There's something very wrong here

[heth]

'Please give me a job!' Unemployed man bags job on the spot after standing in the rain for hours with sign | Mail Online

Maybe this is the way forward?! Well done to this bloke for thinking of something different to get him noticed!!!

[heth]

Can just picture all lined up on the roundabout in accy viaduct!!!!

[Eric]

Originally Posted by blazey

Oh and I'd just stop his benefits. If he's considered fit enough to work through trying to force him into a job then there is no reason he should even be entitled to that much anyway.

So, am I to assume that if a welfare recipient refuses a job then, in the UK, he keeps his benefits Weird.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Eric

So, am I to assume that if a welfare recipient refuses a job then, in the UK, he keeps his benefits Weird.

Well he shouldn't do, but he probably as rights Eric and a legal eagle willing to fight his corner

[Eric]

Problem I see with stories like this is that those of a particular political stance ... ok, reactionary right-wingers, use them to attack the whole idea of social security and welfare. I do believe that there are sensational extremes, but I don't think they should be used to attack a system which gives real benefit to those in real need. Back in '95, when the suppositories took over government in Ontario, their first act was to cut general welfare payments, across the board, by 26%! This was followed, not surprisingly, by an increase in petty crime, particularly shoplifting (esp. of food). Any solution to the problems of the system should be addressed non-ideologically. Instances of individuals ripping off the taxpayer should, I believe, be addressed on a case by case basis, and that the excesses of the few should not be allowed to threaten the security of the majority, who really need support.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Eric

Problem I see with stories like this is that those of a particular political stance ... of, reactionary right-wingers, use them to attack the whole idea of social security and welfare. I do believe that there are sensational extremes, but I don't think they should be used to attack a system which gives real benefit to those in real need. Back in '95, when the suppositories took over government in Ontario, their first act was to cut general welfare payments, across the board, by 26%! This was followed, not surprisingly, by an increase in petty crime, particularly shoplifting (esp. of food). Any solution to the problems of the system should be addressed non-ideologically. Instances of individuals ripping off the taxpayer should, I believe, be addressed on a case by case basis, and that the excesses of the few should not be allowed to threaten the security of the majority, who really need support.

Its not a matter of attacking Social security and welfare Eric, we see it time after time on TV and in the media people milking the system when there is nothing wrong with them. There are 2.5 million people on disability benefits and as such should have no qualms about justifying their right to claim those benefits

[Eric]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Its not a matter of attacking Social security and welfare Eric, we see it time after time on TV and in the media people milking the system when there is nothing wrong with them. There are 2.5 million people on disability benefits and as such should have no qualms about justifying their right to claim those benefits

Nope ... still don't like it ... and I still believe that tory parties will use sensationalist stories and vague statements like "we see it time after time" and "milking the system" as a prelude to attacking the poor and those who need help. Ok ... those who abuse the system should, as they do here, face another system: criminal justice. But I will never believe that millions should have to "[justify] their right to claim ... benefits", because of the inevitable abuse by a minority.

I remember reading a comment, years ago, before the net, when Thatcher was in power. It went something like: "Thatcher isn't a rascist. She hates poor people whatever color they are."

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by Eric

Nope ... still don't like it ... and I still believe that tory parties will use sensationalist stories and vague statements like "we see it time after time" and "milking the system" as a prelude to attacking the poor and those who need help. Ok ... those who abuse the system should, as they do here, face another system: criminal justice. But I will never believe that millions should have to "[justify] their right to claim ... benefits", because of the inevitable abuse by a minority.

I remember reading a comment, years ago, before the net, when Thatcher was in power. It went something like: "Thatcher isn't a rascist. She hates poor people whatever color they are."

I absolutely agree.
The problem of abuse is exaggerated/publicised.
The 'people' demand a solution.
....and the solution is
benefit cuts for EVERYBODY

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Eric

Nope ... still don't like it ... and I still believe that tory parties will use sensationalist stories and vague statements like "we see it time after time" and "milking the system" as a prelude to attacking the poor and those who need help. Ok ... those who abuse the system should, as they do here, face another system: criminal justice. But I will never believe that millions should have to "[justify] their right to claim ... benefits", because of the inevitable abuse by a minority.

I remember reading a comment, years ago, before the net, when Thatcher was in power. It went something like: "Thatcher isn't a rascist. She hates poor people whatever color they are."

Nailed it bang on, trouble is the media brainwash the numpties into thinking the minority is a majority.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Its not a matter of attacking Social security and welfare Eric, we see it time after time on TV and in the media people milking the system when there is nothing wrong with them. There are 2.5 million people on disability benefits and as such should have no qualms about justifying their right to claim those benefits

Maybe we see one or two cases a week reported in the newspapers were some bod or family is claiming benifits they do not deserve.. one or two the percentage is not even worth trying to work out...let's get things clear, the need to make cuts have little to do with who deserves what.. weeding out the very minute proportion of those that are "scrounging" will save little ..the only way to make massive cuts in social benifits is to transfer those who are already on a poverty rated income to an even lower income...it's simple,, if you can walk you are fit for work and from what I've heard you will get around £65 per week instead of something like £85..

This is more of the same old rubbish economics the Tories have dished out over the last 100yrs... they talk big on abolishing Quangos, but in less than 3 months they have set up over 25 "commisions" at a cost of billions to work out the best means to make cuts.
I'm surprised we have not got to the stage were we attack single women with kids.. maybe they are saving that as back up.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Mancie

Maybe we see one or two cases a week reported in the newspapers were some bod or family is claiming benefits they do not deserve.. one or two the percentage is not even worth trying to work out...let's get things clear, the need to make cuts have little to do with who deserves what.. weeding out the very minute proportion of those that are "scrounging" will save little ..the only way to make massive cuts in social benefits is to transfer those who are already on a poverty rated income to an even lower income...it's simple,, if you can walk you are fit for work and from what I've heard you will get around £65 per week instead of something like £85..

This is more of the same old rubbish economics the Tories have dished out over the last 100yrs... they talk big on abolishing Quangos, but in less than 3 months they have set up over 25 "commissions" at a cost of billions to work out the best means to make cuts.
I'm surprised we have not got to the stage were we attack single women with kids.. maybe they are saving that as back up.

There wouldn't need to be cuts at all if, over the last 13 years this country had been run right, instead of throwing tax payers money around like confetti and when the tax money ran out they started borrowing like there was no tomorrow, well tomorrow as come and after years of reckless sending its got to be paid back and as usual the culprits have sailed into the wind to coin it in writing their memoirs, funny really theres only you and your ilk can't see it, or better still don't want to

[blazey]

Actually you'd lose job seekers allowance if you turned down a job and the job centre became aware of it. Not too sure about other forms of benefit though as they're not necessarily dependent on employment.

I've never really been interested in employment and benefits rules and regulations, I imagine one of the people who has worked at the job centre before will have a better idea about it?

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by jaysay

There wouldn't need to be cuts at all if, over the last 13 years this country had been run right, instead of throwing tax payers money around like confetti and when the tax money ran out they started borrowing like there was no tomorrow, well tomorrow as come and after years of reckless sending its got to be paid back and as usual the culprits have sailed into the wind to coin it in writing their memoirs, funny really theres only you and your ilk can't see it, or better still don't want to

Sorry John, although you make a valid point I must point out that Peter Britcliffe is doing exactly the same thing this year. His budget for 2010-2011 outlines plans to increase Hyndburn's percentage of variable rate loans from 60% to 100% during the current global economic climate, meaning that even half a percent increase will massively increase council debt. He's currently crowing about making £1.9m of savings (which he hasn't, if you look at the figures) and yet is about to saddle whoever gets control of the council next May with a collossal bill that we don't need.

Still, the public won't know any different, why not just say it's 13 years of Labour government?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by jaysay

There wouldn't need to be cuts at all if, over the last 13 years this country had been run right, instead of throwing tax payers money around like confetti and when the tax money ran out they started borrowing like there was no tomorrow, well tomorrow as come and after years of reckless sending its got to be paid back and as usual the culprits have sailed into the wind to coin it in writing their memoirs, funny really theres only you and your ilk can't see it, or better still don't want to

I really don't buy this line of argument (if you weren't such a nice guy, I'd say it was a crock of horse manure). You are suggesting that the state of the British economy is solely a result of bad government by Labor. It is, however, plainly a result of the recent global economic crash, possibly exacerbated by government profligacy. But the economic crisis was caused by the greed, criminal in some cases, of the right-wing leaders of the major banks and financial institutions. What you seem to be suggesting is that a party of the left caused the problem, and, perhaps, by extension, it is left wing thinking that is at its root. Then how can we account for what happened in the US? Their economy took as big a shlt-kicking as yours, and under an ultra right wing government. Nah, I really can't go along with this ideological argument for why the UK economy is in trouble.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Eric

I really don't buy this line of argument (if you weren't such a nice guy, I'd say it was a crock of horse manure). You are suggesting that the state of the British economy is solely a result of bad government by Labor. It is, however, plainly a result of the recent global economic crash, possibly exacerbated by government profligacy. But the economic crisis was caused by the greed, criminal in some cases, of the right-wing leaders of the major banks and financial institutions. What you seem to be suggesting is that a party of the left caused the problem, and, perhaps, by extension, it is left wing thinking that is at its root. Then how can we account for what happened in the US? Their economy took as big a shlt-kicking as yours, and under an ultra right wing government. Nah, I really can't go along with this ideological argument for why the UK economy is in trouble.

Okay there's been a recession Eric, but the fact that we were the first in and last out, mainly because Flash Gordon was more interested in his own world status and tried to save the world single handed. The fact that Labour inherited the best economic figures of any incoming government in our history, and left us with the biggest debt in peace time history speaks volumes. They deregulated the Banks sold off our assets and still made a dogs breakfast of it. Oh and by the way your a nice guy too Eric