Benefits Street

[Zingari]

Interesting stat in the box of your Mail quote there: Since Oct 2012 (just over a year ago), 818,000 people have had their benefits sanctioned. As unemployment has been about 2.5m, does that mean that on average 1 in 3 of the unemployed are lazy, scrounging frauds (and that's just the ones who are caught, apparently)?

 

I agree that some do fit that description, but 1 in 3?!? If so, what were they doing before the financial crash, when unemployment was much lower and why have they suddenly changed from people in employment to lazy, fraudulent benefits scroungers?

 

Do you have any evidence of this mass transformation of reliable workers into idle scroungers?

 

Some Tory was on TV earlier spouting that sanctions "aren't and shouldn't be the first response" or words to that effect. I've bored on about this before, so will keep it brief: my nephew, who's been in F/T employment for most of the past 6-7 years and is desperate to get back to work, has had his benefits stopped twice in 4 months as a first response to, at the very worst, minor technical infringements.

 

Never mind White Dee (who should have a proper medical assessment and be helped/vigorously encouraged to get back to work, if fit), do you have evidence of this sudden massive increase in benefits scrounging and of the reason for this?

How dare you use  actual real life experiences, and straight forward irrefutable logic as evidence Alf ? aren't TV programmes like BS ( that's benefits street not bull shit btw) enough as evidence to the contrary that the unemployed are all  scroungers ?

 

Any fool can see that all 3 million of the unemployed  could and should  get one of the half million vacancies if they really tried  and if the system would only penalise them all hard enough to get off their fat arses.

[Captain...]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563069/Questions-Benefits-Streets-White-Dee-appear-TV-ill-work.html

 

Good on the Mail and the Tories, hopefully the press can get on her back a bit more.

 

An interesting walk through of how you can pocket a tidy sum on benefits as well.

 

To do what Matt? Forget that she is now a "celebrity" and will probably get a job due to that, even if she was re-assessed and classed as fit to work, do you think she will get a job (again ignoring the fact she is now a celebrity) she is physically unfit, has had mental health problems (don't know if you need to declare things like that), was sacked from her last job for stealing and has a brummie accent.  Who would employ her? She has only been off sick for the last couple of years, she was on benefits for the 5 years prior to that, unable to find a job as she is largely unemployable.

 

The only thing she can do is milk her "celebrity" status for every penny she can get, but as that is not regular income, I don't know how that affects her right to claim, I know it would satisfy a lot of people to see her stripped of benefits and forced to clean toilets for the rest of her life, but it wouldn't change anything. All this programme has done has switched the focus of benefits on to a few individuals, yay Mark got a job, yay White Dee has been reassessed and is now off disability, yay Fungi is getting help to get clean,  yay Danny is in jail*, but it doesn't change the fact that the system of benefits and working in this country is the problem. There are thousands more Fungis, Marks, Dees, Dannys in this country we can't make a TV programme about all of them, maybe the next one will be interactive and we will be able to vote to say whether they desereve their benefits or not, we can judge their mental and physical capabilities to work in 40 minutes, press 1 to increase their benefits, press 2 to keep them the same, press 3 to sanction them and reduce benefits, press 4 to have the scrounging scumbag put down publicly and inhumanely.

 

This programme and the subsequent debates have done nothing to actually further the debate just reduce it down to the micro level, a few extreme examples, there have been no solutions proposed or changes to the system that supports people not to work, just mud-slinging, name calling, headline writing and political posturing. Meanwhile there are still huge numbers of people claiming benefits, living in poverty, being put at risk, playing the system, not contributing, scrounging, faking, struggling, dying, basically falling through the cracks of society and getting White Dee classified as fit to work is not going to change any of that.

 

 

 

*speaking of Danny: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562922/Benefits-Street-Danny-Channel-4-risked-life-making-look-like-I-stole-cannabis-drug-gang-career-shoplifter.html

[Rincewind]

So it was in the Mail? What a surprise. The voice piece of the Government andering to the converted 19th Century thinking public.

What world do they live in? Mental health issues have now been accepted as an illness by the medical profession and those with a broad mind. That is why there are weeks dedicated to it. To educate the ignorant who have comfortable lives and never come into contact with those  with vulnerabilities. Things are changing though. There are people at the middle to lower end of the pay ladder struggling to pay mortgages. Pay Day loan shops are increasing as more and more are drawn into debt and the worry could draw them to depression. Butt you have never suffered depression have you Matt? You drink yourself into a drunken stuper to prevent thinking about things and others.

I will probably get a lot of sarcastic comments now and should delete this post, But what the hell. You are either a troll and winding people up or serious. Either way I feel sorry for you but have no empathy I;m afraid. I'll save that for the more deserving.

[Strokes]

So it was in the Mail? What a surprise. The voice piece of the Government andering to the converted 19th Century thinking public.

What world do they live in? Mental health issues have now been accepted as an illness by the medical profession and those with a broad mind. That is why there are weeks dedicated to it. To educate the ignorant who have comfortable lives and never come into contact with those with vulnerabilities. Things are changing though. There are people at the middle to lower end of the pay ladder struggling to pay mortgages. Pay Day loan shops are increasing as more and more are drawn into debt and the worry could draw them to depression. Butt you have never suffered depression have you Matt? You drink yourself into a drunken stuper to prevent thinking about things and others.

I will probably get a lot of sarcastic comments now and should delete this post, But what the hell. You are either a troll and winding people up or serious. Either way I feel sorry for you but have no empathy I;m afraid. I'll save that for the more deserving.

[MooseBreath]

lol

[MooseBreath]

[Evan Davis] it's a passionate pitch from kenny, but will the dragons be convinced by his emotive tones. Peter Jones wants to know more about the numbers involved.

[Peter Jones] Kenny, hi, I'm Peter. I've been involved im several projects of this kind, but I've never heard of anyone making these kind of claims. Can you provide any substantiation?

[Deborah Meaden] before you answer that kenny, let me tell you where I am. This is ludicrous. Your claims are absurd. This isn't a viable investment. I'm afraid therefore I have to say, I'm out. Ok? Ok.

[Kenny] takes from the rich, gives to the poor boris blood, boris blood, boris blood

[sphericalfox]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/forget-benefits-street-when-will-we-shame-scroungers-lapping-corporate-welfare

 

 

 

Forget Benefits Street. When will we shame the scroungers lapping up corporate welfare?

 

 

Ignore the media misinformation: spending on out-of-work benefits isn’t out of control, nor is the welfare state responsible for growing poverty.

 

From The Big Benefits Row to Benefits Street, everyone in the media seems to want to talk about welfare these days. Or, more accurately, social security.

In an age of austerity, I won’t pretend to be surprised by the obsession with welfare and so-called “welfare dependencyâ€, but there is a point worth making here: why do we obsess over handouts for the poor, rather than handouts for the rich? Why isn’t the scandal of corporate welfare the subject of fly-on-the-wall documentaries, too? When will my former colleagues at Channel 4 air a series called Bankers’ Street?

Ignore the media misinformation: spending on out-of-work benefits isn’t out of control, nor is the welfare state responsible for growing poverty. It cannot be repeated often enough: most of the social security budget (53 per cent) is spent on pensioners. That compares with a little over a quarter (26 per cent) on those much-maligned out-of-work benefits. Spending on the latter, as a proportion of national income, has been pretty flat for almost three decades.

The number of working households living below the poverty line now outnumbers the number of workless households – 6.7 million compared with 6.3 million. A life on social security isn’t the chief driver of poverty; a life on low pay is. Rather than decry the level of benefits that the jobless and the disabled are entitled to, perhaps politicians and pundits should focus on how four out of every five new jobs created under this government have been in low-pay sectors such as retail, hospitality and residential care. One in five of the UK workforce now earns less than the living wage and requires in-work benefits just to make ends meet – that’s five million people in total.

So let us turn instead to the real scandal, the issue that dare not speak its name: corporate welfare. Where is the ministerial or media anger over the activities of G4S and Serco, which are accused of ripping off the taxpayer but which make millions from lavish government contracts? Where are the howls of outrage over taxpayer-funded payouts to the fossil-fuel industry? The Met Office’s chief scientist may believe “there is a link†between the recent floods and climate change but the government continues to subsidise the coal, oil and gas industries to the tune of £2.6bn a year.

Why are the rail company bosses not household names in the same way as White Dee or Smoggy from Benefits Street? The UK has the most expensive rail fares in Europe and yet, according to research by the University of Manchester, the train-operating companies are completely dependent on public subsidies. The university’s June 2013 report for the TUC, aptly entitledThe Great Train Robbery, revealed that the top five recipients alone got almost £3bn in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. Meanwhile, Network Rail, which is in charge of the UK’s rail infrastructure, receives an annual public subsidy of £4bn (roughly four times greater than the comparable cost under the publicly owned British Rail in the early 1990s).

Dare I mention PFI? Wait, don’t yawn at the back. The Private Finance Initiative, where construction and maintenance of schools, hospitals, roads and the rest are contracted out to private firms, was invented by the Tories in 1992, ramped up by New Labour over 13 years and continues under the coalition. As of 2013, it was forecast that 725 PFI contracts for public facilities across the UK, with a total capital value of £54bn, will cost the Exchequer more than £300bn by the time they are paid off. How’s that for a “something for nothing†culture?

Then there are the bank bailouts, perhaps the biggest act of corporate welfare in living memory. You want benefit spongers? Head for the Square Mile. As of 2013, the total level of financial support provided to the banks by the state, in the form of guarantees and cash outlays, amounted to £141bn, according to the National Audit Office. At the height of the financial crisis, the figure was an astonishing £1.1trn – enough to cover the £5bn Jobseeker’s Allowance budget for the next 200 years. And yet, in spite of being propped up by the taxpayer, RBS and Lloyds are expected to pay out roughly £900m in combined bonuses for 2013. Do I hear the word “scroungersâ€?

The truth is that the austerity junkies and deficit fetishists on the right aren’t bothered by welfare, or the cost of welfare, per se – only by the billions of pounds that go to the poor rather than the rich; to social programmes, job-guarantee schemes and housing for the homeless, rather than to the shareholders of multinational corporations and other financial institutions.

Remember: big business needs big government. The US economist Dean Baker rightly refers to “nanny-state conservativesâ€, whom he describes as “enthusiastic supporters of the big-government policies that send income flowing upwardâ€. They are aided by their friends, allies and outriders in the right-wing media echo chamber, who have never had to endure the indignity of turning to payday lenders or food banks in order to survive. The callousness of commentators and columnists who kiss up and kick down, to borrow a line from the Labour MP Jon Cruddas, is unforgivable.

The job of the press, in the words of the Irish-American satirist Finley Peter Dunne, “is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortableâ€. The modern media, however, with their relentless frenzy over social security payments to those at the bottom rather than corporate welfare payouts at the top, have shamelessly turned Dunne’s dictum on its head.

[absolutelegend]

So it was in the Mail? What a surprise. The voice piece of the Government andering to the converted 19th Century thinking public.

What world do they live in? Mental health issues have now been accepted as an illness by the medical profession and those with a broad mind. That is why there are weeks dedicated to it. To educate the ignorant who have comfortable lives and never come into contact with those  with vulnerabilities. Things are changing though. There are people at the middle to lower end of the pay ladder struggling to pay mortgages. Pay Day loan shops are increasing as more and more are drawn into debt and the worry could draw them to depression. Butt you have never suffered depression have you Matt? You drink yourself into a drunken stuper to prevent thinking about things and others.

I will probably get a lot of sarcastic comments now and should delete this post, But what the hell. You are either a troll and winding people up or serious. Either way I feel sorry for you but have no empathy I;m afraid. I'll save that for the more deserving.

 

bit early to be on the drink?

[Guest MattP]

Just had a huge reply typed out and it vanished so unfortunately this will be a bit shorter.

 

I can't believe two people have jumped at my Mail wind up though, seriously, do you not know me by now?

 

 

Interesting stat in the box of your Mail quote there: Since Oct 2012 (just over a year ago), 818,000 people have had their benefits sanctioned. As unemployment has been about 2.5m, does that mean that on average 1 in 3 of the unemployed are lazy, scrounging frauds (and that's just the ones who are caught, apparently)?

 

I agree that some do fit that description, but 1 in 3?!? If so, what were they doing before the financial crash, when unemployment was much lower and why have they suddenly changed from people in employment to lazy, fraudulent benefits scroungers?

 

Do you have any evidence of this mass transformation of reliable workers into idle scroungers?

 

It's impossible to get the figures of genuine scrounges isnt it Alf? Guys like Fungi are actually classed as a jobseekers along with all the genuine cases so it would impossible to tell you a number.

 

I'm sure we all agree the figures have gone up and I'd guess its far larger than a lot of people think given their are numerous JTS in towns across the country.

 

I think thats the way any government seems to want it, maybe we should have different level of "jobseekers".

 

To do what Matt? Forget that she is now a "celebrity" and will probably get a job due to that, even if she was re-assessed and classed as fit to work, do you think she will get a job (again ignoring the fact she is now a celebrity) she is physically unfit, has had mental health problems (don't know if you need to declare things like that), was sacked from her last job for stealing and has a brummie accent.  Who would employ her? She has only been off sick for the last couple of years, she was on benefits for the 5 years prior to that, unable to find a job as she is largely unemployable.

 

The only thing she can do is milk her "celebrity" status for every penny she can get, but as that is not regular income, I don't know how that affects her right to claim, I know it would satisfy a lot of people to see her stripped of benefits and forced to clean toilets for the rest of her life, but it wouldn't change anything. All this programme has done has switched the focus of benefits on to a few individuals, yay Mark got a job, yay White Dee has been reassessed and is now off disability, yay Fungi is getting help to get clean,  yay Danny is in jail*, but it doesn't change the fact that the system of benefits and working in this country is the problem. There are thousands more Fungis, Marks, Dees, Dannys in this country we can't make a TV programme about all of them, maybe the next one will be interactive and we will be able to vote to say whether they desereve their benefits or not, we can judge their mental and physical capabilities to work in 40 minutes, press 1 to increase their benefits, press 2 to keep them the same, press 3 to sanction them and reduce benefits, press 4 to have the scrounging scumbag put down publicly and inhumanely.

 

This programme and the subsequent debates have done nothing to actually further the debate just reduce it down to the micro level, a few extreme examples, there have been no solutions proposed or changes to the system that supports people not to work, just mud-slinging, name calling, headline writing and political posturing. Meanwhile there are still huge numbers of people claiming benefits, living in poverty, being put at risk, playing the system, not contributing, scrounging, faking, struggling, dying, basically falling through the cracks of society and getting White Dee classified as fit to work is not going to change any of that.

 

Would I employ her? Sure she could do some cleaning or something.

 

You are completely contradicting yourself here, on one hand you are telling us its her depression that stops her working then you are telling us she has no choice but to milk every penny while shes a celeb, so her depression only kicks in when its a low paid job then?

 

A cleaning job she cant do but when decent money rolls in she all of a sudden is out of bed at 7am to be able to get to London and appear on This Morning followed by appearances late at night on various debate shows, she's gone from 0 hours a day to 50, I'm presuming the bipolar and depression are just taking a back seat for a while until the cheques dry up?

 

If you stopped this womans benefits she would be working in no time, its plainly obvious and with every passing TV/newspaper appearance the excuses for her idleness become more and more embarrassing. Why you keep defending her I'll never know, Alf and Rincewind I can see the logic (a vote for his party the former and a crush the latter) but you I can't figure it. I know you enjoy the "defend the indefensible" reputation you have but this is going to far.

 

So a bit of attention and one got a job, one came off disabilities, one tried to get clean, you actually sound upset at this? Maybe they were so embarrassed looking at themselves they didnt realise just what they had become. If thats the case lets do a show every week.

 

I disagree on the last paragraph, more people are off benefits and more people are in work so something is clearly changing, of course you won't recognise that though as deep down you seem to want to keep these people down just as much as the next politican, for what purpose only you know.

[Guest MattP]

So it was in the Mail? What a surprise. The voice piece of the Government andering to the converted 19th Century thinking public.

What world do they live in? Mental health issues have now been accepted as an illness by the medical profession and those with a broad mind. That is why there are weeks dedicated to it. To educate the ignorant who have comfortable lives and never come into contact with those  with vulnerabilities. Things are changing though. There are people at the middle to lower end of the pay ladder struggling to pay mortgages. Pay Day loan shops are increasing as more and more are drawn into debt and the worry could draw them to depression. Butt you have never suffered depression have you Matt? You drink yourself into a drunken stuper to prevent thinking about things and others.

I will probably get a lot of sarcastic comments now and should delete this post, But what the hell. You are either a troll and winding people up or serious. Either way I feel sorry for you but have no empathy I;m afraid. I'll save that for the more deserving.

 

Believe me Ken I'll have put a bullet in my head or a noose around my neck long before I take sympathy or help from you, DNO, etc etc or that Motley Crue you posted a video up of the other day. (what the hell was that guy doing in a florescent vest btw?, why would anyone voluntarily wear one of those hideous things, is he is not capable of walking through town without injuring himself, being hit etc without one)

 

You think my life is comfortable, how do you know that? How do you know I dont get the Blues? I do actually, quite often, you say I have it easy and then two lines down you say I drink myself into a stuper to prevent thiking about other things, make up your mind.

 

I only drink at weekends by the way Ken unless it's a special occasion, with money I earn after I have paid my tax so others who do nothing can get by. I don't cruise around the pubs in town on Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday drinking real ale before retirement age on the taxpayers money, maybe if I did you would see me as a man of virtue and someone more deserving.

[Captain...]

Would I employ her? Sure she could do some cleaning or something.

 

You are completely contradicting yourself here, on one hand you are telling us its her depression that stops her working then you are telling us she has no choice but to milk every penny while shes a celeb, so her depression only kicks in when its a low paid job then?

 

A cleaning job she cant do but when decent money rolls in she all of a sudden is out of bed at 7am to be able to get to London and appear on This Morning followed by appearances late at night on various debate shows, she's gone from 0 hours a day to 50, I'm presuming the bipolar and depression are just taking a back seat for a while until the cheques dry up?

 

If you stopped this womans benefits she would be working in no time, its plainly obvious and with every passing TV/newspaper appearance the excuses for her idleness become more and more embarrassing. Why you keep defending her I'll never know, Alf and Rincewind I can see the logic (a vote for his party the former and a crush the latter) but you I can't figure it. I know you enjoy the "defend the indefensible" reputation you have but this is going to far.

 

So a bit of attention and one got a job, one came off disabilities, one tried to get clean, you actually sound upset at this? Maybe they were so embarrassed looking at themselves they didnt realise just what they had become. If thats the case lets do a show every week.

 

I disagree on the last paragraph, more people are off benefits and more people are in work so something is clearly changing, of course you won't recognise that though as deep down you seem to want to keep these people down just as much as the next politican, for what purpose only you know.

 

Surely you can see the difference between getting out of bed every day for the daily grind, or having a few TV appearances, I didn't say she has no choice but to do TV appearances but she is well within her rights to.

 

I'm not defending her, I'm just saying it is not as easy as just saying get a job, she was on benefits before she was signed off with depression, and would end up on benefits doing the JSA dance if she was deemed fit to work (for £30 less aweek).

 

Ok maybe you would employ her to clean toilets, if she was the only candidate, but if you had a choice between a smoking, boozing, overweight, depressed thief who hadn't worked for 7 years, or pretty much anyone else, who would you choose? You stop her benefits she would probably try harder to find a job but that is no guarantee of getting a job.

 

But my real issue is that what happens to Dee doesn't change anything, doesn't address the real problems with the welfare system and the JSA and it won't make any difference what so ever, except for the newspapers to pursue her hunt for a job, to applaud her when she starts working and set her up to pounce on her should she fail.

 

I am happy that Mark and Fungi are trying to make something of their lives but that is 2 people out of thousands on benefits we can't do a TV show every week, the question is why does it take a TV show for Mark to get a job? We have a whole agency dedicated to getting people into work. Why can't they find the Mark's of this world a job.

 

Why do you think I am trying to keep these down? I would embrace a world where everyone works and contributes and is able to provide a decent standard of living for them and their families. What I see is huge disparity in wages, social mobility at an all time low, some people working 70-80 hours a week, some people on zero hour contracts, more people working but not earning a living wage and more people slipping through the cracks and being failed by the system (but these are helpfully kept off the stats). Helping a handful of them on James Turner street means fvck all when there are thousands more out there, likewise vilifying a couple of them on James Turner street for being lazy idle scum, makes fvck all difference, maybe they are, but they should be assessed by professionals not trial by media.

 

What I want to see is more resources pumped into finding people jobs and making them employable, as well chasing up those that are playing the system and stopping their benefits, every article I have read and story I have heard about the job centre is that it is not fit for purpose. Too easy to scam, zero common sense applies to sanctioning and make no effort to help you find work. White Dee getting a job is not going to change any of that.

[Guest MattP]

Surely you can see the difference between getting out of bed every day for the daily grind, or having a few TV appearances, I didn't say she has no choice but to do TV appearances but she is well within her rights to.

 

I'm not defending her, I'm just saying it is not as easy as just saying get a job, she was on benefits before she was signed off with depression, and would end up on benefits doing the JSA dance if she was deemed fit to work (for £30 less aweek).

 

Ok maybe you would employ her to clean toilets, if she was the only candidate, but if you had a choice between a smoking, boozing, overweight, depressed thief who hadn't worked for 7 years, or pretty much anyone else, who would you choose? You stop her benefits she would probably try harder to find a job but that is no guarantee of getting a job.

 

But my real issue is that what happens to Dee doesn't change anything, doesn't address the real problems with the welfare system and the JSA and it won't make any difference what so ever, except for the newspapers to pursue her hunt for a job, to applaud her when she starts working and set her up to pounce on her should she fail.

 

I am happy that Mark and Fungi are trying to make something of their lives but that is 2 people out of thousands on benefits we can't do a TV show every week, the question is why does it take a TV show for Mark to get a job? We have a whole agency dedicated to getting people into work. Why can't they find the Mark's of this world a job.

 

Why do you think I am trying to keep these down? I would embrace a world where everyone works and contributes and is able to provide a decent standard of living for them and their families. What I see is huge disparity in wages, social mobility at an all time low, some people working 70-80 hours a week, some people on zero hour contracts, more people working but not earning a living wage and more people slipping through the cracks and being failed by the system (but these are helpfully kept off the stats). Helping a handful of them on James Turner street means fvck all when there are thousands more out there, likewise vilifying a couple of them on James Turner street for being lazy idle scum, makes fvck all difference, maybe they are, but they should be assessed by professionals not trial by media.

 

What I want to see is more resources pumped into finding people jobs and making them employable, as well chasing up those that are playing the system and stopping their benefits, every article I have read and story I have heard about the job centre is that it is not fit for purpose. Too easy to scam, zero common sense applies to sanctioning and make no effort to help you find work. White Dee getting a job is not going to change any of that.

 

Of course I can, but if someone is genuinely depressed I don't think they could lap up the attention that this woman is getting.

 

She only has herself to blame for being overweight, boozing and smoking, its a terrible state tha welfare covers that part of a lifestyle, think we are just going to go around in circles though here.

 

Think we have gone over the job centre time and time again, clearly hopeless and needs reforming but there is no chance of that happening as if anyone tried to they would immediately accused of attacking the poor etc blah blah blah

 

At least we seem to have a government now trying to make people work and trying to end the cycle of the dependency culture, it wont be perfect but at least its a start.

[Guest MattP]

lol

 

Someone is actually making a "Benefits Street Porno"

 

https://twitter.com/BenefitsTreat

 

Instead of White Dee, Fungi and Black Dee we've got White DP, Clunge Guy and Black Deep.

[Captain...]

1.Of course I can, but if someone is genuinely depressed I don't think they could lap up the attention that this woman is getting.

 

2.She only has herself to blame for being overweight, boozing and smoking, its a terrible state tha welfare covers that part of a lifestyle, think we are just going to go around in circles though here.

 

3.Think we have gone over the job centre time and time again, clearly hopeless and needs reforming but there is no chance of that happening as if anyone tried to they would immediately accused of attacking the poor etc blah blah blah

 

4.At least we seem to have a government now trying to make people work and trying to end the cycle of the dependency culture, it wont be perfect but at least its a start.

 

1. That probably means you have very little experience of what depressed people are like, it is not a case of walking around being miserable and crying all the time, that is an emo, depressed people can laugh and have fun and enjoy themselves, appearing on a few tv shows doesn't prove anything one way or another.

 

2. Not denying that.

 

3. They would not be accused of attacking the poor if it the money was invested in training up the job centre staff to do their jobs properly, which means spotting people playing the system and not sanctioning those who aren't, but make an honest mistake.

 

4. But they aren't trying to make people work, they are trying to get people off benefits and costing the state less, there isn't a surplus of jobs that these people aren't taking, there are not enough jobs at the moment for everyone to be employed. If the government was more interested in getting everyone into work, they should spend their time and effort trying to stimulate the job market, not chasing those that are on benefits. Apart from the work scheme, which I support in principle, but I don't think it will ever get off the ground, and if it does they will most likely do it in a twattish way that leaves the "work force" open to exploitation and seriously underpaid for their time and result in job losses as they are replaced by this work force, rather than an opportunity to get people back into the habit of working and making them more employable. But we shall wait and see on that one.

[Alf Bentley]

Just had a huge reply typed out and it vanished so unfortunately this will be a bit shorter.

 

I can't believe two people have jumped at my Mail wind up though, seriously, do you not know me by now?

 

It's impossible to get the figures of genuine scrounges isnt it Alf? Guys like Fungi are actually classed as a jobseekers along with all the genuine cases so it would impossible to tell you a number.

 

I'm sure we all agree the figures have gone up and I'd guess its far larger than a lot of people think given their are numerous JTS in towns across the country.

 

I think thats the way any government seems to want it, maybe we should have different level of "jobseekers".

 

[....] Why you keep defending her I'll never know, Alf and Rincewind I can see the logic (a vote for his party the former and a crush the latter) but you I can't figure it. 

 

Sorry to hear about your "huge reply". I've lost huge replies in the past. Worse still, I've sometimes posted them! 

 

To protect my reputation for not being a mug (just a pompous, argumentative windbag), I didn't "jump at your Mail wind-up", I just noticed that figure of 810,000 people sanctioned in just over a year and thought it worth mentioning - particularly as I know people who have been sanctioned very harshly. Not that I'm bothered what people think of me...though I'd clarify, again, that I haven't been a Labour Party member since 1997, plan to vote Green next time and voted Lib Dem in 2001 & 2005.

 

I agree that it would be hard to put a figure on the number of "scroungers". I find the idea that 1 in 3 claimants (the proportion sanctioned) are scroungers unbelievable, though. I might be wrong about that, but the fact that I know people who genuinely want to work and have been harshly sanctioned supports my instinct (inconclusively). It makes me angry that genuine but unworldly people are being treated harshly, rather than helped to find work, just because they're an easier target than the minority of hardcore scroungers, who absolutely should be targeted. Better guidance/practical support for the former, and target sanctions on the latter, I say.

 

Are you still likely to be on for this pint with Lamby, Walshy5 (?) and me before or after the Charlton match? I didn't think that I was going to be able to make it as my parents were hoping to move home that weekend, but it sounds as if that will be delayed by at least 1-2 weeks, so I'm still on for that if others are interested. Might be an idea to ban "benefits scroungers" as a discussion topic, though, in case we bore everyone shitless with views neither of us is likely to change!   

 

 

[Guest MattP]

1. That probably means you have very little experience of what depressed people are like, it is not a case of walking around being miserable and crying all the time, that is an emo, depressed people can laugh and have fun and enjoy themselves, appearing on a few tv shows doesn't prove anything one way or another.

 

2. Not denying that.

 

3. They would not be accused of attacking the poor if it the money was invested in training up the job centre staff to do their jobs properly, which means spotting people playing the system and not sanctioning those who aren't, but make an honest mistake.

 

4. But they aren't trying to make people work, they are trying to get people off benefits and costing the state less, there isn't a surplus of jobs that these people aren't taking, there are not enough jobs at the moment for everyone to be employed. If the government was more interested in getting everyone into work, they should spend their time and effort trying to stimulate the job market, not chasing those that are on benefits. Apart from the work scheme, which I support in principle, but I don't think it will ever get off the ground, and if it does they will most likely do it in a twattish way that leaves the "work force" open to exploitation and seriously underpaid for their time and result in job losses as they are replaced by this work force, rather than an opportunity to get people back into the habit of working and making them more employable. But we shall wait and see on that one.1.

 

1. Would either of us? It does disprove that her depression is keeping her from getting out and earning. (imo of course, and I do realise the diff between tv and daily grind, but thats not depression, thats being sad you have a shit job)

 

2. Good

 

3. They would, whatever was done it would be twisted into something its not, thats politics. Then we'd have Ken etc wheeling out the 10,000 dead because of it and the millions who have wrongly had their benefits taken off them even if was a handful who were caught.

 

4. Like I said, it's a start, it won't be perfect. The numbers working are a great sign though and you can;t deny that some of those will have been because benefits have been sanctioned. Working for the lower class and unskilled is going to be shit from now on, if you have people walking across the continent free to walk into an unskilled position in an already saturated job market, wages are going to get worse and their isn't a thing you will be able to do about it.

[Guest MattP]

Sorry to hear about your "huge reply". I've lost huge replies in the past. Worse still, I've sometimes posted them! 

 

To protect my reputation for not being a mug (just a pompous, argumentative windbag), I didn't "jump at your Mail wind-up", I just noticed that figure of 810,000 people sanctioned in just over a year and thought it worth mentioning - particularly as I know people who have been sanctioned very harshly. Not that I'm bothered what people think of me...though I'd clarify, again, that I haven't been a Labour Party member since 1997, plan to vote Green next time and voted Lib Dem in 2001 & 2005.

 

I agree that it would be hard to put a figure on the number of "scroungers". I find the idea that 1 in 3 claimants (the proportion sanctioned) are scroungers unbelievable, though. I might be wrong about that, but the fact that I know people who genuinely want to work and have been harshly sanctioned supports my instinct (inconclusively). It makes me angry that genuine but unworldly people are being treated harshly, rather than helped to find work, just because they're an easier target than the minority of hardcore scroungers, who absolutely should be targeted. Better guidance/practical support for the former, and target sanctions on the latter, I say.

 

Are you still likely to be on for this pint with Lamby, Walshy5 (?) and me before or after the Charlton match? I didn't think that I was going to be able to make it as my parents were hoping to move home that weekend, but it sounds as if that will be delayed by at least 1-2 weeks, so I'm still on for that if others are interested. Might be an idea to ban "benefits scroungers" as a discussion topic, though, in case we bore everyone shitless with views neither of us is likely to change!   

 

Fair play, I'll be honest after I posted I also forgot you had voted for the Greens.

 

Definitely still up for the pint, I think Walshy said the King Richard III before the game from what i remember? I'm sure we'll have the odd comment when the beers start flowing, I had a pint with Unabomber as well the other week and he might be up for it?

 

Anymore GCers up for it?

[ADK]

It's not a question of whether someone has depression or not, it's whether they are fit to work. White Dee is clearly 100% fit to work and she shouldn't be claiming sickness benefits. I am not anti benefits or anti disabled in the slightest but you have to call a spade a spade. Having an illness or disability does not mean you don't have to go to work unless that illness or disability prevents you from working.

[Guest MattP]

It's not a question of whether someone has depression or not, it's whether they are fit to work. White Dee is clearly 100% fit to work and she shouldn't be claiming sickness benefits. I am not anti benefits or anti disabled in the slightest but you have to call a spade a spade. Having an illness or disability does not mean you don't have to go to work unless that illness or disability prevents you from working.

Bloody hell we are agreeing 100%

[Rincewind]

On the other hand when an unqualified assessor deems a disabled fit for work just to tick boxes you have to question it. Atos (which was set up by a Labour Government so I am not just Tory bashing) is a French based company and they survive by making a profit. The more people they deem fit the more they and their employees earn, They are a business so that side of it is understandable. But when thousands of GP's refuse to work with them because of the methods and saying they are unethical it is no surprise that people get angry.

Depression ia not continuous. People with it have good and bad days. It would take an understanding employer to be called up by a person at the last minute saying they could not go into work. How would they tell from the genuine and the workshy?

I am not  saying the disabled should be exempt from working but there has to be a better. way of determining their  fitness. Many disabled people want to work because they have more to prove and do not like being singled out.. Few have said if you want me to work then find me a job with facilities that match their needs.

I did not realise the Mail thing was a wind up. I was in a rush as I was going to the Derby Beer Fest. I apologise for my reaction if it was a little OTT.

[MooseBreath]

The more people they deem fit the more they and their employees earn.

I assume you have no evidence of this whatsoever?

[Rincewind]

bit early to be on the drink?

Writing that made me late for the beer Fest.

[Webbo]

 

I did not realise the Mail thing was a wind up. I was in a rush as I was going to the Derby Beer Fest. I apologise for my reaction if it was a little OTT.

I like how you get offended at an article about getting people back to work but don't mind posting links to blogs that accuse the govt of deliberately forcing people into suicide and calling them Nazis.

[Rincewind]

It is ATOS that are passing people fit. I am saying they are not doing it right.

[Stadt]

38 pages in and you're still arguing about a nobody.