Merging Cultures Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 People should not be in a position where they feel they have to shoplift for food. Jailing or fining them is not going to solve the problem. Prevention is better than cure Maybe advice on money management would be better. Even those in work on minimum wage, part time and zero hours are struggling now. It is not just those on JSA or other benefits that are suffering. I don't know. I think if you steal you should be punished. Of course prevention is better than cure. I can attest that UK benefits and social safety net are better than the majority of the world. Yes, there are extreme circumstances that may cause people needing to steal, but it isn't those who are struggling. I actually do financial literacy training and it definitely helps people. But you don't need to know money management to know it is wrong to steal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 I don't know. I think if you steal you should be punished. Of course prevention is better than cure. I can attest that UK benefits and social safety net are better than the majority of the world. Yes, there are extreme circumstances that may cause people needing to steal, but it isn't those who are struggling. I actually do financial literacy training and it definitely helps people. But you don't need to know money management to know it is wrong to steal. Such morality is easy for someone with a full stomach. Benefit sanctions of up to 3 years are increasingly common here in the UK; it's a case of beg, steal or starve for many. Which would you choose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purpleronnie Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 I see UKIP's paranoia stretches to thinking westminster cathedral is a mosque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 I see UKIP's paranoia stretches to thinking westminster cathedral is a mosque. Ridiculous. They're 20 years too early. (joke) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merging Cultures Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 Such morality is easy for someone with a full stomach. Benefit sanctions of up to 3 years are increasingly common here in the UK; it's a case of beg, steal or starve for many. Which would you choose? As I said, I don't know.I don't think it really is the case of beg, steal or starve. There are food banks, there are charities, there are benefits, there are jobs out there (some people just don't want to do them). But i have mentioned many times, mostly directed at Lamby, I've done some terrible jobs just to keep money coming in. I don't think I would steal. You have to ask why some has been 'sanctioned' for three years. I've read the arguments that it can be for something trivial so the benefits person meets there target. I think that must be rare though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 We're always being told that practically everyone is using food banks these days, so I'm sure nobody is actually in a position that they can't get food. Seems more reasonable to assume that some people steal because they're theiving, immoral cvnts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 I think if you are stealing some food to eat personally, then you are misguided at worst. Despite all the hyperbole it is not causing great trauma to anyone if someone nabs a few quids worth of food from a supermarket. I've seen people basically told they are to live on nothing for 6 months, these people are often already homeless, many have criminal records, I think if you already are at such a low point then shoplifting doesn't seem a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 I think if you are stealing some food to eat personally, then you are misguided at worst. Despite all the hyperbole it is not causing great trauma to anyone if someone nabs a few quids worth of food from a supermarket. I've seen people basically told they are to live on nothing for 6 months, these people are often already homeless, many have criminal records, I think if you already are at such a low point then shoplifting doesn't seem a big deal. Would you think that if they were stealing from you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 I've seen people basically told they are to live on nothing for 6 months, these people are often already homeless, many have criminal records, I think if you already are at such a low point then shoplifting doesn't seem a big deal. You know a lot of these people, and well enough to know their criminal history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 Would you think that if they were stealing from you? I doubt anyone would go to the trouble of breaking into a private house to steal food, they would do it from a shop. It's usually the less socially adept that steal anyway. Others simply beg which can be surprisingly lucrative for someone with no shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 I doubt anyone would go to the trouble of breaking into a private house to steal food, they would do it from a shop. It's usually the less socially adept that steal anyway. Others simply beg which can be surprisingly lucrative for someone with no shame. The point is would you think it's not a big deal to steal from someone if the cost was coming out of your pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 3 December 2014 Share Posted 3 December 2014 The point is would you think it's not a big deal to steal from someone if the cost was coming out of your pocket. It's not that, it's the fact it would be very hypothetical. If say, once a year I returned home to find the fridge had been emptied by a starving person, no I would not be massively upset by that. Although I am someone that supports the welfare state so I would prefer it if that person had not needed to steal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 People need to stop lying about immigration as well, There is certainly an argument that EU migration benefits the nation (although as ADK points out it would probably be more accurate to say it benefits the rich) but overall immigration has cost Britain a fortune over the last 25 years. Even with the contribution of EEA migration it comes nowhere near to the dent non EEA miration has put onto our public finances (and this is a study from the left wing UCL) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497 The UCL union banned a society that promoted traditional philosophers like Nietzsche earlier this year in the interests of anti fascism and preventing the spread of far right ideologies. One of the groups slogans was Too much politcal correctness? Maybe the groups intentions weren't good but it's like banning the bible because the IRA was made up of catholics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 I don't know why he was supposedly getting £140 a week as a jobseeker. The current JSA is £72.40 a week or £57.35 if you are under 25. ESA is £101.85 or £108.15 a week depending on what grouping you are put into. I'm somewhat fed up with these articles from the hard left, and they actually manage to make it look like jobseekers are getting double the benefit they actually receive. Is it the left doing this? When figures are quoted it normally includes housing benefit council tax and child support if they are there. It does not include heating travel expenses or general everyday expenses. When sanctioned a hardship payment of around £40 can be made. I was on £71 PW and cut down to the bare minimum and was still leaking £20-40 a month from my savings. If it was not for pension credit I would be seriously in the red by now or even worse without a permanent place to live. I am lucky to have family that propped my bank balance up until my PC came into effect. Some people do not have this support or the ability to adjust for various reasons including mental aptitude and their lack of willingness to change their lifestyle. I manage OK now. Not a life of luxuary but just about spend what I have coming in each month but if prices rise with no change to my income it will be more tightening up. Had a letter from Virging to say that is going up £4 month. And with food prices and other essentials rising I still buy the cheapest stuff and bargin counter at the end of the day. I would love to buy a decent loaf of bread sometimes or the best coffee from M&S but its the 50p stuff. It makes a hell of a difference to finances but for some people who suddenly find themselves out of work or on a lesser wage it is hard to adjust and they do not realise how much they are overspending until it is too late. It cannot be much fun to live year after year on the breadline especially if a couple have kids who see their friends with the latest phones and gadgets and going overseas for holidays. I was brought up to appreciate what I have got and my mum was very good at keeping us fed on very little. Some of the best meals were from the cheapest meats and there was still plenty for my dad and five kids. Nowadays it is more about possessions much is non essentials, plus when I was younger there were no high tech stuff like computers or mobile phones. I think I have said enough. Rant over. Disagree if you want. Or if you manage to read it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 Is it the left doing this? When figures are quoted it normally includes housing benefit council tax and child support if they are there. It does not include heating travel expenses or general everyday expenses. When sanctioned a hardship payment of around £40 can be made. I was on £71 PW and cut down to the bare minimum and was still leaking £20-40 a month from my savings. If it was not for pension credit I would be seriously in the red by now or even worse without a permanent place to live. I am lucky to have family that propped my bank balance up until my PC came into effect. Some people do not have this support or the ability to adjust for various reasons including mental aptitude and their lack of willingness to change their lifestyle. I manage OK now. Not a life of luxuary but just about spend what I have coming in each month but if prices rise with no change to my income it will be more tightening up. Had a letter from Virging to say that is going up £4 month. And with food prices and other essentials rising I still buy the cheapest stuff and bargin counter at the end of the day. I would love to buy a decent loaf of bread sometimes or the best coffee from M&S but its the 50p stuff. It makes a hell of a difference to finances but for some people who suddenly find themselves out of work or on a lesser wage it is hard to adjust and they do not realise how much they are overspending until it is too late. It cannot be much fun to live year after year on the breadline especially if a couple have kids who see their friends with the latest phones and gadgets and going overseas for holidays. I was brought up to appreciate what I have got and my mum was very good at keeping us fed on very little. Some of the best meals were from the cheapest meats and there was still plenty for my dad and five kids. Nowadays it is more about possessions much is non essentials, plus when I was younger there were no high tech stuff like computers or mobile phones. I think I have said enough. Rant over. Disagree if you want. Or if you manage to read it all. I'm not sure how that was relevant to what I wrote. I'm simply pointing out that article was bollocks. You won't find yourself on less benefit because you are diagnosed with cancer. He could have done two things: Apply for ESA based on a medical letter and be put on assessment rate (same as JSA) until having an assessment that would either say he is fit for work (back onto JSA) or but him in WRAG or Support groups on ESA at which point his benefit would rise and he would receive a sum of the difference between the new rate and JSA rate for the assessment period. If his prognosis was particularly poor he'd be fast tracked onto a higher rate. Or he could have asked for his job seeking duties to be adjusted to accommodate his treatment. None of this would have affected his entitlement to other benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 The thing is while he is waiting for a decision they reduce or stop his benefits. It has happened to a lot of people. They are judging/finding a person guilty before the outcome of the verdict. It can take over a year for an appeal to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 The thing is while he is waiting for a decision they reduce or stop his benefits. It has happened to a lot of people. They are judging/finding a person guilty before the outcome of the verdict. It can take over a year for an appeal to be heard. It doesn't say anything like that in the article, Ken. Have you read it? One way or another the article is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 The thing is while he is waiting for a decision they reduce or stop his benefits. It has happened to a lot of people. They are judging/finding a person guilty before the outcome of the verdict. It can take over a year for an appeal to be heard. That only happens if he is found fit to work which won't happen until his ESA claim is assessed and he can still claim JSA while he is appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 That only happens if he is found fit to work which won't happen until his ESA claim is assessed and he can still claim JSA while he is appealing. By claiming JSA, he undermines his appeal by being 'fit to work', certainly by implication: I wouldn't be surprised if you have to sign a declaration to say as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 There have been people who have been told by ATOS they are fit for work, gone to the jobcentre and then told by the staff that they are not fit for work and refused JSA. So they have to go through the process of claiming ESA all over again while having their money stopped until the decision comes through which can take over a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 Russell Brand and Nigel Farage on question time together next week, sounds interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 4 December 2014 Share Posted 4 December 2014 Russell Brand has never been interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Russell Brand and Nigel Farage on question time together next week, sounds interesting Shame on the BBC again, Brand is a man who has consistenly proved he can't debate properly without throwing insults or behaving like a child and yet he stills gets invited onto the BBC's most highbrow political show, why they have seeked to dumb down Question Time so much over the last few years is a mystery to me. Good for Nigel though, even though the crowd with be left wing and pro Brand in terms of nationwide appeal this can't do him any harm in the eyes of the average man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Although Brand doesn't adhere to decent debating standards he is, whether you like it or not, a popular figure atm. I think his selection is justified although they should definitely have a word with him about interrupting, melodramatic speeches and generally hogging the mic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 5 December 2014 Share Posted 5 December 2014 Although Brand doesn't adhere to decent debating standards he is, whether you like it or not, a popular figure atm. I think his selection is justified although they should definitely have a word with him about interrupting, melodramatic speeches and generally hogging the mic. Popular with whom? Just because he's on the telly a lot doesn't mean anyone's listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.