Why I Hate the Benefits Cap and Nick Clegg

I’ve never really trusted Nick Clegg, especially when he cosied up with David Cameron. And then when he went back on tuition fee changes he had promised pre-election my disliking of him increased. But I have always reserved the hope that he is still a good guy really and that he is slowing the Torys’ right wing hold of the UK. But now I officially hate him, and I will tell you why.

There have been proposals to cap the amount of benefits any family can receive. This cap is on the summation of all benefits including child benefit. The cap will mean that no family can receive more than £500 a week on benefits (apart from the royal family). The following is a quote from Nick Clegg and is also the reason why I now hate him:

"the vast majority of people think it is fair to say you can't receive more in benefits than if you were to earn £35,000 before tax"

At face value it doesn’t seem the sort of thing a person could say to make you hate them. Hate being such a strong word. But it did make me hate him. It made me hate him because he used a sentence which merely sparks up emotions. It’s the sort of point that makes people say "Yeah! I only make £20,000 a year and I work 12 hour shifts so why should these lay-abouts get more money than me?" In a way that would be a reasonable thing to say (kind-of, although this would be the wrongful presumption that all people on benefits are lay-abouts). However, the remark by Nick Clegg should be further analysed. When he states “if you were to earn £35,000 before tax" he is referring to the average UK household income. They seem to forget what the average means. It does not mean that all families have an income of £35, 000 before tax regardless of where they live or their family size. It is the fucking average. And why shouldn’t any household be able to receive more money on benefits than the average? It would seem fairer to say the average household income of families on benefits should not exceed the average of working families but this is already the case (see below).

It DOES Pay to Work

So after tax the average is £26,000. However, the average household income after tax of a two-earner married couple with two children is estimated to be £38,547. This is a considerably higher figure and shows the difference between using the average without any consideration of family type compared to more accurate selective averages. This website is really handy and you can fiddle with this chart to look at the difference between families on benefits and working families. As you will see there is a huge difference in the average income showing that it does already pay to work. In 2009 the average net income for a single person without children was £25 329. If that person was unemployed the average is £9 626. The figure for a single working person with two children is £27 600. An unemployed person in the same situation would receive only £17 600. The net income for a couple on benefits with two children is still only £19 554, and once you take housing benefit out of the equation, as this is paid directly to the landlord, the disposable income is £11 000 between two adults and two children. The net income is already significantly lower for out of work parents, even if they have children. Therefore the average net income of an unemployed household is already far below the cap level. It seems to make sense that this cap will therefore affect mainly larger family sizes, who receive more benefit for a reason.  Contrary to the tabloid hype and the pub banter, the state is not just giving money away to people who don’t need it.

The most important point I feel, therefore, is that the cap (and Nick Clegg’s remark) does not include family size or location and therefore does not take into consideration the needs of specific families and more importantly the needs of the children within these families. The supporters of the cap keep banging on about fairness but is it fair if some children to suffer because they are part of a larger family? Families within London will suffer particularly due to high living costs. But to be honest it’s not that surprising that the government wants to force as many poor people out of the capital as possible. There’s nothing worse than travelling to work and breathing in the stench of peasants.

The Race to the Bottom

No explanation required. I love MS Paint.

As I have shown it already pays to work but if you want to make it pay more to work then maybe working class people should be paid more. Why is this always a race to the bottom? “I only get paid this much so why should (insert minority group here) get paid more than me. They should get paid less!” Well boo fucking hoo you moaning little cunt. If you want more money campaign for better pay. To be honest most people don’t get paid enough. But don’t be annoyed at other working class and middle class people getting more than you. Be happy for them and try to make sure people in your situation start getting paid more. Don’t you see the really rich upper class have us divided, this is what they want.  We have groups of poor people blaming other groups of poor people for poverty while the people with all the influence have fucking loads of money.                                                  

If there are 9 jobs and 10 people apply what will be the outcome? 9 people will get a job and 1 person will be unemployed. What should happen to that 1 person? Should they be punished? There are currently more people looking for jobs than there are jobs. Look at this map to see how many people are applying per vacancy, also, please note the striking correlation between claimant to vacancy ration and 2010 general election results!  So in this competitive race to employment some people have to lose. Some people have to be unemployed if there are not enough jobs. In a modern, compassionate society is it not fair to say that those people do not deserve to be punished. Unemployment is not spread equally across the UK. Different cities have different rates and different areas within cities have different rates. What does this tell you? It tells you that unemployment is not dependent on people it is dependent on location and therefore circumstance and opportunity. The best way to make things fair is for everyone who is lucky enough to make their own money to help provide for those families who struggle to make a living due to their circumstances. If you currently have a job now it is not because you are better than people who do not have a job. It’s because you are more fortunate. You are lucky to have the skills you have, you are lucky to have the experience you have, you are lucky you live where you live, you are lucky that you found the job. If you cannot see this then you must think you are somehow inherently better than these other people. You must think that you somehow chose to be better than them? How did you choose this? Why didn’t they choose to do the same thing? There is no way you can answer these questions with coherent and rational arguments. So if you think these things but cannot explain why then you must be an irrational, judgemental idiot.

Sacrificing Children

I understand in a way what the government are trying to do because it’s the kind of idea I would have suggested when I was an unaware, ill-informed 14 year old. They want to discourage future families from relying on benefits and having more children than they can afford. And I agree with this to an extent, people should definitely have less children, mainly because it is better for the environment and there are already too many twats walking around. But what I wouldn’t have considered at the age of 14 and what these nobbers are not considering at a rather more mature age is that families who currently have many children and need these benefits will really suffer. I have a little rule and it goes as follows: if a person thinks what I thought when I was 14 and I no longer think it then that person is a fucking idiot. What’s worse is that these idiots don’t even know if it will discourage people in the future. And what if a couple choose to have a large family because they can afford it, then they lose their source of income meaning they have to rely on benefits? They will be punished that’s what will happen. They will be punished and so will their children even if it was not their fault that they lost their jobs. Many feel that the amount a family can receive on benefits should not be open-ended.  But it should be open-ended. The price of children should be open-ended. The price of compassion should be open-ended. Taking all this into consideration is it worth punishing so many innocent children for a seemingly unknown outcome? Of course it fucking isn’t! But unfortunately many twats feel it is. These people would never walk away from Omelas.

Does this mean I'm not a royalist?

This is a rather late rant on the Queen’s yacht issue. Education Secretary Michael Gove has suggested a yacht paid for by the taxpayer would be a suitable gift for the Queen to mark her Diamond Jubilee.  The estimated cost of this proposed yacht is £60 million. Since then the yacht plan has been backed by David Cameron though he suggested it be privately funded (I wonder if this was due to the initial public reaction rather than by choice). But the fact that someone like Michael Gove, with such an important job, someone with major influence over the education of the majority of British children could suggest such a ridiculous idea is scary. Maybe if he had just briefly thought it and then thought ‘nah that’s a stupid idea’ then that wouldn’t be so bad but he actually wrote the idea down! If I was Prime Minister I would fire him on the grounds of being a ‘stupid cunt’.

With this current economic climate how could anyone suggest such a ridiculous idea? It’s actually impossible to justify. You have to have no clue about the rest of society. I mean for fuck’s sake how do these stupid twats get into these positions? It can’t be based on their intelligence because, as I have already hinted at, I think they are stupid twats.

Some posh sinks which are probably less posh then the yachts sinks. FACT.

The Queen should buy her own fucking yacht anyway! But no, it looks like she is still getting a massive yacht. ‘But remember it is going to be privately funded so don’t worry’ I hear you cry. ‘Shut up you bellend’ I reply. This is still fucking stupid. Why don’t the private funders fund a school or a charity or some shit. Supposedly there are plans to make the yacht a place for students to participate in some sort of bollocksy ‘adventure training’. Sounds pretty wank to me. Foyles, the bookseller, is going to give £500 000 to help with books for a library on the yacht. A fucking library on a fucking yacht for fuck’s sake! The Queen doesn’t need a library just buy the bitch a kindle and couple of Amazon vouchers. Foyles should give their money to a couple of libraries being closed down by our fucking government. I mean howay man divent give free shit to the Queen for fuck's sake! What does she even do? People always go on about her bringing in money from increased tourism. But I’m sure most tourists don’t actually see her (that’s how she could make herself useful – she could stand in a room and people could queue up to take pictures of her and get shit signed). All that tourists interested in Ye Olde England shite actually see is the amazing buildings associated with her.  And there are plenty more families in England with a tradition of being provided for by the state they could go and look at instead. The Queen must have like the best state pension in the world! I wonder if she gets a heating allowance?

A photograph of the Queen

Some Better Ideas

What the Queen should do is make a speech. She needn’t worry because I have already written it for her and it’s very short so will not take up much of her time. Here it is:

‘I am very grateful for the proposed present of a yacht but One feels accepting this gift would be taking the piss. Instead One would love the companies operating in my Kingdom to pay all of their taxes and to just stop generally being greedy cunts. All those not co-operating will be tried for treason. God save our gracious me.’

The fastest public transport train in Ashington. FACT

Or we could name some more shit after her and that would be a cheap present. There is a place near my hometown called the QEII country park and this is already named after her. We could take her there, I’m sure she would love it. Instead of a yacht she could have a go on a sail boat or a canoe. Concession price is only £3 for the day! There is also a little train she could have a go of and there’s a Brewers Fayre if she fancied a nice meal and they have helium balloons so she could do a speech with a squeaky voice for a laugh. Ha it would be brilliant and I think I have captured it perfectly------->

 

Or maybe she should get her massive yacht and then auction it for charity. Otherwise she is deliberately not giving money to dying cancer–ridden children. She will be sitting on her boat thinking ‘I could sell this yacht and give the money to blind orphans with AIDS… actually fuck the blind orphans and their AIDS. It’s probably their own fault they are orphans and blind and have AIDS.’ Well fuck you. You Queeny bitch. And fuck all you stupid cunts giving her free stuff. And fuck all you twats for supporting this ridiculous family’s up-keep. Not you though grandma because you make lush gravy.

However, should you know or be the Queen then make sure you obtain your sail boat tickets from Newbiggin Sports and Community Centre, Woodhorn Road, Newbiggin by the Sea, Northumberland Telephone: 01670 817713 before going to the QEII to avoid unnecessary delays. Thank you.

"Never did me any harm"

I fucking hate it when people (usually older) say "never did me any harm". It’s such a pointless thing to say. It only tells you one of a possible three things. 1) The thing they are referring to didn’t do them as AN INDIVIDUAL, as ONE PERSON any harm. 2) It did do them harm but they are lying about it out of some weird sense of pride and nostalgia. 3) It did do them harm but for some reason they have not realised it.

It seems people are content with referring to their own personal experiences and how those experiences affect them as proof if something is good or bad for you.

It was the channel 4 programme ‘Never Did Me Any Harm’ which riled me up enough to write this bloody rant. The whole concept of the programme pissed me off straight away. The description on channel 4’s website is ‘Four modern families turn back the clock for two weeks so that their children can experience life as their parents did when they were young’, which isn’t necessarily irritating but the ‘never did me any harm’ mentality fucking is. The descripton of one episode is 'Peter Gunn is so concerned that freedom and the pursuit of individuality are driving his four sons apart, that he decides to take them back to his 1950s childhood for two weeks'. I mean who could blame him? Both freedom and individuality are disgusting like!

The thing is people do quite often refer to their childhood and say ‘never did me any harm’. Well that’s where you are fucking wrong because it has clearly turned you into a stupid twat. How far will these ‘never did me any harm’ bell ends take it?

“My mother took thalidomide, never did me any harm.”

Man prepairing to beat or bum young boy - you decide.

“I used to have unprotected sex, never did me any harm.”

“I’ve smoked all my life, never did me any harm.”

“I used to be suicidal, never did me any harm.”

“I used to eat nothing but shit, never did me any harm.”

“We used to beat up foreigners all the time when we were younger, never did me any harm.”

“I used to get bummed by my dad every Tuesday, never did me any harm.”

Interesting, but not very fucking helpful! Everyone is different and some things harm some people but not others. Whether something is harmful or not is an important question. So before forcing someone to experience something it is important to consider how it will affect them. And how do we do that? Well it would be a good start to look at how things affect the population rather than just plucking the information from one person, even if that one person is yourself.

So if you are the sort of person who uses the phrase ‘never did me any harm’ then fuck off! Or better still please realise why that sort of decision-making is ridiculous and join me in being angry at the other twats who still do it.

Goodbye, common sense! Wanker 1 and Wanker 2 complain about sensible changes to passport form

Today the Daily Mail published an article titled ‘Now Parent 1 and Parent 2 appear on PC passport form’.  This is obviously the news that the form which is required for a passport will be changed so that it has ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’ on it. What does this mean? Well, in the past applicants have had to include information on their parents and the form has always had ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ on. In the article by Jack Doyle (wanker 1) it says ‘they will be given the option of naming ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’.’. I presume this means that either  the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be replaced with ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ or that ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ will be given as an option as an addition. Why are they doing this? Well it’s obvious really- with the number of children being adopted by same sex parents increasing it is probably quite awkward to fill in the passport form if you have 2 ‘mothers’ or 2 ‘fathers’. But maybe it should be awkward for these parents? Maybe children with gay parents shouldn’t be allowed passports? I mean what if they go on holiday and give us normal British people a bad reputation? I am obviously joking but I wouldn’t be surprised if the silly twats from Family Education Trust (FET) thought these ridiculous things.

The director of FET, Norman Wells (wanker 2), said: ‘Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but have quite distinct roles to play in the care and nurture of their children.’ What an archaic view this man actually has. It is true, however, that there are some things which a mother can do which a father cannot, such as breast feeding. But not all mothers can breast feed. Do babies just die? No. We have milk you can buy for babies and with this milk fathers, or anyone else really, can feed a baby. So what then are the distinct roles? Well I could draw on my own personal experience but that would be pointless because that would just be explaining the roles which my parents had and not actually addressing what the distinct roles are. Surely it changes from one set of parents to another. Not all men are good at doing male things and not all women are good at doing female things because everyone is different. Why can’t people see this? The angry voice in my head is saying “it’s because they are twats”.

The FET twat went on to say: ‘To speak of “parent 1” and “parent 2” denigrates the place of both fathers and mothers.’ What the fuck does that even mean? Well I looked it up, ‘denigrates’ that is, because I haven’t seen that word before. According to Collins English Dictionary ‘denigrate’ means:

1. (tr) to belittle or disparage the character of; defame

Eh? So Norman reckons that putting ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ on a form so that everyone can fill it in belittles the place of mothers and fathers? Norman Wells’ existence denigrates the place of our species. If you thought Norman couldn’t get any worse then read on: ‘Much as the equality and diversity social engineers might wish it were otherwise, it still takes a father and a mother to produce a child.’ Yes Norman you are quite right it does take a mother and father to produce a child but what the fuck does that have to do with this form you stupid cunt? It doesn’t take a father and mother to raise a child though - and that is what this change of form relates to. Also, isn’t it really weird that he talks about ‘the equality and diversity social engineers’ as if they are a bad people? Isn’t a social engineer just someone who wants to change society? So an equality and diversity social engineer is someone who wants more equality and diversity? How can that ever be a bad thing?

Jack Doyle also clearly disagrees with the changes and that they are being made because of ‘pressure from the gay lobby’ seems to irritate him. He actually calls gay rights groups ‘the gay lobby’ how mad is that? Well Jack Doyle must be in the twat lobby.

Now back to Norman, who also said: ‘It is high time ministers started to represent the interests of the country as a whole and not capitulate to every demand made by a vocal and unrepresentative minority.’ I would fully agree with this point if the form was going to be changed to ‘gay parent 1’ and ‘gay parent 2’ because that would be specifically making the form for a minority only. What it boils down to is that Norman Wells is angry because a form is being changed to allow more people to fill it in easily. Even if that change only helps a minority it still doesn’t make it harder for the majority so why is he even bothered? It’s so annoying that people like Norman Wells think we shouldn’t change things for a group of people just because they are considered a minority.  But even if that minority is 1% of the population it would still mean over 600 thousand people! By the same argument we could remove ‘black’ from the ethnicity section of a form because it would only affect a minority.

If this Daily Mail article made you as angry as it did me then you will be fucking fuming when you read this:

http://mullenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/10/what-is-normal-when-mother-and-father-become-parent-1-and-parent-2.html

Twat (Peter Mullen)

It’s basically some twat’s opinion on the story, a bit like my blog really, except this person is a horrible, horrible man, still a bit like my blog I suppose. Well he’s definitely a different kind of horrible twat, he’s a dangerous horrible twat. He is Revd Peter Mullen (wanker 3, funny (but accidental) considering his ‘slippery slope’ argument) and the link above is to his blog. I can’t believe how much of a horrible twat Peter is. To analyse this horrible twat’s arguments would be even more of a waste of time as the analysing I have already done because their ridiculous thoughts and rationale are so blatantly stupid. But I will give you a flavour of what the Revd Peter Mullen is like:

‘I am against prejudice of all sorts. But there has to be some sort of normality according to which minorities can be tolerated.’

If this made you want to punch something or someone do not go on to read his blog. Bet you will though.

Being liberal: Can I still be angry?

I think to be liberal you have get past an ‘anger barrier’. What I mean by this is that it is quite easy to get angry when you hear about ‘foreigners stealing our jobs’, ‘young immigrant gangs’, ‘lazy jobless on benefits’. And when people get angry they do stupid things and come up with stupid solutions to exaggerated problems. I think to be liberal you have to get past this initial knee jerk anger to allow yourself to think logically. And the people that do this, all of them, realise that these problem are: not real problems or they have been exaggerated or they are small, bad consequence of doing a lot of good. Once you actually look at the statistics and history of immigration in this country (UK) then you quickly realise that we need ‘foreigners’ to help the country develop and if it wasn’t for immigration we wouldn’t have the Britain we have today. Only a very angry person can deny such blatant evidence and fact.

The problem of young ethnic minorities in gangs and being involved in crime is a problem (although it is massively over exaggerated in my opinion). But angry right wing people try to blame the ethnic minorities rather than thinking logically and realising that many of these individuals are poor, uneducated and have been brought up in an environment where it is easy to turn to crime. Had the white middle class Daily Mail reader (or ‘twats’ as I like to call them) been brought up in the same environment they would most probably have ended up in the same gangs.

I too sometimes get angry at the thought of a lazy person sitting around doing nothing all day but still getting free money, which the taxes I pay (not any more though because I have just recently become a student again but I wrote this when I was working so fuck you) are paying for. But beyond that anger and completely surpassing it in volume is the happiness I feel that we live in a time in which people who are really struggling due to mental or physical problems can be helped by those individuals who do not have any problems at all. How fucking amazingly wonderful is it that we have job seekers allowance and various benefits? It is surely the sign of a logical, rational yet compassionate modern society. I would rather everyone who needs benefits get them and some individuals who don’t need them get them than no one at all geting them. But I think a lot of right wing individuals would rather no one got them.

In my opinion, which all of this really is, anger can be a good thing too. Because without anger we would not try to change things we don’t like. But anger based on truth is the key. Many liberals are angry, myself definitely included, are angry but they are angry that people are angry about issues they don’t know the facts about or they can’t even back up their angry opinions with evidence.  It is really quite annoying because I think I would be a much calmer person if other people didn’t get angry, the bastards rile me up! But at the same time I like that they make me angry otherwise I wouldn’t argue with them or try to tell other people why I think it is bad to be right wing and why it is bad that people are trying to change things based on nothing but their own personal belief.

However, there needs to be a good level of angry, a balance of anger. Some liberals are so angry that they too start acting based on personal belief. These people will belief information if it supports their already established opinion without even checking if the info is based on evidence. We have all met these people; they are generally the ‘anti-science liberals’ or ‘bell ends’ as I like to call them. They have gone beyond listening to evidence to listening to themselves and like minded people. They believe that everything should be ‘natural’ without knowing what natural means (who even does know to be honest?). They are just as irritating as very right wing people but they at least are not a dangerous. Generally the worst an extreme liberal will do is tut at you or demand that trees have the same rights as humans. There are also the really strange ‘right wing liberals’ or ‘bell ends’ as I like to call them. These are the extreme liberals that would hurt you, the ones who would dig up your relatives. This is because they are extremely liberal in one or a few political issues but are quite right wing in how they deal with it. These are the liberals who are fuelled by anger (and a bit of tofu) and ignore reason.

So how do you get the perfect balance of anger? Nobody knows surely but I think we should always try our best to calm down, have a cup of tea and a scone and just think, read and learn about things and then come up with the most informed opinion we can given the relatively short and meaningless amount of time we have. Also, we should get all the really right wing people together and either kill them or use them as slaves. No. That’s the angry irrational me which, I am trying to fight every day. So maybe a better suggestion is that we should ridicule them for the angry idiots they are. To be honest it’s not that hard.

(2) Why I Don't Like To Quote

I could support my arguments with the use of countless quotes from famous individuals. But I think this style of ‘intellectual’ writing is often over indulged leaving readers feeling overwhelmed or intellectually inferior. This style of writing is actively encouraged from an early age. The school trained writing and thinking can include mainly references to what one old man with a beard said a long time ago, which contradicts a way of thinking another old man said some time ago. I do not have a problem with them being old or male or having beards or that they said what they said a long time ago, but that their opinions are held with such high regard and to merely quote them with some minimal critical thinking is considered sufficient for a good argument.

To give you an example I was once reading a paper (can’t remember which one) and a journalist (can’t remember who) was criticising the use of ‘science’ to define how happy we are. The journalist quoted the study done by ‘scientists’ which claimed that we are now happier than we ever have been. He then argued that this conclusion contradicted a study earlier in the year by ‘scientists’ that said we are not as happy as we were ten years ago. The journalist went on to argue that science does not have the answer to everything and that we should not forget what great philosophers have said on the subject of happiness. He then went on to quote Aristotle’s definition of happiness describing it as beautiful…

‘Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence’ (or some other similar meaningless shit like that).

However, this was just Aristotle’s personal definition of happiness not his opinion of whether or not people today are happy….This journalist thought the use of like minded quotes was enough to support opinion. I cannot get this bug bare of mine across as beautifully as a great man once did when he said 'Never believe what a person is saying just because it is followed by a quote from a great man' and 'Everybody generalises'. That great man is of course me. If you haven’t detected the sarcasm then you must regard me as a hypocritical arrogant idiot. But then again you didn’t even spot the obvious sarcasm so fuck you. The second quote is obviously not at all related to this paragraph but I find it funny so thought I would include it. Such a quote could make me seem either clever or stupid and then I remembered I said it without realising at the time that it was funny (until the friend I said it to laughed) so I therefore must be the latter.

I must confess I don’t normally talk like this. This is my posh writing voice and normally it would sound a bit like this …

‘Aye fucking canny like… Nee botha…Aye whey…Varnigh shit mesell’

Two more reasons why I have not used too many quotes and references to established philosophy and theology is: it requires more work and effort, and my knowledge of such things is limited. However, I am not completely clueless as I have a C in A level Religious Studies, which was made up of 50% Ethics and 50% Islam. This C in half an A level of Ethics allowed me to quote, as I inevitably would (being a student), Kantian ethics in some witty context with my friends to make ourselves feel clever. What I am getting at here is that I am mainly clueless.

In conclusion, I will not use many quotes (especially those which are just other peoples opinions) to support my points because I think it doesn’t help, it’s pointless, I don’t know anything and I am a lazy twat.

Don't loot. Eat fruit!

I completely disagree with all the looting, which has been going on across England this month. Destroying our own communities is ridiculous. But I am not surprised.

It is quite conceivable that some of the uneducated, poor, jobless people involved in this could convince themselves that looting from a shop is reasonable given the circumstances. I am fortunate to be in none of these categories and I can almost convince myself it's ok to steal from a company (the fact that only the low down staff or the future consumers are affected stops me). If business’ can get away with stealing, taking advantage of people and not paying all of their taxes why should we respect them? Loads of our own politicians have stolen (remember the expenses scandal?) and they are already well off. I know that most of these looters won’t be thinking these thoughts but the ideology of taking what you can regardless of the consequences to other individuals is well ingrained in our culture and is nicely exemplified by the highest members of our society.

The rioters may not have a political agenda but that does not mean the riots aren’t a consequence of politics.

I believe the division between the classes is the main cause of this type and level of ‘criminality’ (I’m sick of hearing people saying that word). The fact that the class divide is widening does not look good for the future. I do not mean that all working class people will riot or even that all the rioters are working class. But having such a large number of people with the potential to be criminals is a direct consequence of our society. If you disagree with this then ask yourself ‘what else created them?’ Whatever your answer is they still did not create themselves. If your response would be similar to ‘OK then I accept that they didn’t create who they have become but they can still choose to change who they are’ then you are an idiot. Please think about how that doesn’t make any sense at all. It is flawed logic. If you still disagree then please follow my blog in the future as I try to explain myself and I will apologise to you for being a nasty twat.