Councils pay for disabled to visit prostitutes and lap-dancing clubs from £520m taxpayer fund

  • Thread starter Thread starter SedesDomi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaninchen said:
Well, I’d kind of expected a ‘Doh!’ kind of response early on.

Don’t worry, CAF is the scene of an endless supply of ‘Ain’t it awful!’ threads, so you won’t miss out for long. 🙂
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
Well played! I had to scroll up 16 posts to re-parse this all! That must be a record for longest bad joke…hmm…now where were we…?
 
Musicadmirer said:
Taxpayers dollars/taxpayers pounds. To clarify, regardless of currency, this is taxpayers MONEY, and it is being misused in the worst way. The only way it could get any worse is if children were involved.
Click to expand...
Considering the story involves Amsterdam’s red light district, where any amount of filth is sold, your post contains some awful food for contemplation.
I pray that these people see some sense.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
 
Are you implying that disabled people should get no government money just because ONE individual decided to spend his money on something immoral? Also, the thread title is intentionally dishonest.
 
MariaTS said:
Are you implying that disabled people should get no government money just because ONE individual decided to spend his money on something immoral? Also, the thread title is intentionally dishonest.
Click to expand...
I am saying that the structure of the system coupled with the approval of this decision by social workers is wrong and need to be examined. of course disabled people should be supported by society. paying for a prostitute is not support its escapism.

How is the title dishonest? Money from a government funded scheme is provided to social services, the social service client uses said money on a prostitute. How does this account differ form the title?
 
MariaTS said:
Are you implying that disabled people should get no government money just because ONE individual decided to spend his money on something immoral? Also, the thread title is intentionally dishonest.
Click to expand...
In so as there is one transgression, the system should be reviewed no? If there was a train accident and 1 person died, isn’t it still a tragedy? Should nothing be done because only ONE individual died?

-Prophecy
 
As a UK taxpayer I have to say that I am disgusted that my money is used put towards this sort of obscenity.

Of course I want the disabled to be supported, that’s not where my disgust is aimed at. Rather, it’s aimed at a system that is devised such that there seems to be carte-blanche for any ‘social worker’ to decided to spend money in this way when it is supposed to be for catering to the special needs of disabled people (i.e. mobility scooters, adjustments to housing to enable independent living, carers allowances for those who are physically limited, etc).

All that being said, I would point out that this story comes from a the UK newspaper the “Daily Mail” which is renowned for its scandal mongering and reactionary tendencies. It is frequently caught out in its reporting of things as one thing where the reality is another. Quite often the stories are blatant lies and yet they stick to their guns and publish regardless. Furthermore the paper is frequently guilty of bare faced hypocrisy - publishing, for example, op-eds about fat people being discriminated against unjustly while, on the same page, trailing a story about how a famous person has got thin and how wonderful it is.

So, while I’m disgusted at the story as it is presented, I’m also doing so with a bit of reserve, since there may be many things about the situation we almost certainly do not know, including whether it’s even true or not.
 
The_Reginator said:
This story is jarring.
How can presumably intelligent people be such imbeciles?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That statement is an insult to imbeciles everywhere.

And that social worker needs a swift kick in the crotch, and/or a knuckle sandwich.
 
Ponyguy said:
That statement is an insult to imbeciles everywhere.

And that social worker needs a swift kick in the crotch, and/or a knuckle sandwich.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go that far, ponyguy!
Your post, however, brought to mind a joke I heard a while back:
Q:what’s the difference between a social worker and a rottweiller?
A:you can get your kid back from a rottweiller!

Oops, unkind, I know and apologies for the humourous(?) sidetrack off topic!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top