Member Info for Birdsong

I will read answers, but just because I don't reply is more a case of not wanting long drawn out discussions which both you and I will never accept the other sides view, as I know what I say is correct, no matter what facts, stats are dragged up. It get long boring for all and whilst it effect Lloyds as it drags the UK down, it won't be liked by all. So don't assume by having the last word I am beaten or proven wrong, whilst not all fit my suggestions all too many do, fact, but not surprisingly they don't shout the facts as don't want the gravy train upset.

Re "60% to 62% of all children living in workless households (where no adult is in paid work) live in relative poverty'."

This may come as a surprise to you or AI, but people LIE.

They won't tell HMG IF they say they are single but really living with someone. They won't say if they work cash in hand, or the undeclared partner does. Also living in 'poverty' is calculated by taking a percentage of the lowest income 'least that that IS declared' so as the population rises, of COURSE the numbers living in so called poverty will rise. But go back just a few years and see the living standard difference of what was considered a decent standard of living to what is expected from those who have selfishly bought children into their 'oh so dire' world, when free contraception is available, hardly great parents expecting others to keep their night of fun.

Whilst HMG fears a smaller population due to top heavy CURRENT elderly population, EVENTUALLY with less children born the balance would have been restored, but HMG allow in countless people, who will all age themselves and all be pensioners, making even more young needed to fund them in old age, and as we all too often see, IF not blinkered, many don't even pay their way from the get go, and often have scattered broken familes, who all have to be kept, so rather than an asset many are a drain not funding themselves, let alone the growing elderly population.

See it from away from you AI facts, for like all data, it can be very subjective.

You need to mix with the lower classes for a while to know what is destroying the UK and why. The answers won't all be on AI .

None of which changes the fact that only a few years ago, if someone said they were going to have another addition to their family, a fellow worker was very likely to say, 'you had better put in for a raise, or a bit more overtime'. Now many know they can do less hours, have the lost 'wage' made up via working tax credits, child tax credits, and all the 'means tested' gains that brings, such as free school meals, school uniforms, school transportation if living a certain distance from the school, along with free prescriptions for all the family as well as free dental care for the entire family.

Extra help with heating, often free gym membership, and of course heavily subsidised rent and council tax and free for some cases.

Also if you have a child with issues, then more is given, and mobility car, which of course many working people cannot afford to own IF paying their own way in life.

Added to the above, is the fact that working a mere 16hr single person, OR likely 'allegedly so' yet rarely sleeping alone, gains extra payments, and if the invisible lover, chooses to work, deal etc then a cosy lucrative set up is created of which many many do, often the mother or muver, has part time cash in hand job too if can be bothered or bovered.

Whilst AI Gov data may be chosen to refute all the above as mere gutter press talk, I and many others who KNOW working or underclass people will tell you that what I say is right, no matter what stats are used.

That is why many on here are so out of touch as is HMG as the circles they move in and know, are a world apart from a growing majority of people 'using' children to gain a free home and a very lucrative and nice life, as they often chose to work a few hours, and live well on the then max benefits, whilst those mugs working full time are funding the takers. Sadly they are the children of the previous generation in many cases who grew up with non working parents, and now know, with more and more given, that they have no 'need' to work, so HMG bring in imms' but once settled here they to have the choice to work or not and the larger the family the larger the gain, so the choice is often easy.

I am sure you will disagree with all, no matter, I know it is true in many many cases, and these people are not all horrid people but have grown up thinking they are entitled, and see no harm, only gain in living that way.

The system was under strain when it was only the Brits doing so, now the world has caught on, the demise is certain for the UK taxpayers. They can only take from those with, and the squeakiest wheel certainly gets the most oil in the UK. Remember people lie, cheat and are deceitful from the top to the very bottom of society. Can't blame them, but it needs addressing, but too late as no Gov would ever get in IF it dared.

Re: "You paid the pensioners at the time you were working"

As would have the next generation and so on.

But as the indigenous wisely chose to have less children than in the past generations, HMG, watching a growing elderly population thought that there wouldn't be enough 'paying in' to keep the 'then' larger number of pensioners.

But what HMG didn't equate was that given a few short years, the numbers of FUTURE pensioners would have fallen, thus not needing ever more young working to fund them all.

But HMG chose to pay huge benefits to people to have children via child tax, and working tax credits, along with child allowance, extra funding for school meals, school transport, uniforms, etc, extra funding if, as many have, children with issues. Sadly this encouraged a lot of people to have children from the lower end of society who did so knowing they would gain a home, with free or heavily subsidised rent and c.tax, and have a good income, just by having children, so they never 'paid in' to the system, and the children grew up, and did as their parent, or more rarely parents did, and chose the same lifestyle in many cases.

So few funded the pensioners, or themselves as they aged. So HMG thought lets import people of working age to fund the problem, but many of them once given the same rights as the indigenous, did the same, and chose to have large families, and not work, so took instead of funding pensions for the growing elderly.

Now we have more people, who will all age too, and if as many chose to do, and not work, then they have not paid in to keep themselves in old age, let alone the pensioners who they were supposed to be funding in their 'idle' working years.

Hence the mess we are in now.

As child benefits increase, the message to children growing up in sub working class homes is 'there is no need to work' as you are little better off unless you can get a top job, and you have the week off to do as you please and earn cash in hand, deal in drugs, or just enjoy life whilst young and not 'wait' until you are too old and frail to do so as the idiots who choose working all their lives oft sadly do.

Take one heck of a Gov to sort out the mess now with pensions. Many here are too affluent to understand working class or sub working class mindsets.

Lgen doing well, likely on re invested divs, but nice to see. Let's hope somehow it gains from the pension issues for the UK future.

Guns, true, short and sweet!

Asi, Re "The debate over defence spending often ignores a fundamental question: what are we actually paying for?"

Most of us it seems now and in the past judging by some WW2 programmes assumed we paid to prevent an invasion of our country by people who were not invited or welcome, who would likely once arrived in sufficient numbers and strength, change our society forever, would pillage, take what they wanted without caring about the indigenous populations protests, wants and needs, and destroy our culture forever more and eventual fully rule us with no chance to oust the leadership, forcing us to then do and live as they wish, banning any protest, freedom of speech, removing all weapons but ensuring they were rarely unarmed, whilst doing fully as they wished with no consequences.

So, on that note I would suggest the 'five days' of resisting would be a waste of time now, for perhaps a stronger invading force may ultimately benefit the UK's future as what rules now and in the past has managed to fail to avoid much of the above with the only uniform visible being a puffer jacket and the only necessary weapon a mobile phone to mostly be able to achieve those goals nowadays.

Still the young have all the answers and like all generations AND politicians choose to blame the last lot for their own woes, be funny to see how this woke lot dish out blame as they age and their offspring accuse them of failing their society.

Perhaps AI will replace HMG and all will be well with the world, the UK and thus lloyds shares.

So you could be you are correct and forget any military defence spending, and provide each person a secure metal box to hide away in until the danger has passed to a lesser prepared person. Alternatively perhaps any future superior invading force may cure some of the ills the UK now otherwise faces, ending wokism, the workshy, and look after those who are an asset before funding the feckless.

Surely Ms Reeves must be running or ruining this outfit, more debt and print more money, or sell the debt for higher costs seems to be her and UKOG's way, whilst both Reeves and the CEO and board live very nicely thank you. So whose the idiots, them or shareholders and taxpayers?

Asi, cynically can't help wondering if the Swiss holding much of the ill gotten gains of world elite and leaders gives them less cause to have to worry about being destroyed by WMD, hence less need to spend on defence, but of course, it could be argued that holding so much wealth makes them a target.

As the US has avoided destroying oil fields in Iran, the perpetrators of warfare do as little as is feasible if it has a negative effect to themselves, which is fully understandable.

Securing wealth when countries are at war involves having as 'safe a haven' as is feasible and the Swiss have cashed in on that one, and Toblerone bars early doors.

Lucky we have much of the worlds PM's stored here, best put a tent up over the vaults should the 'worst' be expected.

Mind if the James Bond gold finger idea was played out, then they won't help either.

Sorry, you do have a point, just IF old, then surely you can see why certain issues, and with Lgen being into pensions, that views are valid re pensions here. No more from me on this.

Dig/Pet

People were led to believe that the N.I and taxes most all paid in to HMG was for their future state pension. Many on lower pay who needed every penny whilst working to feed and clothe their own families as they had to do so without the no huge state aid in the form of child tax credits, working tax credits for doing a mere 16 hours a week.

Therefore many then could ill afford to fund a private pension back then, and with a state pension which they were led to believe would be there for them, truly had no urgent need to 'question' the state pension system.

People now are used to far higher standards of living than the majority of hard working people knew only a few decades ago, and many are too thick to understand such, as now being 'classed as' being in poverty means a far far different and more comfortable lifestyle than what many a few decades ago could hope to have working a true full 40hr working week.

Whilst each generation of workers paid for the 'then' current pensioners, the belief was, that future generations would do the same, and the system would have worked, until both benefits claims became over bloated, and of course the huge importation of never ending impoverished who cost every tax payer dearly. That is what has broken the pension scheme, not just a few added years onto the elderly life span.

NO Government dare criticise it own mistake, as NO government dare take any benefits away, as the woke media, with the BBC at the forefront would choose one genuinely harrowing case, to sway the minds of the gullible, yet ignore the countless masses bending the rules or breaking them for their own selfish gain.

So wrong to blame pensioners and to remove their pensions which clearly are 'different' to other so called benefits, as IF you haven't paid in then you are not fully entitled to a full pension, and IF you defer your pension for a year you can gain I think, 10% more for each subsequent year you live, is hardly the same as claiming the dole, or other benefits is it?

As I said, dim or those who know people swindling are using the pensioners as a means to try to crush the real reason the welfare system is in danger of total collapse and the coincidence of second hand small craft for sale, has to be deeply considered in the overburdened welfare state. But Labour know that those having large numbers of children are likely to vote for them so removed the cap off of the two child limit.

Sadly some on here are so detached from the underclasses they are totally, as are HMG, clueless to what is really going on in the UK.

In the UK less children being born was used as a reason to artificially add to our numbers, but as we see it comes at a great price, and too many choose not to work once 'accepted' but do as much of the UK population do and claim everything instead.

IMO the UK should have used hi tech, and A1 to eventually embrace a lower but more affluent future population. Too late now.

Seems to me that those who try to use the Government narrative that the state pension is a 'benefit' so anyone claiming such are spongers are just using such to hide the fact that they likely are, or have in the family a few sponging off the state in the true sense of the word.

The state pension has to be paid for, and, IF you are only getting the minimum state pension, with no savings or other income, THEN you get a top up benefit of 'Pension credits' which is about £80 per week, AND it allows the door to be opened as means tested to claim extra heating, rent and council rebate, which FEW British people would object too IF the recipients had had low paid work so they couldn't afford to save in private pensions.

The system was under strain when it was only British people not paying in for years, but taking plenty out, now we have the worlds chancers both legally and illegally jumping on the bandwagon that our parents and ancestors paid in to keep US, not the worlds spongers.

No wonder people are angry and no small wonder Reform the only party who sees and admits what is going on is so popular, as the other two major parties do nothing.

Such a shame that politicians from all parties have let us all down so badly, and we all know it is likely all too late to do anything other than slow the rot.

Most of us love this country and feel deeply sad to read so many people can see, but thus far have done nothing to address the problems.

How this will effect future pensions and payments and Legen is to me a concern and mystery, but with AI and jobs from those who DO want to work and the masses who will never work, a worrying relevant subject for all those invested not only in Lgen, but all UK stocks now.

Re: "No excuse to buy a missile, yet more than enough of them to feed and clothe people."

Whilst that is a simple statement which many on the face of such most non deeply thinking would agree with, of course the bigger issue is that any enemy who did attack and invade would be very unlikely to worry about feeding and clothing the 'people' you are so concerned about.

Most people would prefer that the military protects them from invasion forces who will do more physical and mental harm to the populace than worrying about going to a charity shop or food bank. Least IF the masses had had the former, ie been invaded, then they certainly would.

Unfortunately for the UK un uniformed entrants to the UK often cause harm to the populace both physically and mentally and will end up being as costly as warfare, as with war there has always been an eventual end to the cost and misery for the people.

Whether Lloyds can avoid too much Government interference and stealth taxes to survive these burdensome costs to the UK, with Lloyds being so intertwined remains to be seen. Most see the UK's future as grim, and thus I guess Lloyds.

Time, alone will tell, with all of us having various opinions into the timing, the good or bad, supporting or disliking political parties whilst we await time to prove or disprove our assumptions.

Erratum, for "having a few hundred k invested with divi or interest returns paying just £80 per week"

Meant to add comma, after invested and a but, thus then reading " having a few hundred k invested, BUT with a divi or interest return paying just £80..."

Re: "and they won't have a state pension etc."

That statement has to be considered deeply, as IF we have large amounts 'saved' then the loss of state pension may not be an issue, but for many savers, having a few hundred k invested with divi or interest returns paying just £80 per week, would currently make that income pointless, as IF you have no savings income now, you can claim pension credits of that amount, AND then claim help will council tax, heating, etc etc.

You would need at least £80, 000 invested now at 5%, on which unless Isa'd you would be taxed to get the same £80 per week, without the extra help that state means tested aid also gives you.

Whilst many might suggest "the future may be different" to me, that won't happen, as no Gov dare cut welfare as they would never get voted in again, hence each gives more to the nere do wells.

Can YOU imagine pensioners NOT getting anything, and dying in the street, whilst those work place and private pensioners 'step over their starving carcase', there would be riots, looting, and anarchy which would effect ALL in the UK before that were to ever happen.

So whilst private pensions are great, be careful that in the future UNLESS you can ensure you can amass a large pension pot, that you aren't better off claiming the state pension and then either hide your savings in PM's or blow the lot as many do, and claim means tested benefits to top up the basic state pension to decent levels instead.

Whilst it sound immoral to do so, I feel that since the UK allows in illegals costing us all so much, and refuses to give meaningful sentences to all the criminals both home grown and imported in the UK now, who steal, swindle, shop lift, stealing energy etc, which WE all end up paying for, why should 'we' play fair, when they will always be living from the state via our taxes and indirect increases in bills, and shopping to cover their cunning devious lifestyles?

So unless you can fund a sum into a private pension that will lift you way above the state pension, with pension credits and all the extras that gives, then check the advice you wisely try to give to the youngsters in your life, for the morals we lived by are now often foolish.

Can't see any Government changing that now, too engrained and riots would occur IF they dare stop any handouts and they know it.

A wise person said to me years ago, just buy a gold coin with spare money, hide it at home, not hard, and sell for cash if and when you need it when a pensioner, I never did, and am in shares, but will likely regret that decision with Labour Gov and a growing impoverished, crime ridden populace in the future.

Not advice but an interesting viewpoint I thought

One doubts the scenes of kneeling football players 'care' will pay any respect here either 88. No small wonder that Reform are growing daily in popularity, for many know how life used to be and not needing any skewed data evidence from those, as yet not effected, or perhaps are themselves or have family members now too intertwined or perhaps gaining wealth from such to wish to see it any other way, and strongly object when others do.

HMG tried the same with the IRA to silence the voices of Sinn Fein, but the point is, IF something said is untrue, or silly, then easy to ignore, and even laugh at those spouting such silly or misinformed individuals. But, IF it is true then it is true. So no need to have rules and laws to prevent any talk from any group or culture, for only by admitting there are problems on both sides will these issues ever get resolved.

Creating two tier or heavily biased rules and laws, especially against the indigenous then creates an anger amongst those frustrated, it doesn't make them care more, or try to see the other sides point of views.

As we all know Steven Lawrence is a household name, as his killing was as vile, but I doubt this latest case will be mentioned for as long.

As I said at the time, the woke brigade still mention Saville, Hindly, Sutcliffe and Glitte but few could name one member of the gangs, not a gang but gangs of rapists targeting white children. Imagine IF it had been the other way around. The woke BBC would never drop the case, shops selling trainers and electical items would be stripped and cities ablaze. And HMG would have had to create new race rape laws with more severe sentences to quell the riots, but only after the well well heeled watching the largest tv to consul their outrage and anger were satisfied.

So banning comments, banning free speech and having race rules are not needed, as words hurt any white person as much as a black, but like most laws and rules, such are 'used' to the max by many to their full advantage.

Had no such rules been made that chap may well have been treated differently and be alive today.

So this time the rules have made more misery for all, not less.

We need common sense rules where one off verbal ranting off by ALL people is treated as a minor crime, not more important than a major crime otherwise it will be used to justify violence as that cretin tried to do.

Whilst seemingly little to do with Lloyds the ruination of the UK legal system and the Government decisions certainly are and unless major changes occur the UK will grow apart, and none of us want far right parties, or far left, just a normal life like we used to know. Hardly too much to ask it seems. It is necessary to have racial cohesion but laws can't force everyone to like everyone else, so address the differences, not ban mentioning them.

.... not even from Niraroy. I guess despite all my valuable insight to the workings and mindsets in Government, to those blinkered it still comes as a shock to know the relentless, upbeat postings and therefore more popular and more palatable from the seemingly wise, perhaps weren't quite so ' on the money' as hoped for.

As I quoted some time back "They're not listening still, perhaps they never will"

HMG gets what it, not the electorate wants, unless on the odd occasion the two 'wants' coincide.

To me, it is far more important to understand that people for the deepest bottom of society to the very top, with MP's et al well represented somewhere in that mix will if given the chance be highly likely to take full advantage of making easy money, should they feel they will get away with doing so.

So I will vote for the party who will do all it can to end the otherwise truly never ending numbers of impoverished arriving here, who will cost us far more in monetary terms, as well as all too often in the increase in serious crime and the extra pressure on housing, energy usage, water, sewage, landfill, traffic, NHS care, costly educational needs, not for a while, but for the rest of time, and who are illegally here.

We have, and no doubt always will have businessmen and MP's taking full advantage and beyond of making easy money, but never before have we had other nations imposing themselves upon us to better their lot in life at the expense of all other, AND it is to be remembered to the cost of earlier immigrants already settled here. For it the cost and pressure on services and natural habitats threated by a never ending stream of arrivals will effect all people not just the deemed ray sists.

Anyone from the unemployed benefit claimant working cash in hand whilst getting rent, c.tax and generous amounts of universal credit for their family to top earning MP's should be punished for pushing the burden of their crime costs onto others, but all the time HMG do nothing meaningful about the destruction of our society from illegals, then I feel the problem of swindling Brits is nothing to the long term costs of illegal funding issues for tax payers

So until a party ends and returns all illegals it seems the country is knowingly allowing costly lawbreakers on masse, so why fret over eternally crooked MP's from any party, I am sure their are massive percentages more doing similar who will never be caught.

Vote for your children's future and the love of our countryside, not dis a party due to bent MP's as they all are infested imo.

Once Lloyds has a blip up IF the war ends, reality of the coming Winter of the true state of the UK will bring it down to earth, so enjoy the so few sunny days ahead.

I would like to know just how much of the recent gain in the s.p is due to hype of any so far denied bid for Lgen, and how much increase is due to the hope value of the war ending sooner rather than later.

If the former have read that HMG may prevent a take over due to the large percentage of UK pension held by us, as clearly a risk should the funds no longer be held under the sway of the UK rules and regs. So even IF true a foreign bid could come to nothing, then what percentage drop would we endure?

PS bed now as up early, so will read any cutting reply tomz.

Can you buy Gov gilts from HMG at less than the redemption value, or only on the secondary market? I have never looked into such, and see some are paying dismal coupon percentages so can only assume that the gilts were sold at less than the redemption sum, otherwise what mug would buy them at all?