Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I will ask Ma.....I was under the impression that it was just for the first child and it was ten bob(which was quite a bit back then). I know that we didn't get much.
Ma worked at three jobs to try to make ends meet. I also,remember that she was checked out at Accy Vic because they thought she might have TB....she was very thin.It was because she would have a cup of very weak coffee and a fag instead of a meal....so that we could have what food there was.

It was certainly a very tough struggle.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Sorry Margaret, when i said it was five shillings for every child after the first, i should have stated that was for the years mid 40s to early 50s. I thought that it was about that era you were relating too. I got more than five shillings for mine but that was from the mid sixties.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Yes, that was the era I was growing up.
I saw Ma yesterday, but she has wiped that information from the hard drive - her brain.
She says that at her age(86)it isn't important anymore.
She used to send me for the child allowance to the post office on Nuttall St......I can remember always coming home with a rusty brown ten shilling note. She would then send me downtown the 'bottom shop' on The corner of Marsden St to pay off her 'tick' bill......things we had had without paying for until the family allowance was due.
If it had not been for this arrangement we would not have survived.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

It made me feel claustrophobic that post office,and the "bottom shop" seemed to always have a nice smell of incense if I remember rightly.
If it wasn't for 'tick' a lot of folk would of gone without,Nothing much has changed in that respect :)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

It was the original payday loan, without the extortionate interest.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Very true,I don't remember paying a dime in interest on any of my 'tick bills'.
Do they charge a percentage nowadays for "tick" from the local shop or is is it still just pay what you owe??

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I doubt they could charge interest, don`t know if shops even do tick any more. Although I do remember our local shopkeeper coming banging on a neighbours door cos she hadn`t paid hers, that was about 6-7 years ago.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Yeah they'd probably get the hit an miss taken out if them nowadays,I heard my local shop asks for collateral if you want "tick" (passport,driving licence etc) :eek:

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Sign of the times i`m afraid, be too much shame years ago to have that happen.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Oh, when we went to the 'bottom shop' it was owned by a lovely man ...Frank and his wife Edna(I think that was her name). It was an old fashioned corner shop that sold everything, but there was definitely no smell of incense back then.

G - there was no interest at all......the page where what you had bought was ripped out of the exercise book once you had paid up and it was taken back home to give to your Ma, to show that she was in the black again.
When we had cash money I used to get sent to the co-op so that we got the divi.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I know the corner shops didn`t charge interest, it`s the modern day equivilent - Wonga, Payday UK etc. that are the robbing gits.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Yes, you are right......they prey on those who are in a tight financial spot.
Back in the day there were pawn shops....but we had nothing worth anything to pawn.
So had it not been for the likes of Frank and Edna.......and Mrs Almond(who had a bake shop near the Band club.....our family would have sunk.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I must be thinking of a later date ,it was owned by a asain couple (still lovely) I remember thinking what's with the smell but as I grew up i realised it was incense sticks an I quite liked it.Me and my cousins use to get 10p 'lucky bags' an go sit near where the coal use to be loaded for woodnook bleaching and dying.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

The era that I am referring to was the fifties and sixties(when lucky bags were 3d).

BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Did you have to wear funny glasses?

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

You'd be lucky to get a 'empty bag' for that nowadays ;).
50s-60s was before my time,Although I'm often told that I should of been born in the 50s with my way of thinking :)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Leftie author labels the Monarch 'Britain’s welfare queen'. :eek:

Leftie author labels the Monarch 'Britain?s welfare queen' | Latest News | Latest Breaking News | Daily Star. Simply The Best 7 Days A Week

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

for your 3D lucky bags. http://www.emofaces.com/png/15/emoticons/3dglasses.png

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Perhaps I should said three pennies or thripny :D
There was always a toy, some sweets and a carob bean(they looked like a brown flattened banana and smelled awful but they tasted good)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Leeches:

Richest MP in Britain slams welfare state but makes £625k a year in housing benefit - Mirror Online
UK News and Opinion - The Huffington Post United Kingdom
MPs' expenses - Telegraph

BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Thanks to C'mon and yourself the site is suffering from copy & paste syndrome.
We've managed over 10 years with actual input from members, we won't make another 2 years if everyone posts in this manner, we can all google for ourselves, we don't need you to do it for us.
:(

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

"The site" was a little quite less,I fully comprehend folk can google for themselves, I thought I'd add some links to contribute to the thread in a hope to provoke a less negative reply.
Suppose I better get back to my buildings :rolleyes:

BENEFITS hmmmm
 

The site will get quieter still if you only post links, the idea is to express your opinion, not just copy and paste a link to someone else's.
You want a less negative reply? How could anyone give anything but negative replies to the links you put on.

Yes, do please get back to your buildings, that at least was your own work and not just taken from someone else.
:)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Ok,I understand,I must say though,I do usually put my opinion on however late and of low quality it may be (in your opinion) :(

Enjoy yourself ;)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Well, that's ok if you are a fan of facebook.....I'm not. So I'm stopping here!

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Facebook has it's pro's and con's like everything else. It's good because it's easy to reach a lot of people in a short time but it is very poor at being a forum. The bigger groups get the more it's failings show. I am a member of a group with 3500+ members. There are that many posts in one place you can't follow whats going on. Facebook has no good way of searching for posts on a group

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

The Queen and Prince Charles cash in on tens of thousands of pounds' worth of benefits every year - Mirror Online

Do they really need the money? No.
Is she a "Welfare Queen"? yes
Would tourists still visit the tower of London, and other British landmarks, even if the royal family wasn't tax supported? yes,I think so....hmmmm.:)
She should certainly get sanctioned :D
I still think its the Politicians though that are the biggest benefits scroungers with their lies and cheating,anything to line their own pockets.
Government declares war on Benefits Street's scroungers

Kettle and pot?

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

What a couple of stupid typical sensationalistic newspaper rubbish non stories. They rent out houses they own, is it their fault if the people who rent their houses have to claim benefits to pay the rent?
Should all businesses who rent out houses give them for free to people who claim housing benefit?

Who is that union general secretary who said why can't they give the houses to a housing association? Does he think housing associations don't charge rent?

I wonder how much money he earns? I just googled it but could only find his 2009 salary of £110,000 including pension contributions and car.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Yes Neil, it might be good for some things.....but I have yet to be convinced.
It doesn't fulfil any of my requirements.
Like I said........ I'm stopping here!

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I have to say that I am with Neil on this one.

You may not like the Royal family, but they are one of the main reasons why the tourists come and spend their money here....and I am sure that there have been surveys that support this.
Britain relies heavily on the hospitality and leisure industry for income. This is especially true of the places where the Royals reside.....Sandringham, Windsor,
Balmoral. If you visit any of these places you will find them thronged with tourists at any time of the year. These tourists are spending money......adding to the economy.
There are many other things where a penny pinching attitude would be more worthy.
These stories also smack of the politics of envy....besides being sensationalist nonsense.
Please do not fall into the trap that mires our member from over the border......posting snidely sensationalist headlines without any real balance.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Oh, and I will apologise for the long words :)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

And how are you going to apologise for using such a long word as apologise?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yvgt-0kkZI...lseApology.jpg

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Maybe I could of put more effort into my comment but "stupid typical sensationalistic newspaper rubbish" is a bit harsh,rubbish would of done :D.
The point I'm trying to make is I don't think the royals are worth the millions we (the taxpayer) pump into their 'high flying' lifestyles. :)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I was getting at the newspaper not you. You did fall for their rubbish though :p

Maybe they are not worth the millions we pump in but you need to know their net cost to the Country after including what money they bring in from tourism and other good they do before you can decide what they cost us.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

As always Margaret I respect your opinion (even if (sometimes) I don't agree).
The point of the post (like many of my posts) is to try provoke debate (even if I am failing an falling into the "troll" category) ;)

As you probably gathered I'm not a royalist.
I think it's a joke that folk are being forced to rely on benefits more and more while the royals/MPs sit there in their gold lined clothes calling folk "benefit scroungers" especially when they themselves are nuzzling into the benefit boob.
I for one certainly don't agree with paying for Liz an her tribe to live the high flying lifestyle while the country crumbles and most folk don't have a pot to pee in.....

..I can always google the long words no apology needed ;)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I don't expect anyone to agree with me. My opinions are my own and I am fiendishly proprietorial about them.
I also respect the opinions of others on the forum.

I have already said my bit on those who are on benefits.
But in case you missed it....I support the benefits system for those who see it as a helping hand.....something to tide you over the troughs of life.
I do not support those who see benefits as a lifestyle choice. Those who have babies so that they don't have to work,so that they can jump up the housing list, those who take benefits but have paid nothing at all into the pot.....those who claim benefits but work in the black economy.

And before you tell me about thieving MP's Bankers,multinational businesses and those fat cats in industry who think they do not need to pay their rightful dues.......next time someone comes knocking on your door canvassing for your vote, Tell them that it is time the government closed the loopholes that enables these people to act in the way that they do......the loopholes that makes dishonesty legal(though totally immoral).

If that were done, then there would be no need to deny those rightfully entitled to benefits that would allow them to live, rather than exist.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Provoke is a very emotive word, why don't you stop poking folk with your virtual stick, sit back, relax and let their words of wonder wash over you in a mind expanding experience?

You may then, find we, the people less critical of your inexperience?

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

"Mind expanding experience",I like it ,I often do sit back and observe but it gets kinda dull waiting for something new to crop up.
These "words of wonder" you mention sometimes don't sit quite right with me though,so I like to debate them if for No other reason than to one day obtain a understanding of the great knowledge that the established members have ;)
If folk think my "inexperience" needs criticising I encourage them to do so.


Awaits the tirade and attachment ;)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Life is inexperience. We go on building up experience...some learn from it others do not(however painful or expensive it may prove)...just as we think we have gained enough experience...we die...snuff it, and all the experience is consigned to dust - unless we have been able to pass on our experience and leave others with something to wonder about.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Well, it's obvious, you know nothing and express it to the best of your ability.
:(

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

It's the overpaid MP's thing again, the chief exec at Hyndburn is on almost twice a basic MP's salary.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

No overpayment of anyones salary is as obscene as Top Sportspeople, yet everyone attacks others in the main.:confused:

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Very true,but sports folk are not paid for by the taxpayer and the royal family can hardly claim to have worked for their money.......unless you count opening shops and posh hand waving as a job ;)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Cashy, I agree. The latest info about Wayne Rooney getting 300K a month is eye watering...but his club must think he is worth that and there seems to be no shortage of people who want to go and watch him play. If folk were to stop going to see him play then I guess that he wouldn't be getting that amount of money(I wonder if he pays all his tax on that amount - or whether he has bamboozled the taxman into thinking he is a used car dealer making a loss) It is a supply and demand thing.
Whereas MP's they are about as useful as mammaries on a bull.

We will always have rich people....we will always have poor people. Communism was put forward to try and level things out but that doesn't work either......those with money have power. Those who don't, have precious little and that is why MP's take so little notice of them - they are insignificant.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I am not a Royalist, but I have to disagree with you there.

Did you see the Queen on the Royal Barge during the Jubilee Celebrations......she stood in the cold and wet for hours on end so that her people and the tourists could enjoy the spectacle of this event.
Because she doesn't get up and don a pair of overalls doesn't mean that she isn't working....because you cannot see or appreciate what she does, doesn't mean that she is idle. I am sure that just for a few days she would like to be anonymous. To stroll the streets with a bag of chips in her hand - but she can't do that. She has given all of her life to this country......and to you that lack of freedom to do what she wants, when she wants and in the manner she wants, is worth nothing.
She contributes far more to the country by generating interest...and wealth, than do those who do nothing but take from the system....like those on Benefits Street(who now ludicrously seem to think they are celebrities).
Other countries envy our Royal family....precisely because t hey do not have one.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

It's £300,000 a week not month and it's debatable if the club can afford to pay that.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I meant a week...but by the time I had spotted my error it was too late to change it.

Well, I was listening(or half listening) to the football pundits on Sky on Sunday morning(himself likes that sort of thing) and they all seemed to think that M.U. could afford it...and that it would boost the club in a stability sort of way(especially overseas) to think that they had W.R. on a contract which will take him well past his 30th birthday(apparently this is the point when players are only offered a contract year on year).
I wouldn't pay the little pie face three and six a week(but then that is because I don't like him overmuch and think football is a useless waste of effort).

BENEFITS hmmmm
 

300,000 a week or a month always seems excessive, but what do I know?
I'm just happy to be a scrounger taking people's taxes as a benefit that is crippling the Country not just a football club!
If I was working I'd be calling me as well. Kicking the underdog should be a professional sport, I'd be up there with the elite performers.
:)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Ok I respect your point of view,I just thought I'd do some "royal bashing" to even the scales :D
Awww so she stood in the rain for a few hours,The queen is so hard done too :rolleyes:
Queen Elizabeth is hurting for money - San Jose Mercury News
Maybe she can go to a food bank or the "flag wavers" on here can have a whip round for her ;)

BENEFITS hmmmm
 

How pathetic you really are as usual a link amongst drivel, where is the link from?
San Jose Mercury News!
Are there no British papers amongst your barrel scraping to use as examples? Just a quick tip when scraping a barrel one should do it from the inside out, not the way you are breaking your nails.
If you knew the members of this site, you would know most aren't Royalists, they will however even defend the Queen against your juvenile, biased view of how things happen in the real world.
:(

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

As you know,There are plenty of "British papers" with similar headlines to choose from I only used that one for convenience.
I don't know any of the members of this site,maybe this is my way of trying to obtain that understanding I mentioned earlier.
As for defending the queen I'd like to hear how things happen in "the real world" from her other "loyal subjects" :D

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Now you are taking the pish!

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

There are people on this site that I know ONLY from the site. I could pass them in the street and not recognise them.
That is the nature of the internet.
Sometimes it is better to hold your own counsel until you get the lie of the land.
It is never a good idea to poke a snake with a stick.......you need to have very good friends around you for when one of those snakes(which might have venomous fangs) turns round and bites you in the behind.
I am exercising my patience.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

We had already got the message - you don't like the Royals...or perhaps what you really dislike is what you see as the cost, without value.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

No not at all Margaret,I think we should abandon the royals after liz or at least let them play kings and queens with their own money (even if the alternative is a costly president).
I do hold a little respect for Harry going an serving in Afghanistan (even if he was placed so far back he may as well of been on a shooting holiday) and
Maybe a little for Charles as he does a bit for the development of trade, but that's as far as it goes.

Ok,I'm sorry for rustling feathers on here I'll keep my low level comments stump from now on.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

He was in Camp Bastion, Helmand Province, hardly a shooting holiday.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

A bit more info for you -
British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have a search for "helmand", see how many fatalities there were in this area that is "so far back he may as well of been on a shooting holiday"
Pretty sure this won`t be a complete list either.

BENEFITS hmmmm
 

No, don't be low level, just think then post.
:)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

So you would opt for a republic.
You trust politicians more than the queen?(or any other royal).

I don't like Charles. I don't want to see him as King because he would meddle in politics (which is not the role of the monarchy) and he would expect us to accept Camilla as his Queen(bleeugh).

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Really, 2 tours of Afghanistan, although the first was cut short because of foreign media blabbing 2007 on the ground with the cavalry, Warrior AFV & in the role of an FAC (Forward air controller) that means calling in assets on target, to do that he had to be close enough to see them. (hardly in the rear with the gear)

Second tour as an Apache pilot, again although he may have been stationed at Bastion with the other aircrews, when a shout goes up for air assets, the boy was onboard & into the front line to give fire support to the Troops on the ground. Helicopters incidentally are prime targets for enemy fire, proper fire magnets, so not the cushy life you seem to assume.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I have very little time if any at all fer the Royals, But as far as i'm concerned its insulting n damn wrong to accuse anyone serving in Afghanistan, on being on holiday.:(

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I was going to withhold my comments.
I'm not going to criticise him he deserves that as much as the next solider.
He's a good guy,he's probably my favourite royal (and ginger),his mum would be proud.
He admits he would like to be more involved,but that's out of his hands I suppose.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Well sorry,if that aint criticizing someone who served in Afghanistan, I must be stupid.:rolleyes:

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I should of said I'm not going to criticise him (anymore).
I had a dipstick moment an yes I should of known better :o.
I was however rather reserved with my comment as I really do hate war,especially the one in question.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Looks like round2 for the "benefit bashers"
Benefit street set to come back this time in Birkenhead (not liverpool).
It's back! Benefits Street set for return but this time in Liverpool | Latest News | Latest Breaking News | Daily Star. Simply The Best 7 Days A Week

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Looks like round2 for the "benefit bashers"
Benefit street set to come back this time in Birkenhead (not liverpool).
It's back! Benefits Street set for return but this time in Liverpool | Latest News | Latest Breaking News | Daily Star. Simply The Best 7 Days A Week

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I've just come across this (I know it's old news).
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o4oMsAz6huM
Here are some stats for those who like them.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/b...ing-culture--2

Now,Benefit sanctions and their consequences hmmmmm.

Have they have thought it through,Do they know the consequences of sanctions?
Yes I certainly think they have and they do know.
Surely they know how poverty causes social decay,Are they are trying to break down society to create fear? It certainly looks that way.
I'm beginning to think the powers that be want people to give up an hurt,rob,even kill each other :eek:
It's not about not wanting to admit failure,to them, they didn't fail, they have succeeded in their goal to create a divided society, a vicious and scared out of control world, where the majority of folk feel unsafe...well they've certainly done that :(.

For a lot of folk there is no solution to their predicament, no light at the end of the tunnel so they turn to substances to escape which in a lot of cases turns into substance abuse an more anti social behaviour/misery.

Anyway I'm going to leave it there (for now),rant over :)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Pardon me for asking this, but haven't we done all this to death in the previous posts?

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I wouldn't say we've done "all this to death",it's a tricky subject with lots of different avenues.I maybe wrong though (wouldn't be fist time,probably won't be the last) ;)

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I don't think that the 'Majority' of folk feel unsafe.

Nor do I think what you posted was a rant, I'm sorry to have to repeat myself, more like the ravings of someone that is yet again attempting to appear knowledgeable and failing.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I disagree less,also its not a attempt to appear knowledgable.
And I'm sorry to have to repeat myself,but your boring me 'again' :rolleyes:

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I really think we have discussed it fully. There are many people out there who fail to take responsibility for themselves, preferring to let the government do the legwork.
There are always going to be people in need, but there is not in inexhaustible pot of money.
Until some kind of reform takes place there is going to be arguments about who are the worthy ones to get benefits.
I have said much about this in both this post and others before it.
I am definitely not against helping those in need, but I am against those who feel that the rest of us should pull our tripes out while they sit on the sofa and do precious little to look after themselves.
I do not begrudge the chancellor taking tax out of my pension to give to those who are in need - I do begrudge it being given to those who have no intention of working and think that working(when you can get more in benefits) is a mugs game.

With rights go responsibilies...much is made of rights, but not much is made of responsibilities.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I have no problem with you being bored by me, I do wonder if you ever read what you type before you press the reply button?

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I agree Margaret.
I'm not trying to be clever,but your missing the Point of my post (sactions and the aftermath).
Benefits or entitlements as they use to be known,along with how they are distributed have (most likely) been discussed "to death".

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

No. I am not missing the point at all.(and nowhere have I implied that you are trying to be clever) I appreciate that sanctions will cause hardship....but I realise that the welfare system is unable to cope with all those who expect to be able to draw from it.....I also realise that something has to be done.
All options will have some degree of hardship for those who are targetted.
Many of the problems exist because no single party has had the guts to do something radical with the benefits system...they have just tinkered around the edges.
It hasn't helped that people who have migrated here from European countries have been able to claim benefits for which they have paid nothing...that benefits go out of the country, back to their country of origin. Where the money buys much more because of the low cost of living in their home countries.

These issues need to be addressed and whichever party does this will be the villains of the piece.

Frank Field(the Labour MP for Birkenhead, Minister for Benefit Reform for 97 -98) tried for years to reform benefits....but came up against all kinds of opposition.
If benefits had been reformed then we would not be in the position we are in.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

For what it's worth ( and believe me,I know) people's benefits are usually sanctioned because they have either failed to attend appointments, aren't showing enough effort in looking for work, haven't provided the information they have been asked for, the DWP have been informed of some change or other from a third party or they simply haven't signed on. Not rocket science, and once the Jobseekers or ESA gets suspended the local authority is informed and the Housing benefit also gets suspended. Local Authorities mirror the DWP decisions, that's the way it works.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Thank you for your input Lindsay. Very enlightening.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Thanks for your input Lindsay.
I'm aware it's not "rocket science",If I can get it,then it must be child's play :)
Genuine folk who are unlucky enough to find themselves on benefits are struggling,while folk that know how to play the system,for example,criminals on benefits are doing alright from said system.
Its the genuine claimants though that are losing everything because they might have missed a appointment or didn't fill in their job search correctly so them bleeps at the job centre sanction them,it's these folk that I'm concerned about not the lazy,criminal ones.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

I'm sure that those you mention who fill in their job searches incorrectly are in the minority.
And missing an appointment - well, why would you if you know the consequences, after all it isn't like you are going to work?
If you know that your benefits are going to be stopped then you get to your appointment in whatever way you can.....on time!

This may sound harsh and unfeeling, but if you want to show someone that you can be responsible you have to get your act together.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

The "bleeps" at the job centre are just doing their jobs, if someone who is allegedly unemployed can't get themselves down to the office to sign it's fair to assume that a) they forgot,b) they can't be bothered c) something calamitous has happened or d) they are working. In any of the above cases their benefit will likely be suspended. If the claimant then provides a good reason for the omission their claim will be resumed from the date it was suspended. At the end of the day the taxpayer is paying for these benefits, and if they are withheld temporarily whilst the recipients provide proof that they are still entitled to the benefits it's a safeguard against fraud.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

That seems straightforward enough Lindsay.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

So someone lying in bed because of flu, tonsilitis or whatever, worries that his benefits will be stopped temporarily because he can't sign on in time, fearing that his kids will go hungry, have no heat etc.., he drags himself out of bed, signs on, catches pneumonia. gets complications caused by malnourishment and stress due to having to provide for his family for a week on what Cameron, Blair or Brown spend on a meal out with his missus. He ends up in hospital, has yet more forms to fill in because he is not now available to work and his benefits are temporarily suspended anyway.

He doesn't want to fill out forms, all he wants to do is sleep and recover, but he knows he has to force himself for the sake of his family, in his drug addled state, he screws up the claim form, it takes months to sort it out..meanwhile he gets up to his ears in debt to Wonga or some other loan shark, he's about to lose his home...simply because he got sick.

There's always an alternative view..

The benefit system is too rigid, there is no room to manoeuvre. There are the minority that know how to screw the system, and there are the majority that are screwed by the system. The 'bleeps' offer no real help, they simply go by the book, just doing their jobs, ticking boxes, dotting the i's and crossing the t's. No doubt they have become jaded by the ever increasing workload and strictures placed on them, but at least they have a job, which is more than the jaded raggedy man across from them who has applied for shedloads without even getting an interview has.

Your use of the term 'alledgedly unemployed' would not go amiss on the comments page of the Daily Mail..it's degrading to those who through no fault of their own have been thrown on the scrapheap by successive government policy, greedy bankers, crap teachers etc..

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

There is always someone else to blame.
It seems that people do not want to take the responsibility for themselves anymore.
If someone is genuinely sick and in bed, then I am sure that there has to be a policy to cover this.
When Lindsay uses the term 'allegedly' it is because she knows that there are some people who work and claim benefits....Lindsay knows this because she is at the sharp end of the benefits system and knows exactly how it works.
The room for manoeuvre is the room for fraud.....claiming benefits that you are not entitled to is stealing from my pocket(and yours).

I have no grumbles with those who are in genuine need....they need a helping hand.....but those who are, as you put it 'know how to screw the system' are there.....and it is these people who are defrauding you and me(the taxpayer) making it necessary to have systems in place that make such fraud harder.....and in that way making harder for those in genuine need of help.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Dang..we used to agree on so much, yet we now seem to be banging heads with each other on every thread..so much for the clique theory :D

First, there is a policy to deal with someone who goes in hospital..job seekers is stopped, and you have to put in a different claim like I pointed out?

Secondly, I don't deny the con artists, I simply state that they are a minority that know how to screw the system to the detriment of those in need. If as you say Lindsay is at the sharp end, why can't she do something about it? Is it because of the strictures that I also pointed out.

Let me ask you a question..If you paid your tax knowing that nine people with families in real need were made safe but one person was spending your money on flat screen TV's would you stop your contribution?

Now I'll ask another..If you paid your tax knowing that ONE person with a family in real need was made safe but NINE people were buying flat screen TV's would you stop your contriution?

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Guinness, we are not banging heads. It would be a very boring forum if we all agreed on everything.
As for my tax contributions - unlike some people in this country, I have no choice but to,pay up....the taxman gets his share before I even get a sniff of my money.

My point was,(although I am sure I don't need to labour it) was that every person who claims benefit fraudulently is stealing from those in real need.

And when I said Lindsay is at the sharp end.....I meant that she deals with benefit claimants and knows the ins and outs of the current system.....not that she is in a position to alter things......only governments can do that.....and so far they have been almost impotent in dealing effectively with benefit reform(mainly because it has become custom and practice).

When I am in a spot of bother, I rely on my own efforts first and foremost to get myself out of it.....that is called self reliance, self respect. I am responsible for myself.
We do not foster self respect or self reliance by offering a lifetime on benefits.

I have said it many times before, and I guess I will say it many times in the future.....benefits should be a helping hand. They should not be something that is seen as an alternative to work, and they should never be more lucrative than a job.

There are always going to be divisions of wealth...those who have, and those who have not.
Well,until the day when all the money and lands are divided equally amongst the people.
Is that Communism.....? Doesn't China subscribe to communism?
Well, I have news for you......go to China and see how that works. I can tell you for nothing, China have their rich and elite too.
That is the nature of humanity. (Like the poor, the greedy are always with us) You have to give those who have very little, the means to escape their lot by their own hands.....and benefits are not the way.

By the way Guinness, I hope we can still be friends in spite of our divergent views. I really do respect your views.....and I value our discussions.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

theres plenty of ex benefits advisors or currently employed people at the job centers who will tell you that there is an unofficial policy of taking peoples benefits away and targets to be met.Staff are been given warnings and their own jobs put in jepordy if they do not kick enough people off benefits via sanctions.Some people have been fortunate enough to be in a position where they can walk out of tehir job in distgust where as others have had to do as they are told or loose their jobs and be on the other side of the desk worrying if their benefit will be stopped for any old trumped up reason.

some people deserve to loose their benefit but many dont

for £55 per week someone is not only supposed to exist on that pitifull amount but also spend 8 hours a day looking for work.Im not sure if teh job center pays for peoples bus fares or internet so that they can get to the job center or libary if they dont have internet at home but after basics such as food and house hold bills there is little if anything at all left to pay for things such as bus fares , internet and news papers.

its very easy to sit back and call people lazy and scum but one day you too could loose your job and find yourself on £55 per week coppering up in lidel and sat in the dark for 2 days until your next lot of money comes allowing you to put electricity into the card meter

maybe give people on job seekers allowance a bus pass to make travel to intervies and looking for work a reality rather than yet another expense out of a tiny amount of money

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Yes Accyman, it would be helpful for those seeking work to be given the facilities to ensure they can search effectively.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

what this current lot have managed to do is stigmatize people on benefits to the extent that people not on benefits couldnt care less how badly people on benefits are treated.

theres plenty out there who are on benefits who sell drugs , work full time and run every scam in the book but its hard work and costly to catch them people.

its much easier to take money off the vulnerable and bad mouthing the poor is free

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

That goes without saying :)

After 12 pages of debate...those three lines pretty much hit the nail on the head

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

They don't do it to your face anymore (it may traumatise their precious staff when you go berserk for having your life shattered to meet government stats).Them "bleeps" at the JC do it over the phone now, like cowards.
As for filling in job searches (lol) Its been proved that some just write the same things week in, week out and get away with it.How the DWP don't catch on and think "Hey, this lad/lass is talking out of his/her backside." is beyond me.i think one bloke wrote his shopping list down...It didn't even get checked...they should have their ruddy wage sanctioned.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

thats because lots of staff are going off on the sick with stress because of both the pressure to sanction people been put on them and the abuse from people who are sanctioned

the governments own methods are making the people who impliment them on their behalf ill

you cant punch someone over the phone and although there may be a few who enjoy making people suffer and get an ego trip out of it the majority of people at teh job center dont need teh crap and definatly dont need to be facing written warnings for not cutting peoples benefits off

i think i mentioned before in this thread or elsewhere i know of a single mother with two under age 11 children who was sanctioned for 12 weeks because she was moving home and couldnt look for work that day

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Benefits are the minimum amount of money the 'Government claims' they need to live on. On a sanction you get nothing or a small percent of that money.
How do the DWP/JC get away with changing what the 'law' says they need to live on?

BENEFITS hmmmm
 

The people working at the job centre aren't bleeps, they are ordinary folk doing a difficult job.
I bet if there was an alternative method of being a wage slave most of them would be out of there like a shot.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

one of the reasons why it is an unofficial policy to meet a quota of sanctions

like less has said they are the messengers not the rule makers

look at cameron the guy who allowed his mate to make millions from the NHS - What camerons mate made personally alone out of the NHS could have bought a lot of baby incubators or treated a lot of people for cancer

now thats what i call scum not some poor sod trying to get by on a pittance or some poor sod stuck in a job that gets them regular abuse

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

its about time the words scum and scroungers are pointed back where they belong



back at the MP's

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Ok,I'll use the word 'useless' in future.:rolleyes:

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Have you ever been to a jobcentre?

Do you ever actually talk about something you know about?

The people down there are not useless, they are part of an overworked system, if they don't get their job right, people on benefits don't get their money, (yes it's their money, they have proved they are entitled to it and the majority have paid into the system for years).

Re: BENEFITS hmmmm
 

Yes I've been to the JC in the past,and while I'm sure their are a few who put their heart an soul into finding folk work and doing the job they are paid to do ,the majority of them are "useless" IMHO.
I'd go as far as to say some of them enjoy having that illusion of power over those less fortunate.

Great clip,I nearly gave you a "clique point like". ;)