct me if I am wrong, but might that be what is left after all the bills are paid including council tax and rent? I find it hard to believe that they only have £90 in total to pay all things.

Most people with children who are on benefits have their bills paid, there are a few exceptions.
I know many people on benefits in the area where my sister lives. Foe example the tattoo lady I mentioned has no rent, gas electricity to pay ,,she actually said 'I'mm glad I dont have bills coming in'
and even begrudges having to take her own bin out.
Don't know how they get away with it.