Classic - abusive comments on mental health and crying to the teacher when you’re called out.EDJOHNS wrote:No doubt you believe the garbage you write. Funny how so many people take you to task for twisting things yet it is, according to you,always the other person doing the twisting.Darlogramps wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:38 amPutting your thin-skinned paranoia to one side, a lot of people in this thread seem confused by what you’re arguing.EDJOHNS wrote: Yet again this idiot changes totally what I said for his own ends, which is simply to argue and cause trouble.
NO .... " why should this group (let’s say 25-35)", Simply younger kids pay as now, and once they hit the point of EARNING AN ADULT wage, and taking the age of 25 simply as an example when most will have finished Uni or an apprenticeship, (as I said previously), to be the point where they start to pay into some form of pension scheme. I really don't see what is hard to understand about that, unless of course, you just want to continue your previous argument with anything I say.
What you’re asking for already happens. When young people start working, they pay National Insurance. And I think pretty much every company by law is required to get its workers to pay into a pension scheme.
So everything you’re arguing for already happens.
Because if you think they don’t, then you’re incorrect and if you think they do then you’re asking for them to pay more. And that too would be morally wrong because, as I keep saying getting poorer younger people to pay more for better off older people’s healthcare is fundamentally an unfair idea.
So you agree you want to change things for younger people? Good, excellent. That means you did say you want things to change.EDJOHNS wrote: Neither, was I the 1 to say things need to change, I merely said that to change things for older people who have paid in for 40 years or more is wrong morally and the change needs to be aimed more at the starting end of paying in. Too difficult to understand?
There is no contract when it comes to paying National Insurance. It’s a tax based on income and rises and falls in line with Government policy. To increase this based on age would be discriminatory in my opinion.
If you want to go on about “lovely chap” Ted....EDJOHNS wrote: I do wish when you want to discuss with me you would stop changing what I said to fit your latest winge. You did say some time ago you were happy to do so,(Naaa, I can't be arsed to go back and copy-paste to prove my point). So often you take things off at an unneeded tangent just so you can have a dig and show what a lovely chap you are.
You’re the one who pretended you were dead just to get a laugh out of Darlo_Pete.
And that’s before we get on to your failed takeover of Darlington FC. Don’t be taking the moral high ground because it won’t wash.
The issue is, whenever you’re struggling in an argument you just demonise everyone else you’re arguing against. In this thread, you’ve misunderstood something and taken it as a personal attack. I’m actually trying to have a reasonable conversation with you about and the NHS. I haven’t changed anything you’ve said, I haven’t twisted anything. It’s all quoted directly. Wind down the outrage and actually try discussing things instead of attacking others when they don’t agree with you.
PLEASE, put up any hard EVIDENCE to support this.
"If you want to go on about “lovely chap” Ted....
You’re the one who pretended you were dead just to get a laugh out of Darlo_Pete.
And that’s before we get on to your failed takeover of Darlington FC. Don’t be taking the moral high ground because it won’t wash."
Going on past evidence, I am sure the admins will be happy to block me if you have a single shred of real evidence.
If not, admins, could you please ask this nut case to desist as he spoils thread after thread with his waffling.
1. On the Solihull Moors thread, you repeatedly brought up they were funded through their car park. Over on Facebook, Ted Forster made exactly the same point at exactly the same time.
2. Darlo_Pete, who you humiliated during your self-indulgent aborted takeover, refers to you as Ted on the Rugby League thread.
3. You’ve never denied it. And others, without my intervention, have reached the same conclusion.
4. If you’re not Ted Forster, why would you know admins have repeatedly shut down your accounts?
5. Ted Forster on Facebook supports Hull KR. EDJOHNS in the Rugby League thread also supports Hull KR.
6. You’ve said you’re 70 and have worked in hospitality/tourism in Europe. Both the ages and working sectors tally up with you being Ted Forster (I’ve checked Northern Echo articles on your aborted takeover).