FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Benefits
Benefits
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After the other topic on CNS, was ended because it got full. I noted at the end someone started with the "Bashing the benefits drum is boring" Now on the thread I made a point of saying, scrounges on benefits should be made to do unpaid work to receive such benefits off our state. Now my definition of a scrounger is someone who does not want to work and would rather sis on there backside claiming benefits. Now in near but all cases I have seen of people I know of, receive either around the same if not more money then someone in a low paid job. Now I have family who are disabled, so this thread is not based on the people who genuinely can't work. This thread is also not aimed at the people who can't find a job, because I agree work in certain areas is very hard to find right now, but what I would say is in the spear time why don't we do some voluntary work. And again before anyone says how can we do voluntary work if we're looking for a job, I want the small amounts of time around looking. I work full time but still find time to volunteer a few hours either and there. And it makes me feel a lot better putting something back into society. Because at time i have had to claim benefits when my business has lost customers, so I'm not one of these that are above myself, because I have claimed when needed, but i put back what I take out in other ways and UT makes me feel like putting back into the pot. So to end this now this thread is Purely aimed at the lazy people who can work but refuse to, do we all agree more needs to be done about this. Sorry for such a rant. "Maybe so, have you considered standing for election? Garner a few like minded souls and away you go? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"todays sky news benefit fraudsters to face yen years imprisonment " That's all well and good but they have said this force years, from my experience the costs give the odd person a harsh sentence to deter others. But it don't and won't in many cases. So the blanket rule should be the same for all, caught cheating the system face the full penalty, it would stop an awful lot doing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How do you differentiate between lazy/unable, do you want to live in a society that leaves those less fortunate (and I include those without the work ethic to look after themselves) to just fend for themselves, We could all point and sneer but the fact is people need support and not just the ones certain sets of people deem worthy " Like I said above, i mean the pure lazy people who can but won't work, not the people who can't or need help. If we got rid of the scrounges, then maybe we can put more into the pot to help the genuine people who can't work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? " Its not so much compulsory jobs, but charity maybe. Helping the disabled and old out in life, or as some one said above little picking, just anything that can in turn make our country better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't find a job at the moment, thought that it might be simpler once the youngest had started school. I have applied to work voluntarily but haven't received a response to my applications. "But good for you you have tried and i bet you feel better for trying. So you obviously not what my topic was aimed at. Your willing to work, you are trying to do voluntary work so good on you.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects" Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't find a job at the moment, thought that it might be simpler once the youngest had started school. I have applied to work voluntarily but haven't received a response to my applications.
But good for you you have tried and i bet you feel better for trying. So you obviously not what my topic was aimed at.
Your willing to work, you are trying to do voluntary work so good on you. "I don't feel better for trying, it's mind numbing and soul destroying not being able to go out and bring in a wage for my family. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? Its not so much compulsory jobs, but charity maybe. Helping the disabled and old out in life, or as some one said above little picking, just anything that can in turn make our country better. " But, while doing these 'jobs', the people that are on benefits won't be looking for a job. Isn't it part of the benefits system to be actively seeking work? Its all very well trying to improve the country, but if there are enough 'jobs' for the unemployed to do, then advertise these jobs in the job centre and pay the people to do them! Instead of using them as a slave labour force. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't find a job at the moment, thought that it might be simpler once the youngest had started school. I have applied to work voluntarily but haven't received a response to my applications.
But good for you you have tried and i bet you feel better for trying. So you obviously not what my topic was aimed at.
Your willing to work, you are trying to do voluntary work so good on you. "So how would you separate the wheat from the chaffe so to speak? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? Its not so much compulsory jobs, but charity maybe. Helping the disabled and old out in life, or as some one said above little picking, just anything that can in turn make our country better. " I wouldn't want some disgruntled individual forced into looking after my elderly relative!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't find a job at the moment, thought that it might be simpler once the youngest had started school. I have applied to work voluntarily but haven't received a response to my applications.
But good for you you have tried and i bet you feel better for trying. So you obviously not what my topic was aimed at.
Your willing to work, you are trying to do voluntary work so good on you.
I don't feel better for trying, it's mind numbing and soul destroying not being able to go out and bring in a wage for my family."And thats were in my opinion our country is failing you, but your not failing our country by scronging benefits, and sitting on your ass, your looking for work because you want to, i don't think me or anyone else with similar opinions on benefits, see people like you as abusing our system  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? Its not so much compulsory jobs, but charity maybe. Helping the disabled and old out in life, or as some one said above little picking, just anything that can in turn make our country better. But, while doing these 'jobs', the people that are on benefits won't be looking for a job. Isn't it part of the benefits system to be actively seeking work? Its all very well trying to improve the country, but if there are enough 'jobs' for the unemployed to do, then advertise these jobs in the job centre and pay the people to do them! Instead of using them as a slave labour force." But if you put all the jobs in the job center, then all the lazy people who can't be asked to work still won't do the. If you read thread again this is Purley aimed at those who are lazy and won't work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a shame the government cannot spearhead a campaign such as Roosevelt did in America during the Great Depression. At the very same time people claiming benefits, could be learning new skills AND getting a new work ethic." Have to say first time but fully agree with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't find a job at the moment, thought that it might be simpler once the youngest had started school. I have applied to work voluntarily but haven't received a response to my applications.
But good for you you have tried and i bet you feel better for trying. So you obviously not what my topic was aimed at.
Your willing to work, you are trying to do voluntary work so good on you.
I don't feel better for trying, it's mind numbing and soul destroying not being able to go out and bring in a wage for my family.
And thats were in my opinion our country is failing you, but your not failing our country by scronging benefits, and sitting on your ass, your looking for work because you want to, i don't think me or anyone else with similar opinions on benefits, see people like you as abusing our system "I am glad about that because I don't get money from the government. My husband has to "keep" me apparently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I just point out that some don't work because of childcare issues.. forcing someone to work and then having to provide childcare on top would actually prove to cost more. " Then these would be exempt, thus is Purely aim at the lazy people who can work but wont, Someone who is reading there young children can't work because of the children | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts?" This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? Its not so much compulsory jobs, but charity maybe. Helping the disabled and old out in life, or as some one said above little picking, just anything that can in turn make our country better. But, while doing these 'jobs', the people that are on benefits won't be looking for a job. Isn't it part of the benefits system to be actively seeking work? Its all very well trying to improve the country, but if there are enough 'jobs' for the unemployed to do, then advertise these jobs in the job centre and pay the people to do them! Instead of using them as a slave labour force. But if you put all the jobs in the job center, then all the lazy people who can't be asked to work still won't do the. If you read thread again this is Purley aimed at those who are lazy and won't work "So, i'll ask again, how would YOU separate the genuine job seekers from lazy ones? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't find a job at the moment, thought that it might be simpler once the youngest had started school. I have applied to work voluntarily but haven't received a response to my applications.
But good for you you have tried and i bet you feel better for trying. So you obviously not what my topic was aimed at.
Your willing to work, you are trying to do voluntary work so good on you.
I don't feel better for trying, it's mind numbing and soul destroying not being able to go out and bring in a wage for my family.
And thats were in my opinion our country is failing you, but your not failing our country by scronging benefits, and sitting on your ass, your looking for work because you want to, i don't think me or anyone else with similar opinions on benefits, see people like you as abusing our system
I am glad about that because I don't get money from the government. My husband has to "keep" me apparently."Sorry my miss assumption
but never the less your not cheating the system by claiming to be apart from your OH likes lots of people do just to claim benefits while OH works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts " Well i will sum it up in one, people who are caught cheating the system should be put into jail like there saying will soon be done. Then I believe that will deter lots from doing it. I don't have the answers, i don't claim I do, but that don't stop me having my opinion does it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After the other topic on CNS, was ended because it got full. I noted at the end someone started with the "Bashing the benefits drum is boring" Now on the thread I made a point of saying, scrounges on benefits should be made to do unpaid work to receive such benefits off our state. Now my definition of a scrounger is someone who does not want to work and would rather sis on there backside claiming benefits. Now in near but all cases I have seen of people I know of, receive either around the same if not more money then someone in a low paid job. Now I have family who are disabled, so this thread is not based on the people who genuinely can't work. This thread is also not aimed at the people who can't find a job, because I agree work in certain areas is very hard to find right now, but what I would say is in the spear time why don't we do some voluntary work. And again before anyone says how can we do voluntary work if we're looking for a job, I want the small amounts of time around looking. I work full time but still find time to volunteer a few hours either and there. And it makes me feel a lot better putting something back into society. Because at time i have had to claim benefits when my business has lost customers, so I'm not one of these that are above myself, because I have claimed when needed, but i put back what I take out in other ways and UT makes me feel like putting back into the pot. So to end this now this thread is Purely aimed at the lazy people who can work but refuse to, do we all agree more needs to be done about this. Sorry for such a rant. "I agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? Its not so much compulsory jobs, but charity maybe. Helping the disabled and old out in life, or as some one said above little picking, just anything that can in turn make our country better. But, while doing these 'jobs', the people that are on benefits won't be looking for a job. Isn't it part of the benefits system to be actively seeking work? Its all very well trying to improve the country, but if there are enough 'jobs' for the unemployed to do, then advertise these jobs in the job centre and pay the people to do them! Instead of using them as a slave labour force. But if you put all the jobs in the job center, then all the lazy people who can't be asked to work still won't do the. If you read thread again this is Purley aimed at those who are lazy and won't work
So, i'll ask again, how would YOU separate the genuine job seekers from lazy ones? "Well sooner or later they will be found out to be cheating the system and brought to justice, do either they will do all the can to show there genuinely seeking work, there is only so much time they can say there looking but can't find. I'm talking the ones who have been on for years, not genuine people who are on it sort term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? Its not so much compulsory jobs, but charity maybe. Helping the disabled and old out in life, or as some one said above little picking, just anything that can in turn make our country better. But, while doing these 'jobs', the people that are on benefits won't be looking for a job. Isn't it part of the benefits system to be actively seeking work? Its all very well trying to improve the country, but if there are enough 'jobs' for the unemployed to do, then advertise these jobs in the job centre and pay the people to do them! Instead of using them as a slave labour force. But if you put all the jobs in the job center, then all the lazy people who can't be asked to work still won't do the. If you read thread again this is Purley aimed at those who are lazy and won't work
So, i'll ask again, how would YOU separate the genuine job seekers from lazy ones? Well sooner or later they will be found out to be cheating the system and brought to justice, do either they will do all the can to show there genuinely seeking work, there is only so much time they can say there looking but can't find. I'm talking the ones who have been on for years, not genuine people who are on it sort term."Lol. And yet, in your original post, you admit there are areas where there is no work to be had! What about these people? What about areas where unemployment is rife due to to lack of work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts Well i will sum it up in one, people who are caught cheating the system should be put into jail like there saying will soon be done. Then I believe that will deter lots from doing it. I don't have the answers, i don't claim I do, but that don't stop me having my opinion does it. "Also not sure if I have misunderstood here but are you referring to me and all blaming Cameron, as i for one think are government overall do a good job, yes they make mistakes but we all do. And we will never find a government who will please everyone, so there will always be people who blame Cameron. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As one who is currently on benefits and cant do work, be it voluntary or paid......i best not in get into this debate as i tend to get a little irate "No please do have your say, you have a right to your opinion like us all. Just try learn from my mistakes, don't take it personal get irate and get banned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts Well i will sum it up in one, people who are caught cheating the system should be put into jail like there saying will soon be done. Then I believe that will deter lots from doing it. I don't have the answers, i don't claim I do, but that don't stop me having my opinion does it.
Also not sure if I have misunderstood here but are you referring to me and all blaming Cameron, as i for one think are government overall do a good job, yes they make mistakes but we all do. And we will never find a government who will please everyone, so there will always be people who blame Cameron.""a good job"
jeez !!!
so stopping my benefits for f..ing bedroom tax is doing a good job....ohhh dont get me started please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What about people who want to find work but refuse because they are better off on the dole? I had a short spell of unemployment and took the first job that came along, I have 2 part time jobs now and ju also is working but we would still be better off on the dole by about £50 a week. If I refused to take work due to putting myself and family in financial hardship what would that make me? " and thats what needs to change, how should it be possible to earn more on benefits, then working for it. But I don't blame you your looking for the right job, that protects you and your family, that don't make you bad does it, but if you had the same choice to take that job or you would be worse off by say £50 you would probably take it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts Well i will sum it up in one, people who are caught cheating the system should be put into jail like there saying will soon be done. Then I believe that will deter lots from doing it. I don't have the answers, i don't claim I do, but that don't stop me having my opinion does it.
Also not sure if I have misunderstood here but are you referring to me and all blaming Cameron, as i for one think are government overall do a good job, yes they make mistakes but we all do. And we will never find a government who will please everyone, so there will always be people who blame Cameron.
"a good job"
jeez !!!
so stopping my benefits for f..ing bedroom tax is doing a good job....ohhh dont get me started please "bed room tax is a personal pet hate of mine, yes I agree they have gone about it the wrong way. But why should people demand the right to stay in a say 3 bedroom house when there single, so now they have a choice pay for the extra bed rooms or move to a smaller house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts Well i will sum it up in one, people who are caught cheating the system should be put into jail like there saying will soon be done. Then I believe that will deter lots from doing it. I don't have the answers, i don't claim I do, but that don't stop me having my opinion does it.
Also not sure if I have misunderstood here but are you referring to me and all blaming Cameron, as i for one think are government overall do a good job, yes they make mistakes but we all do. And we will never find a government who will please everyone, so there will always be people who blame Cameron.
"a good job"
jeez !!!
so stopping my benefits for f..ing bedroom tax is doing a good job....ohhh dont get me started please bed room tax is a personal pet hate of mine, yes I agree they have gone about it the wrong way.
But why should people demand the right to stay in a say 3 bedroom house when there single, so now they have a choice pay for the extra bed rooms or move to a smaller house. "And where all these smaller houses going to suddenly appear from? Maybe we could get the 'lazy scroungers' to help build them eh! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ian not having a nag at you directly or referencing Cameron in anything other than a hypothetical Facebook post (was going for the harry enfield quote) This seriously irritates me that as a group everyone now thanks in part to social media has their damning opinion on things with a fraction of the facts, yes we need a better system to incentivise people into work, yes we need to take some of the strain of the tax payers funds but until that is found we NEED to support those that cannot support themselves its just that simple, and getting together to slate those in need as the problem is neither productive or helpful." But I'm not skating the genuine needy, am talking about the dam right dishonest people. I think anyone that needed help should always be giving it, i would help anyone I am not a up my own ass type of a person just concerned about the future of my kids of we don't try and get things under control | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"todays sky news benefit fraudsters to face yen years imprisonment " Yeah. Some guy claims for non-existing partner/kid and gets 10years. The next guy on trial murders a pensioner and gets 8years. But hey, it gets rid of the unwanted scrounger so alls good eh! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because they have NO SMALLER PROPERTIES ..simples And if they did, i now couldnt afford to save up in order to pay for removals . so im fucked regardless "And thats why I said they went the wrong way, something so controversial was always going to cause problems. Maybe the rule should be if we can find you a hose that's smaller, and the DSS pay for the removal, then at that point you have a choice, go and it won't cost you nothing or stay and pay for the extra rooms. Am really not having a go at you. I just think things need to change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"todays sky news benefit fraudsters to face yen years imprisonment Yeah. Some guy claims for non-existing partner/kid and gets 10years. The next guy on trial murders a pensioner and gets 8years. But hey, it gets rid of the unwanted scrounger so alls good eh! "tell you what im one to have a good debate and take on people's opinions, but your just picking at holes now, so to save us getting into slinging I will end our discussion here, so neither get a ban. Feel free to discuss with other people. And just for last point you said someone gets 10 years for cheating, but murder a pensioner and get 8 years, well that just wrong and I agree, should be a lot tougher sentences giving out, bit that's another debate all together. Take care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thatcher cronies decided that yes, councils can sell off all their stock but couldnt build any more , so we were left with a shortfall of smaller accomodation. And........until i get what im after.....any family waiting for my home can go fcuk themselves. 32 yrs i have paid over the odds for this pile of bricks and decorated it, done the garden, put new floors in and a kitchen but they will benefit...not me. i get nothing back. and thats not fair in my book,." Nope. The council in their wisdom will rip out the flooring and new kitchen as it isn't council issue. And then make you pay for the alterations. So extra costs will follow you to your new, no-existing smaller property i'm afraid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thatcher cronies decided that yes, councils can sell off all their stock but couldnt build any more , so we were left with a shortfall of smaller accomodation. And........until i get what im after.....any family waiting for my home can go fcuk themselves. 32 yrs i have paid over the odds for this pile of bricks and decorated it, done the garden, put new floors in and a kitchen but they will benefit...not me. i get nothing back. and thats not fair in my book,. Nope. The council in their wisdom will rip out the flooring and new kitchen as it isn't council issue. And then make you pay for the alterations. So extra costs will follow you to your new, no-existing smaller property i'm afraid." exactly.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thatcher cronies decided that yes, councils can sell off all their stock but couldnt build any more , so we were left with a shortfall of smaller accomodation. And........until i get what im after.....any family waiting for my home can go fcuk themselves. 32 yrs i have paid over the odds for this pile of bricks and decorated it, done the garden, put new floors in and a kitchen but they will benefit...not me. i get nothing back. and thats not fair in my book,." I agree that why I said it's not straight forward, I think until they give you a fair choice, like I said above you should be exempt. And there are lots of people like you who take care of there home, and would not be fair for you to loose it all. So what's the answer maybe the government should give a one if payment for the extra work you have done. As I said I don't have the answers only my opinion. I'm not one of these people who think we should put all benefit claimant on a island, to me every person is as equal to watch other, but no one should be above the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"todays sky news benefit fraudsters to face yen years imprisonment Yeah. Some guy claims for non-existing partner/kid and gets 10years. The next guy on trial murders a pensioner and gets 8years. But hey, it gets rid of the unwanted scrounger so alls good eh! tell you what im one to have a good debate and take on people's opinions, but your just picking at holes now, so to save us getting into slinging I will end our discussion here, so neither get a ban. Feel free to discuss with other people.
And just for last point you said someone gets 10 years for cheating, but murder a pensioner and get 8 years, well that just wrong and I agree, should be a lot tougher sentences giving out, bit that's another debate all together. Take care."So you feel its ok to start a 'discussion' about a subject, but when folks disagree with you, they aren't discussing it, they're 'picking holes'? Yeah, ok then! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thatcher cronies decided that yes, councils can sell off all their stock but couldnt build any more , so we were left with a shortfall of smaller accomodation. And........until i get what im after.....any family waiting for my home can go fcuk themselves. 32 yrs i have paid over the odds for this pile of bricks and decorated it, done the garden, put new floors in and a kitchen but they will benefit...not me. i get nothing back. and thats not fair in my book,. Nope. The council in their wisdom will rip out the flooring and new kitchen as it isn't council issue. And then make you pay for the alterations. So extra costs will follow you to your new, no-existing smaller property i'm afraid. exactly.
"Now that's just a waste of money, i would rather move into a nice house that someone has lovingly decorated, than a bog standard council house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"todays sky news benefit fraudsters to face yen years imprisonment Yeah. Some guy claims for non-existing partner/kid and gets 10years. The next guy on trial murders a pensioner and gets 8years. But hey, it gets rid of the unwanted scrounger so alls good eh! tell you what im one to have a good debate and take on people's opinions, but your just picking at holes now, so to save us getting into slinging I will end our discussion here, so neither get a ban. Feel free to discuss with other people.
And just for last point you said someone gets 10 years for cheating, but murder a pensioner and get 8 years, well that just wrong and I agree, should be a lot tougher sentences giving out, bit that's another debate all together. Take care.
So you feel its ok to start a 'discussion' about a subject, but when folks disagree with you, they aren't discussing it, they're 'picking holes'? Yeah, ok then!"Sorry your not just disagreeing with me, your jumping over different subjects, like the pensioner jail term thing, it was as almost as if you was putting words into my mouth, saying I agree that's how it should be done. I don't and never will. You have your strong options we both don't agree, I font see it going to end in a civil way, maybe you go and start a discussion with your views. This discussion is about my views, weather it be right or wrong. Like I said take care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After the other topic on CNS, was ended because it got full. I noted at the end someone started with the "Bashing the benefits drum is boring" Now on the thread I made a point of saying, scrounges on benefits should be made to do unpaid work to receive such benefits off our state. Now my definition of a scrounger is someone who does not want to work and would rather sis on there backside claiming benefits. Now in near but all cases I have seen of people I know of, receive either around the same if not more money then someone in a low paid job. Now I have family who are disabled, so this thread is not based on the people who genuinely can't work. This thread is also not aimed at the people who can't find a job, because I agree work in certain areas is very hard to find right now, but what I would say is in the spear time why don't we do some voluntary work. And again before anyone says how can we do voluntary work if we're looking for a job, I want the small amounts of time around looking. I work full time but still find time to volunteer a few hours either and there. And it makes me feel a lot better putting something back into society. Because at time i have had to claim benefits when my business has lost customers, so I'm not one of these that are above myself, because I have claimed when needed, but i put back what I take out in other ways and UT makes me feel like putting back into the pot. So to end this now this thread is Purely aimed at the lazy people who can work but refuse to, do we all agree more needs to be done about this. Sorry for such a rant. "how does being disabled instantly mean you cant work? i know a lad who has brittle bone disease, there isnt a day he isnt in agony, but i think in 5 years, other than hospital appointments, he has missed about a week of work. its VERY easy to bash 'scroungers' as long as it omits your own family, huh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment." fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After the other topic on CNS, was ended because it got full. I noted at the end someone started with the "Bashing the benefits drum is boring" Now on the thread I made a point of saying, scrounges on benefits should be made to do unpaid work to receive such benefits off our state. Now my definition of a scrounger is someone who does not want to work and would rather sis on there backside claiming benefits. Now in near but all cases I have seen of people I know of, receive either around the same if not more money then someone in a low paid job. Now I have family who are disabled, so this thread is not based on the people who genuinely can't work. This thread is also not aimed at the people who can't find a job, because I agree work in certain areas is very hard to find right now, but what I would say is in the spear time why don't we do some voluntary work. And again before anyone says how can we do voluntary work if we're looking for a job, I want the small amounts of time around looking. I work full time but still find time to volunteer a few hours either and there. And it makes me feel a lot better putting something back into society. Because at time i have had to claim benefits when my business has lost customers, so I'm not one of these that are above myself, because I have claimed when needed, but i put back what I take out in other ways and UT makes me feel like putting back into the pot. So to end this now this thread is Purely aimed at the lazy people who can work but refuse to, do we all agree more needs to be done about this. Sorry for such a rant.
how does being disabled instantly mean you cant work?
i know a lad who has brittle bone disease, there isnt a day he isnt in agony, but i think in 5 years, other than hospital appointments, he has missed about a week of work.
its VERY easy to bash 'scroungers' as long as it omits your own family, huh?"no see your suiting it to your argument here. My aim was at the lazy none workers, i added them points so. Honest people did not take offense. So please don't try twist my words, i wish all the disabled people who can work, a very happy life. My personal family have nothing to do with my views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha "I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!"Pretty good qualifications for the existing parties - no need for a new one! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!
Pretty good qualifications for the existing parties - no need for a new one!"I'd only be there for the jelly and ice cream anyway!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!"no it would be a party so no one was above the law. Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!
Pretty good qualifications for the existing parties - no need for a new one!
I'd only be there for the jelly and ice cream anyway! "Sorry only tea and scones at my party, unless you bring the jelly and ice cream, but you would look a bit silly if it melts  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts " I doubt shooting would be allowed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts I doubt shooting would be allowed "maybe Drag hunting, we could always do with some more prey, since foxes are out of bounds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the point was that you're guilty of your own accusation. You're happy to talk at people but not with them - unless it suits your own viewpoint. Perfectly qualified as a modern politician." No he was deliberately trying to goad me into an argument. If he had a point then make that point and debate that point. He kept making point and when I put my side back went onto something totally different. That is not a debate, that's just trying to get someone to slip up. But I never I kept answering his points, but got boring when he never come back to that point, but something totally different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!no it would be a party so no one was above the law.
Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else."But i did make a point earlier by asking how you would separate the genuine people on benefits from the 'lazy scroungers'! Which you didn't answer as it didn't agree with your opinion. In your original post, you stated that you know there are areas where no work is available, so if there is no work available, how would you know who is who on the laziness scale? Whilst i do agree that there are people who take advantage of the system, these are a small minority of the unemployed in general. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing will change until we get this pile of shite out of power... who actually voted for a coalition anyways. ? "My point was, no matter who is in power there are always going to be who like and agree and people that don't. They can't please everyone. But I agree they decided the coalition on there own back not ours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After the other topic on CNS, was ended because it got full. I noted at the end someone started with the "Bashing the benefits drum is boring" Now on the thread I made a point of saying, scrounges on benefits should be made to do unpaid work to receive such benefits off our state. Now my definition of a scrounger is someone who does not want to work and would rather sis on there backside claiming benefits. Now in near but all cases I have seen of people I know of, receive either around the same if not more money then someone in a low paid job. Now I have family who are disabled, so this thread is not based on the people who genuinely can't work. This thread is also not aimed at the people who can't find a job, because I agree work in certain areas is very hard to find right now, but what I would say is in the spear time why don't we do some voluntary work. And again before anyone says how can we do voluntary work if we're looking for a job, I want the small amounts of time around looking. I work full time but still find time to volunteer a few hours either and there. And it makes me feel a lot better putting something back into society. Because at time i have had to claim benefits when my business has lost customers, so I'm not one of these that are above myself, because I have claimed when needed, but i put back what I take out in other ways and UT makes me feel like putting back into the pot. So to end this now this thread is Purely aimed at the lazy people who can work but refuse to, do we all agree more needs to be done about this. Sorry for such a rant.
how does being disabled instantly mean you cant work?
i know a lad who has brittle bone disease, there isnt a day he isnt in agony, but i think in 5 years, other than hospital appointments, he has missed about a week of work.
its VERY easy to bash 'scroungers' as long as it omits your own family, huh? no see your suiting it to your argument here.
My aim was at the lazy none workers, i added them points so. Honest people did not take offense. So please don't try twist my words, i wish all the disabled people who can work, a very happy life. My personal family have nothing to do with my views. "so, and this is a genuine question, can members of your immediate family, with disabilities, do any form of work? if they sit in a chair, could they not sit at a computer desk all day? you see, my point is, not only the able bodied can be lazy or workshy. just because someone is disabled doesnt mean they are useless or unemployable. i am all for the new tests that look at what people can do, rather than what they cant, however the guidelines have been applied too stringently and some that should be fully deserved of help have had it taken away, only to have to go through the anguish of appeals. you say your family have nothing to do with your views, yet you are excluding them, and vicariously anyone that is like them (ie disabled) because it suits you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts I doubt shooting would be allowed "I'm lost were was shooting mentioned above? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'got rid of the scroungers' Stay away from Facebook kids, its has some serious side effects Not sure what you mean, would you care to enlighten me on your thoughts? This from the offset is the kind of pointless post I would expect to see on Facebook, Someone who doesn't understand something posts something which 99% of the time is either incorrect or just wrong. Followed by many many people who take post at face value without checking any facts and bombared with the usual "id say oi! Cameron! Nooooo" replies It is slowly nourishing this kind of opinion and its not a good thing While you have all the people deemed 'scroungers' rounded up, just how does your plan intend to 'get rid' of them, Just curious if you would care to enlighten me with your thoughts Well i will sum it up in one, people who are caught cheating the system should be put into jail like there saying will soon be done. Then I believe that will deter lots from doing it. I don't have the answers, i don't claim I do, but that don't stop me having my opinion does it. "There I summed you questions up in one, they will devise them self's over time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!no it would be a party so no one was above the law.
Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else.
But i did make a point earlier by asking how you would separate the genuine people on benefits from the 'lazy scroungers'! Which you didn't answer as it didn't agree with your opinion. In your original post, you stated that you know there are areas where no work is available, so if there is no work available, how would you know who is who on the laziness scale? Whilst i do agree that there are people who take advantage of the system, these are a small minority of the unemployed in general. "I did, I have just re posted it in case you missed it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!no it would be a party so no one was above the law.
Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else.
But i did make a point earlier by asking how you would separate the genuine people on benefits from the 'lazy scroungers'! Which you didn't answer as it didn't agree with your opinion. In your original post, you stated that you know there are areas where no work is available, so if there is no work available, how would you know who is who on the laziness scale? Whilst i do agree that there are people who take advantage of the system, these are a small minority of the unemployed in general.
I did, I have just re posted it in case you missed it."They will devise themselves?? Thats how you would tell the scroungers from the genuine?? I'm assuming you mean 'they will give themselves away'? Thats me told then eh! Touche for that well thought out answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After the other topic on CNS, was ended because it got full. I noted at the end someone started with the "Bashing the benefits drum is boring" Now on the thread I made a point of saying, scrounges on benefits should be made to do unpaid work to receive such benefits off our state. Now my definition of a scrounger is someone who does not want to work and would rather sis on there backside claiming benefits. Now in near but all cases I have seen of people I know of, receive either around the same if not more money then someone in a low paid job. Now I have family who are disabled, so this thread is not based on the people who genuinely can't work. This thread is also not aimed at the people who can't find a job, because I agree work in certain areas is very hard to find right now, but what I would say is in the spear time why don't we do some voluntary work. And again before anyone says how can we do voluntary work if we're looking for a job, I want the small amounts of time around looking. I work full time but still find time to volunteer a few hours either and there. And it makes me feel a lot better putting something back into society. Because at time i have had to claim benefits when my business has lost customers, so I'm not one of these that are above myself, because I have claimed when needed, but i put back what I take out in other ways and UT makes me feel like putting back into the pot. So to end this now this thread is Purely aimed at the lazy people who can work but refuse to, do we all agree more needs to be done about this. Sorry for such a rant.
how does being disabled instantly mean you cant work?
i know a lad who has brittle bone disease, there isnt a day he isnt in agony, but i think in 5 years, other than hospital appointments, he has missed about a week of work.
its VERY easy to bash 'scroungers' as long as it omits your own family, huh? no see your suiting it to your argument here.
My aim was at the lazy none workers, i added them points so. Honest people did not take offense. So please don't try twist my words, i wish all the disabled people who can work, a very happy life. My personal family have nothing to do with my views.
so, and this is a genuine question, can members of your immediate family, with disabilities, do any form of work?
if they sit in a chair, could they not sit at a computer desk all day?
you see, my point is, not only the able bodied can be lazy or workshy.
just because someone is disabled doesnt mean they are useless or unemployable.
i am all for the new tests that look at what people can do, rather than what they cant, however the guidelines have been applied too stringently and some that should be fully deserved of help have had it taken away, only to have to go through the anguish of appeals.
you say your family have nothing to do with your views, yet you are excluding them, and vicariously anyone that is like them (ie disabled) because it suits you."no you have me wrong, yes of course I could be biased with my family, but that is not the case. The person on question has metal disability, and yes they don't work but they also volunteer, because they would not keep down a mainstream job. But I'm sure you respect my right to not discusses my personal family in detail. But I agree this new way of getting disabled into employment is wrong. I am all for what they can do and not what they can't do. my family member got caught up in this recently, it was in there view that because they was able to volunteer they was able to do main street job, but they was proven wrong. But if it was there legs for instance then yes agree they could do some sort of computer work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!no it would be a party so no one was above the law.
Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else.
But i did make a point earlier by asking how you would separate the genuine people on benefits from the 'lazy scroungers'! Which you didn't answer as it didn't agree with your opinion. In your original post, you stated that you know there are areas where no work is available, so if there is no work available, how would you know who is who on the laziness scale? Whilst i do agree that there are people who take advantage of the system, these are a small minority of the unemployed in general.
I did, I have just re posted it in case you missed it.
They will devise themselves?? Thats how you would tell the scroungers from the genuine?? I'm assuming you mean 'they will give themselves away'? Thats me told then eh! Touche for that well thought out answer."Sorry I meant divide them self's, over time the excuse I can't do that job I am more than qualified for, and whats the reason? "Well it don't pay enough its only 12 grand a year, and we'll I need at least a million a say to get of my ass" that's the point I was trying to make if you get my view. But fair enough I did spell it wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Be very careful about suggesting prison for benefit scroungers, for I have a feeling that it would cost more to retain someone at her majesty's pleasure than to pay out benefits. Punish them with a reduction of benefits and community service maybe? Our prisons are at breaking point? Unless we get the scroungers/cheats (whatever label) to build them "I kind of agree with this, but without trying to sound like putting words in mouth shall we just say let's go out and rob a shop, you won't go to jail? A crime is a crime. Not that im saying you a benefit cheat, but think if you was, would you risk it for few extra pundits for 10 years? I wouldn't. But if it was just a reduction and bit if community service, then it's kind of worth the risk. I think the 10 year jail term would deter lots of cheating. But good point, if it did not deter them we would be overrun in prisons with benefit cheats | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!no it would be a party so no one was above the law.
Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else.
But i did make a point earlier by asking how you would separate the genuine people on benefits from the 'lazy scroungers'! Which you didn't answer as it didn't agree with your opinion. In your original post, you stated that you know there are areas where no work is available, so if there is no work available, how would you know who is who on the laziness scale? Whilst i do agree that there are people who take advantage of the system, these are a small minority of the unemployed in general.
I did, I have just re posted it in case you missed it.
They will devise themselves?? Thats how you would tell the scroungers from the genuine?? I'm assuming you mean 'they will give themselves away'? Thats me told then eh! Touche for that well thought out answer. Sorry I meant divide them self's, over time the excuse I can't do that job I am more than qualified for, and whats the reason? "Well it don't pay enough its only 12 grand a year, and we'll I need at least a million a say to get of my ass" that's the point I was trying to make if you get my view. But fair enough I did spell it wrong "Its not your spelling i was making a point about. (i make a few mistakes myself), its your point of making the lazy scroungers work for their benefits. My point is, if there was work for these 'scroungers' to do, then by all means, put them in a job, but, i would hope they get paid at least minimum wage for doing it. Its slave labour otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!no it would be a party so no one was above the law.
Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else.
But i did make a point earlier by asking how you would separate the genuine people on benefits from the 'lazy scroungers'! Which you didn't answer as it didn't agree with your opinion. In your original post, you stated that you know there are areas where no work is available, so if there is no work available, how would you know who is who on the laziness scale? Whilst i do agree that there are people who take advantage of the system, these are a small minority of the unemployed in general.
I did, I have just re posted it in case you missed it.
They will devise themselves?? Thats how you would tell the scroungers from the genuine?? I'm assuming you mean 'they will give themselves away'? Thats me told then eh! Touche for that well thought out answer. Sorry I meant divide them self's, over time the excuse I can't do that job I am more than qualified for, and whats the reason? "Well it don't pay enough its only 12 grand a year, and we'll I need at least a million a say to get of my ass" that's the point I was trying to make if you get my view. But fair enough I did spell it wrong
Its not your spelling i was making a point about. (i make a few mistakes myself), its your point of making the lazy scroungers work for their benefits. My point is, if there was work for these 'scroungers' to do, then by all means, put them in a job, but, i would hope they get paid at least minimum wage for doing it. Its slave labour otherwise. "Sorry I was not saying you was having a go at my spelling just thought u misunderstood my wording. They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Just have to be a little bit of say meals/travel. But I'm sure if they was a cheat they would not like it so ultimately would quit and get a job. I no in my head its a perfect world, and maybe not reality but we have to try something don't we. As I said not got the answers only surmising what we might try. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!no it would be a party so no one was above the law.
Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else.
But i did make a point earlier by asking how you would separate the genuine people on benefits from the 'lazy scroungers'! Which you didn't answer as it didn't agree with your opinion. In your original post, you stated that you know there are areas where no work is available, so if there is no work available, how would you know who is who on the laziness scale? Whilst i do agree that there are people who take advantage of the system, these are a small minority of the unemployed in general.
I did, I have just re posted it in case you missed it.
They will devise themselves?? Thats how you would tell the scroungers from the genuine?? I'm assuming you mean 'they will give themselves away'? Thats me told then eh! Touche for that well thought out answer. Sorry I meant divide them self's, over time the excuse I can't do that job I am more than qualified for, and whats the reason? "Well it don't pay enough its only 12 grand a year, and we'll I need at least a million a say to get of my ass" that's the point I was trying to make if you get my view. But fair enough I did spell it wrong
Its not your spelling i was making a point about. (i make a few mistakes myself), its your point of making the lazy scroungers work for their benefits. My point is, if there was work for these 'scroungers' to do, then by all means, put them in a job, but, i would hope they get paid at least minimum wage for doing it. Its slave labour otherwise. "it is my belief you can do 15 hours without having your claim adjusted?? so, those on the dole should be put to work for those 15 hours. taking into account what they get in their pocket, and the free rent and council tax, that would be a decent wage. going back to my original point about the disabled, i agree, i dont want to know about your family, thats your business absolutely. however, i would come to the same conclusion as your relative found, that if they can volounteer, they can work, even if part time. however, to discount the disabled as workshy, simply because they are disabled, and you have relatives in this position, if the whole politics thing happened, and you did become prime minister , then at best, to discount people because it would affect your own family, at best would be misplaced, at worst downright fraudulent lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Be very careful about suggesting prison for benefit scroungers, for I have a feeling that it would cost more to retain someone at her majesty's pleasure than to pay out benefits. Punish them with a reduction of benefits and community service maybe? Our prisons are at breaking point? Unless we get the scroungers/cheats (whatever label) to build them I kind of agree with this, but without trying to sound like putting words in mouth shall we just say let's go out and rob a shop, you won't go to jail? A crime is a crime. Not that im saying you a benefit cheat, but think if you was, would you risk it for few extra pundits for 10 years? I wouldn't. But if it was just a reduction and bit if community service, then it's kind of worth the risk.
I think the 10 year jail term would deter lots of cheating.
But good point, if it did not deter them we would be overrun in prisons with benefit cheats "Did the death penalty deter murderers? Possibly some but obviously not all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Be very careful about suggesting prison for benefit scroungers, for I have a feeling that it would cost more to retain someone at her majesty's pleasure than to pay out benefits. Punish them with a reduction of benefits and community service maybe? Our prisons are at breaking point? Unless we get the scroungers/cheats (whatever label) to build them I kind of agree with this, but without trying to sound like putting words in mouth shall we just say let's go out and rob a shop, you won't go to jail? A crime is a crime. Not that im saying you a benefit cheat, but think if you was, would you risk it for few extra pundits for 10 years? I wouldn't. But if it was just a reduction and bit if community service, then it's kind of worth the risk.
I think the 10 year jail term would deter lots of cheating.
But good point, if it did not deter them we would be overrun in prisons with benefit cheats
Did the death penalty deter murderers? Possibly some but obviously not all. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!no it would be a party so no one was above the law.
Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else.
But i did make a point earlier by asking how you would separate the genuine people on benefits from the 'lazy scroungers'! Which you didn't answer as it didn't agree with your opinion. In your original post, you stated that you know there are areas where no work is available, so if there is no work available, how would you know who is who on the laziness scale? Whilst i do agree that there are people who take advantage of the system, these are a small minority of the unemployed in general.
I did, I have just re posted it in case you missed it.
They will devise themselves?? Thats how you would tell the scroungers from the genuine?? I'm assuming you mean 'they will give themselves away'? Thats me told then eh! Touche for that well thought out answer. Sorry I meant divide them self's, over time the excuse I can't do that job I am more than qualified for, and whats the reason? "Well it don't pay enough its only 12 grand a year, and we'll I need at least a million a say to get of my ass" that's the point I was trying to make if you get my view. But fair enough I did spell it wrong
Its not your spelling i was making a point about. (i make a few mistakes myself), its your point of making the lazy scroungers work for their benefits. My point is, if there was work for these 'scroungers' to do, then by all means, put them in a job, but, i would hope they get paid at least minimum wage for doing it. Its slave labour otherwise. "This last bit.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its your point of making the lazy scroungers work for their benefits. My point is, if there was work for these 'scroungers' to do, then by all means, put them in a job, but, i would hope they get paid at least minimum wage for doing it. Its slave labour otherwise. This last bit. "It's actually illegal to make somebody work for no pay against their will. IDS did this Welfare To Work gig under the pretense that they were working for their benefits... Your Jobseekers Agreement states that you spend three hours a working day (((at the least))) looking for work, and that is what you are paid to do... You are paid Jobseekers to seek work, not to work. It is counter productive to force voluntary unpaid work onto a Jobseeker in the belief that it give them a better chance at work, especially when that Jobseeker has the freedom to find voluntary work for themselves if that is what they need to look serious. Its also very dense of this country to apply strict laws to those with the misfortune of being stuck at the bottom of the barrell whenever unemployent rises and the economy dips lower. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No disputing benefit cheats are an issue but put into perspective thats its a very small minority doing it. If sentences are increased then all well and good but if government went after with sane vigour those who fiddle tax by this i mean large organisations then fair enough but as sitting targets lets just bash those on benefits and forget the tax dodgers as it requires effort and commitment. fuck Me that's another pet hate of mine, I can't stand places like certain coffee shops who don't pay taxes, and the rich for that matter. We are all one and should have one rule for all, and disobey it then face the consequences. But the tax issue is a different debate, this only come about because someone brought it up on another debate about CNS. Hey tell you want we can't start a new party between us all, and call it the fab party "The party for all" could be our motto haha
I'm guessing this "party for all"are just for those people that agree with your 'opinions', and those that don't, or 'find holes to pick', get ignored. Lol. What a boring party that would be!no it would be a party so no one was above the law.
Have a look at the other posters they have miss quoted me, made a post said so. I have then put them right to what I meant, and that's that. If you had a problem with my posts you should of just said do not pick up on bits twist the meaning then why I put my side, you just go onto something totally different that's not a debate it my book. If you think you have a point by all means state that point don't get an answers then go onto something else.
But i did make a point earlier by asking how you would separate the genuine people on benefits from the 'lazy scroungers'! Which you didn't answer as it didn't agree with your opinion. In your original post, you stated that you know there are areas where no work is available, so if there is no work available, how would you know who is who on the laziness scale? Whilst i do agree that there are people who take advantage of the system, these are a small minority of the unemployed in general.
I did, I have just re posted it in case you missed it.
They will devise themselves?? Thats how you would tell the scroungers from the genuine?? I'm assuming you mean 'they will give themselves away'? Thats me told then eh! Touche for that well thought out answer. Sorry I meant divide them self's, over time the excuse I can't do that job I am more than qualified for, and whats the reason? "Well it don't pay enough its only 12 grand a year, and we'll I need at least a million a say to get of my ass" that's the point I was trying to make if you get my view. But fair enough I did spell it wrong
Its not your spelling i was making a point about. (i make a few mistakes myself), its your point of making the lazy scroungers work for their benefits. My point is, if there was work for these 'scroungers' to do, then by all means, put them in a job, but, i would hope they get paid at least minimum wage for doing it. Its slave labour otherwise.
it is my belief you can do 15 hours without having your claim adjusted??
so, those on the dole should be put to work for those 15 hours.
taking into account what they get in their pocket, and the free rent and council tax, that would be a decent wage.
going back to my original point about the disabled, i agree, i dont want to know about your family, thats your business absolutely.
however, i would come to the same conclusion as your relative found, that if they can volounteer, they can work, even if part time.
however, to discount the disabled as workshy, simply because they are disabled, and you have relatives in this position, if the whole politics thing happened, and you did become prime minister , then at best, to discount people because it would affect your own family, at best would be misplaced, at worst downright fraudulent lol"no sorry I did not discount the disabled, i just to choose to have a rant at the dam right work shy. So to not give the wrong impression I mentioned that my post was not aimed at them. As for my family member, without going into to much detail, the shop were they help out understands metal health issues, so he feels at ease with them, i dread to think if he was placed with a manager who was profit driven, what he might end up doing to them 
But yes if someone is disabled and they could do something and Basicly there to lazy to, then there in my vies classed in my original post and cheating the system. But there is a bug difference between I can't, wont,don't feel ready to. And we'll I can't be assed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Benefit fraudtsers are a fractional minority of claimants. All round fraudsters, con-men, pathological liars and cheats in everyday life, who "earn" a living, outnumber them. Much to the point where it's just all in the game when it comes to surviving in this country. Because where you'd think it's bad enough being cheated by your own govt. the dwp and the people that are paid to manipulate your medical evidence and judge you fit to work when you're crawling on your stomach, then along come the ultracrepidarian sub-population that do believe a blanket law should place all claimants in one box and burn the lot of them. Of course, in this country, that's the nature of having just enough money to think your feet are still firmly on the ground. It makes for the pleasant distraction of believing your opinion counts. Just like before they divided up the middle classes and threw about a quarter of them into poverty. I don't believe there is a valid argument for giving benefit fraudsters 10 years in prison since it doesnt get them their money back and costs them a great deal more. Not when greater losses are remaining unaccounted for. It reeks of incompetent bitterness." I don't fully agree the 10 years is the answer, as i said i don't no that. And as i also said, I'm not one of these people who put all the claimants on a island and burn them. And I agree there is a lot more bigger crimes out there, the government allowance scandal there the highest cheats ect. But we can't ignore a crime is a crime. And that is a different topic all together. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its your point of making the lazy scroungers work for their benefits. My point is, if there was work for these 'scroungers' to do, then by all means, put them in a job, but, i would hope they get paid at least minimum wage for doing it. Its slave labour otherwise. This last bit.
It's actually illegal to make somebody work for no pay against their will. IDS did this Welfare To Work gig under the pretense that they were working for their benefits...
Your Jobseekers Agreement states that you spend three hours a working day (((at the least))) looking for work, and that is what you are paid to do...
You are paid Jobseekers to seek work, not to work. It is counter productive to force voluntary unpaid work onto a Jobseeker in the belief that it give them a better chance at work, especially when that Jobseeker has the freedom to find voluntary work for themselves if that is what they need to look serious.
Its also very dense of this country to apply strict laws to those with the misfortune of being stuck at the bottom of the barrell whenever unemployent rises and the economy dips lower."Look im sure we can agree by the time you add all the benefits council tax, and rent there paid more than the minimum wage. So who is saying they won't be paid??? You was the one who said people blanket box them, but your the one by your own statements above that's blanketing them all the same. " Its also very dense of this country to apply strict laws to those with the misfortune of being stuck at the bottom of the Barrell" Your presuming all the people on benefits, some are just claiming till they find a new job and don't class them self's at the bottom of the barrel. So again I will say this is not for the people who have come across a hard ect ect ect. This is just for the small amount of people who are lazy work shy cheaters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Ho and if I did run for government, then I would make swinging less throwned upon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? " depends what other benefits are taken alongside the money which is given in the hand (child allowance, rent, council tax and so on) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My tuppence worth.. The amount of benefit fraud is vastly outweighed by the amount of benefits that go unclaimed so no it is boy costing us anything the money is already im the dwp kitty. Making the 'lazy' work. Great idea but how and at what cost can you enforce it? Prison is already full of people who failed to do community service under court orders so what chance has the door got of getting them to show up? For the ones that do you then need to employ someone to supervise them. Transport to the worksite and no doubt insurance. The minimum wage is worth 10% less now than in 2006 whilst the actual living wage needed to survive has increased unfold. Believe me job seekers allowance is considerably less than the average worker on minimum wage. No doubt there will be a landmark case where someone has defrauded tens of thousands and will get a hefty sentance but moat will get a fine which will not be paid meaning more resources chasing the money. The solution is not penalising the needy on benefits but creating jobs for them to aspire to and a proper living wage which would make being on benefits undesirable for everyone. Employers need to raise wages stop zero hour contracts. If working was a viable financial option unemployment would be reduced and the ones too bone idle to work would be easier to find" Just because the kitty has more unclaimed does not make it any less of a crime. But I agree making more of an advantage to being work would be good, i agree minimum wage us terrible. And zero hours criminal in its self. I think to many people think because it's only benefit fraud its not as bad, it's still a crime and should be punished. And yes the prisons our over full so maybe not the answer, but my point was make the sentence so high it would in most cases not be worth it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It will always be easy for those who are fortunate not to be on benefits, to slate those that are and think we live the life of riley in doing so. Shit happens and it can happen to anyone of us, and then...when you have to go cap in hand and beg for help in order to survive ...then come back and maybe...just maybe you may have a different view ???? "excuse me read my posts above I have had to claim in past when my small business is not making enough. I work very hard for my money, and i don't class myself below anyone or above anyone. So please don't give me all that it's easy to say this when you have everything, i have been through times when not had a pot to piss in, but got through it and got back up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My tuppence worth.. The amount of benefit fraud is vastly outweighed by the amount of benefits that go unclaimed so no it is boy costing us anything the money is already im the dwp kitty. Making the 'lazy' work. Great idea but how and at what cost can you enforce it? Prison is already full of people who failed to do community service under court orders so what chance has the door got of getting them to show up? For the ones that do you then need to employ someone to supervise them. Transport to the worksite and no doubt insurance. The minimum wage is worth 10% less now than in 2006 whilst the actual living wage needed to survive has increased unfold. Believe me job seekers allowance is considerably less than the average worker on minimum wage. No doubt there will be a landmark case where someone has defrauded tens of thousands and will get a hefty sentance but moat will get a fine which will not be paid meaning more resources chasing the money. The solution is not penalising the needy on benefits but creating jobs for them to aspire to and a proper living wage which would make being on benefits undesirable for everyone. Employers need to raise wages stop zero hour contracts. If working was a viable financial option unemployment would be reduced and the ones too bone idle to work would be easier to find Just because the kitty has more unclaimed does not make it any less of a crime. But I agree making more of an advantage to being work would be good, i agree minimum wage us terrible. And zero hours criminal in its self. I think to many people think because it's only benefit fraud its not as bad, it's still a crime and should be punished. And yes the prisons our over full so maybe not the answer, but my point was make the sentence so high it would in most cases not be worth it." Food banks are having to take up the slack these days and if you were hungry and believe me, many in this country are.... some will steal a loaf of bread, even if it meant a damn good flogging.... Ohhhh hang on.. a re introduction to the poorhouse would be good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It will always be easy for those who are fortunate not to be on benefits, to slate those that are and think we live the life of riley in doing so. Shit happens and it can happen to anyone of us, and then...when you have to go cap in hand and beg for help in order to survive ...then come back and maybe...just maybe you may have a different view ???? excuse me read my posts above I have had to claim in past when my small business is not making enough. I work very hard for my money, and i don't class myself below anyone or above anyone. So please don't give me all that it's easy to say this when you have everything, i have been through times when not had a pot to piss in, but got through it and got back up. "and so have i.... though this time, not being able to walk sort of scuppered me for a while. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? " your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It will always be easy for those who are fortunate not to be on benefits, to slate those that are and think we live the life of riley in doing so. Shit happens and it can happen to anyone of us, and then...when you have to go cap in hand and beg for help in order to survive ...then come back and maybe...just maybe you may have a different view ???? excuse me read my posts above I have had to claim in past when my small business is not making enough. I work very hard for my money, and i don't class myself below anyone or above anyone. So please don't give me all that it's easy to say this when you have everything, i have been through times when not had a pot to piss in, but got through it and got back up.
and so have i....
though this time, not being able to walk sort of scuppered me for a while. "But you have taking it personally to you, im not here to decide if your a cheat, which may i add don't think you are. But you blanket attacked the people who are in work looking down on the claimants. I have not raking the view with your situation, so i would be great full if you could not blanket me with the same brush | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. " I was not quoting you on anything,I was just merely asking a question based on your assumption that those on benefits are better off than those that work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My tuppence worth.. The amount of benefit fraud is vastly outweighed by the amount of benefits that go unclaimed so no it is boy costing us anything the money is already im the dwp kitty. Making the 'lazy' work. Great idea but how and at what cost can you enforce it? Prison is already full of people who failed to do community service under court orders so what chance has the door got of getting them to show up? For the ones that do you then need to employ someone to supervise them. Transport to the worksite and no doubt insurance. The minimum wage is worth 10% less now than in 2006 whilst the actual living wage needed to survive has increased unfold. Believe me job seekers allowance is considerably less than the average worker on minimum wage. No doubt there will be a landmark case where someone has defrauded tens of thousands and will get a hefty sentance but moat will get a fine which will not be paid meaning more resources chasing the money. The solution is not penalising the needy on benefits but creating jobs for them to aspire to and a proper living wage which would make being on benefits undesirable for everyone. Employers need to raise wages stop zero hour contracts. If working was a viable financial option unemployment would be reduced and the ones too bone idle to work would be easier to find Just because the kitty has more unclaimed does not make it any less of a crime. But I agree making more of an advantage to being work would be good, i agree minimum wage us terrible. And zero hours criminal in its self. I think to many people think because it's only benefit fraud its not as bad, it's still a crime and should be punished. And yes the prisons our over full so maybe not the answer, but my point was make the sentence so high it would in most cases not be worth it. Food banks are having to take up the slack these days and if you were hungry and believe me, many in this country are.... some will steal a loaf of bread, even if it meant a damn good flogging.... Ohhhh hang on.. a re introduction to the poorhouse would be good. "The food banks are great for people who need it, when I can afford I give what I can. But the cheats are even getting this to, surly you don't agree with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. I was not quoting you on anything,I was just merely asking a question based on your assumption that those on benefits are better off than those that work" But mine point was aimed at the larger amount claimant, you then quoted £50/70 per week, when in my opinion that's not accurate of the average claimant having there own property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"anyways, ive had enough of it all now. you will always get those needing help, you will always get those fobbing off the system...be it benefits..tax...expenses...etc. and you will always get those who have all the answers. I have none, other than to treat people like human beings and afford them a little compassion when times are hard. end of..........." read my posts above, im not above no one and I treat all with the same respect and understanding i would like to receive. I understand it's hard on the dole and not a nice place, ive been there. Take care | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. I was not quoting you on anything,I was just merely asking a question based on your assumption that those on benefits are better off than those that work But mine point was aimed at the larger amount claimant, you then quoted £50/70 per week, when in my opinion that's not accurate of the average claimant having there own property. " I was going off present day rates. As I said,it was just a question based on your idea to get people who claim JSA into work but instead of paying them a wage (living or otherwise) keep them on the benefit system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What about a few programmes, that have been on tv of late, family's saying there going without food ect, but there's the mum smoking, kids watching sky, playing Xbox, best designer gear on. And what in the back ground all branded stuff and pop ect. Hardly someone on the bread line who can't afford to eat is it. And im not having a pop at genuine family's who do struggle. And please don't tell me it's for the publics view, as they people in it could at least have the decency to hide the stuff in back ground like." One last bit then..... I have good furnishing, dvd,tv,dishwasher etc...wood floors etc....all things i saved and paid cash for when i was working., i have already started selling my bits and pieces to pay for the f...ing bedroom tax. but ive still a few things left...a bed...cooker.chair... but until im living like a dosser , no one will take me seriously. yerrr right. now im off ....and i knew i shouldnt have entered this thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What about a few programmes, that have been on tv of late, family's saying there going without food ect, but there's the mum smoking, kids watching sky, playing Xbox, best designer gear on. And what in the back ground all branded stuff and pop ect. Hardly someone on the bread line who can't afford to eat is it. And im not having a pop at genuine family's who do struggle. And please don't tell me it's for the publics view, as they people in it could at least have the decency to hide the stuff in back ground like." I'm very sute the producers of the Karen and nick BBC programme and also those from the channel 4 similiar program chose which 'subjects' to portray. Don't believe everything you see on tv! I was dissapointed that none of these recent shows had an accurate cross section of those on benefits at all. Trash tv with an agenda | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"todays sky news benefit fraudsters to face yen years imprisonment Yeah. Some guy claims for non-existing partner/kid and gets 10years. The next guy on trial murders a pensioner and gets 8years. But hey, it gets rid of the unwanted scrounger so alls good eh! tell you what im one to have a good debate and take on people's opinions, but your just picking at holes now, so to save us getting into slinging I will end our discussion here, so neither get a ban. Feel free to discuss with other people.
And just for last point you said someone gets 10 years for cheating, but murder a pensioner and get 8 years, well that just wrong and I agree, should be a lot tougher sentences giving out, bit that's another debate all together. Take care.
So you feel its ok to start a 'discussion' about a subject, but when folks disagree with you, they aren't discussing it, they're 'picking holes'? Yeah, ok then!"as the poster on the last thread who seems to have annoyed the op with my opinion I would like to give this comment a big | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. " really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thatcher cronies decided that yes, councils can sell off all their stock but couldnt build any more , so we were left with a shortfall of smaller accomodation. And........until i get what im after.....any family waiting for my home can go fcuk themselves. 32 yrs i have paid over the odds for this pile of bricks and decorated it, done the garden, put new floors in and a kitchen but they will benefit...not me. i get nothing back. and thats not fair in my book,." Not being funny but why would you put in new kitchens and floors into property that's not yours?!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What about a few programmes, that have been on tv of late, family's saying there going without food ect, but there's the mum smoking, kids watching sky, playing Xbox, best designer gear on. And what in the back ground all branded stuff and pop ect. Hardly someone on the bread line who can't afford to eat is it. And im not having a pop at genuine family's who do struggle. And please don't tell me it's for the publics view, as they people in it could at least have the decency to hide the stuff in back ground like. One last bit then..... I have good furnishing, dvd,tv,dishwasher etc...wood floors etc....all things i saved and paid cash for when i was working., i have already started selling my bits and pieces to pay for the f...ing bedroom tax. but ive still a few things left...a bed...cooker.chair... but until im living like a dosser , no one will take me seriously. yerrr right. now im off ....and i knew i shouldnt have entered this thread "no i really do feel for you, and im not pitying you mearley showing empathy and understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? " exactly, there are not enough actual jobs otherwise people like me would have one.....if they can pull jobs out the air for scroungers then they can for people who want to work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thatcher cronies decided that yes, councils can sell off all their stock but couldnt build any more , so we were left with a shortfall of smaller accomodation. And........until i get what im after.....any family waiting for my home can go fcuk themselves. 32 yrs i have paid over the odds for this pile of bricks and decorated it, done the garden, put new floors in and a kitchen but they will benefit...not me. i get nothing back. and thats not fair in my book,. Not being funny but why would you put in new kitchens and floors into property that's not yours?!! "Because the council one was falling to pieces and they didnt have the money to do it for 5 yrs, my brother did it but not full price. The floors went in so i could use my wheelchair properly....if thats ok with folk .....again..council would take 2 yrs of waiting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people ." No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What about a few programmes, that have been on tv of late, family's saying there going without food ect, but there's the mum smoking, kids watching sky, playing Xbox, best designer gear on. And what in the back ground all branded stuff and pop ect. Hardly someone on the bread line who can't afford to eat is it. And im not having a pop at genuine family's who do struggle. And please don't tell me it's for the publics view, as they people in it could at least have the decency to hide the stuff in back ground like. I'm very sute the producers of the Karen and nick BBC programme and also those from the channel 4 similiar program chose which 'subjects' to portray. Don't believe everything you see on tv! I was dissapointed that none of these recent shows had an accurate cross section of those on benefits at all. Trash tv with an agenda" Don't get me wrong, I no the TV show was a put on to put them in a bad light. I'm not born yesterday lol. What I was pointing out was the person in the documentary was clearly under the impression she was on the bread line with nothing to eat, the words come out of her mouth no one else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct "You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thatcher cronies decided that yes, councils can sell off all their stock but couldnt build any more , so we were left with a shortfall of smaller accomodation. And........until i get what im after.....any family waiting for my home can go fcuk themselves. 32 yrs i have paid over the odds for this pile of bricks and decorated it, done the garden, put new floors in and a kitchen but they will benefit...not me. i get nothing back. and thats not fair in my book,. Not being funny but why would you put in new kitchens and floors into property that's not yours?!! "because some people like to take pride, i rent my home but have fully upgraded it with my own money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thatcher cronies decided that yes, councils can sell off all their stock but couldnt build any more , so we were left with a shortfall of smaller accomodation. And........until i get what im after.....any family waiting for my home can go fcuk themselves. 32 yrs i have paid over the odds for this pile of bricks and decorated it, done the garden, put new floors in and a kitchen but they will benefit...not me. i get nothing back. and thats not fair in my book,. Not being funny but why would you put in new kitchens and floors into property that's not yours?!!
Because the council one was falling to pieces and they didnt have the money to do it for 5 yrs, my brother did it but not full price. The floors went in so i could use my wheelchair properly....if thats ok with folk .....again..council would take 2 yrs of waiting. "why shouldn't you better your place that you call home ? Not even for your wheelchair etc its your home . Dont feel you need to justify yourself to some of the opinions expressed on here. As I have said before opinions are like arseholes we all have them but sometimes they need to be kept to ourselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct "I do believe you clearly said "I am talking about mainly younger people or those who may be living with parents " or to that effect. So I stand clear you have little clue what you are actually saying. Your statement was factually incorrect and you use attack as a defence when this is pointed out. Too late to back track and change your views and claim misinterpretation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. "Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect. I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law. So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was. I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here "As i said.........a very emotive, volatile subject and it always ends up with some being angry or aggrieved ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here "your first statement on the cns thread where you reference benefits are that why should people get them for free and that they should work for free to obtain them ! Not a direct quote but the jist of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
I do believe you clearly said "I am talking about mainly younger people or those who may be living with parents " or to that effect. So I stand clear you have little clue what you are actually saying. Your statement was factually incorrect and you use attack as a defence when this is pointed out. Too late to back track and change your views and claim misinterpretation. "I am not back tracking at all. My point was aimed at what I am calling say the cheati_g couple. I said that type of person don't receive £70 per week, and said and I stand by it mainly the people who receive £70 and nothing else, are mainly younger or living with parents. Which is the case. Because if I have read you right and you was living with your partner at you own owned property, and she saved you from shit Creek, do I take it she was working?? I'm not presuming just asking the question. As in my thought living with a partner who earns over a certain amount will automatically not entitle you to benefits, like wise if you own a house over a certain value you can't claim benefits or if you have savings. And don't you think morally, if you have an hose say worth 100 grand should we be claiming of the state, or should we not morally support our self's? Now if I have muss quoted you am sorry, but like i have been asked would you care to answer my about questions. And I did not resort to attacking you in my last post show me were i said different from what you said to me?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here
your first statement on the cns thread where you reference benefits are that why should people get them for free and that they should work for free to obtain them ! Not a direct quote but the jist of it. "Yes and your point is, this is what this whole thread is about, i don't believe people who can work that font should get benefits for free. So please point out the point your trying g to make here??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a fact that less than 1% of all benefits are falsely claimed. If you wish to remove all the groups you have mentioned for exemption. The final tally will be almost negligible. So I fail to see, what point it is your actually trying to make. "the point I'm trying to make is its against the law, full stop. Are you defending people who are braking the law taking the tax you pay, assuming you pay tax? But I don't see why my tax us spent in people who are braking the law, as well as with prisons ect but that's a different thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here
As i said.........a very emotive, volatile subject and it always ends up with some being angry or aggrieved ... "I am not angry or aggrieved, if any one is they have took it personally to them, as it was not aimed at them. And if it's touched a nerve because they feel it is aimed at them, either there benefit cheats, or its not aimed at them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? exactly, there are not enough actual jobs otherwise people like me would have one.....if they can pull jobs out the air for scroungers then they can for people who want to work" Fixing the holes in the roads. Helping at libraries and museums... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"people falsely fill out tax returns....people will try and play the system in any which way if its open to abuse...There are genuine folk in need of benefits and secure housing...there are those that take the piss...We all know even the rich take the piss....." That's not true. They pay somebody to take the piss on their behalf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When did claiming benefits become a criminal offence ???? Your rant was originally aimed at people claiming benefits, it had nothing to do with falsely claiming." No your mixing two different threads, my aim on this thread were people who call it benefit bashing. But like I have said and true to my word, anyone claiming benefits, who are able to work ect (not going to give a huge list of all that are exempt) I mean people who are claiming to look for work, weather it be falsely claiming or genuinely looking for work, after a certain amount of time say a year or two, should be made to do some sort of work, be it whatever or voluntary ect ect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When did claiming benefits become a criminal offence ???? Your rant was originally aimed at people claiming benefits, it had nothing to do with falsely claiming." re reading the cns thread it would seem op has a major chip about the youth of today in particular claiming benefit and being made to work for it. I have no intention of responding to direct questioning from op about the facts I have already put on the table. Needless to say it would seem they are being misinterpreted to back op up but im not divulging any more on a public forum. They can complain all they like about being taken wrongly but I for one dont believe they have been and that people can see the thinly disguised pop at those claiming esp if young. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"people falsely fill out tax returns....people will try and play the system in any which way if its open to abuse...There are genuine folk in need of benefits and secure housing...there are those that take the piss...We all know even the rich take the piss..... That's not true. They pay somebody to take the piss on their behalf." True.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here
As i said.........a very emotive, volatile subject and it always ends up with some being angry or aggrieved ... I am not angry or aggrieved, if any one is they have took it personally to them, as it was not aimed at them. And if it's touched a nerve because they feel it is aimed at them, either there benefit cheats, or its not aimed at them."Once again, you seem to think my comments were aimed soley at you when it wasnt, I could get angry if i thought for one minute your implying im a benefit cheat....but i wont. i will rise above such slurs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"people falsely fill out tax returns....people will try and play the system in any which way if its open to abuse...There are genuine folk in need of benefits and secure housing...there are those that take the piss...We all know even the rich take the piss....." I agree the rich are just as bad if not worse, they take advantage, but that's not this thread. I'm for the people who support there family by good honest means weather that be morally entitled to benefits, or working for a living. They get my vote. Not cheaters or false claimants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here
As i said.........a very emotive, volatile subject and it always ends up with some being angry or aggrieved ... I am not angry or aggrieved, if any one is they have took it personally to them, as it was not aimed at them. And if it's touched a nerve because they feel it is aimed at them, either there benefit cheats, or its not aimed at them.
Once again, you seem to think my comments were aimed soley at you when it wasnt, I could get angry if i thought for one minute your implying im a benefit cheat....but i wont.
i will rise above such slurs "It was not a slur, it was an observation, of your comments made. Do I take that you don't wish to elaborate on your comments, by no means is im saying you have to answer to me, but i answered you points it would be rude not to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"people falsely fill out tax returns....people will try and play the system in any which way if its open to abuse...There are genuine folk in need of benefits and secure housing...there are those that take the piss...We all know even the rich take the piss..... I agree the rich are just as bad if not worse, they take advantage, but that's not this thread. I'm for the people who support there family by good honest means weather that be morally entitled to benefits, or working for a living. They get my vote. Not cheaters or false claimants." It is related to the thread as I am giving an example that false claims happen in every way not just in benefits.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here
As i said.........a very emotive, volatile subject and it always ends up with some being angry or aggrieved ... I am not angry or aggrieved, if any one is they have took it personally to them, as it was not aimed at them. And if it's touched a nerve because they feel it is aimed at them, either there benefit cheats, or its not aimed at them.
Once again, you seem to think my comments were aimed soley at you when it wasnt, I could get angry if i thought for one minute your implying im a benefit cheat....but i wont.
i will rise above such slurs
It was not a slur, it was an observation, of your comments made.
Do I take that you don't wish to elaborate on your comments, by no means is im saying you have to answer to me, but i answered you points it would be rude not to "Oh i dont mind answering but will it make any difference, it seems you have made your mind up about the world and his wife already. For the records............... PEACHES AINT A BENEFIT SCROUNGER....OK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your argument has completely changed and continues to do so. Each time you lose a point you simply attack from another angle to try and justify your own argument. What you really want is those on benefits (except those you like/know) to be forced into slave labour. A free work force, to be rented out by the state, as needed by who so ever pays the government in power. . . Its all quite clear to me know you have explained it "Now in fact a few people have changed there angle on thus thread not me, i would just say I never said that ect, everything you have just quest ed me saying I have agreed. What more do you want me to do. But now you resort to at attacking my family connection, like someone else has. What are you going to archive by that?? I stand by every thing I have said and quoted. Show me one thing I have contradicted myself on, and back tracked?? And don't say lots ect quote my words please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your argument has completely changed and continues to do so. Each time you lose a point you simply attack from another angle to try and justify your own argument. What you really want is those on benefits (except those you like/know) to be forced into slave labour. A free work force, to be rented out by the state, as needed by who so ever pays the government in power. . . Its all quite clear to me know you have explained it " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here
As i said.........a very emotive, volatile subject and it always ends up with some being angry or aggrieved ... I am not angry or aggrieved, if any one is they have took it personally to them, as it was not aimed at them. And if it's touched a nerve because they feel it is aimed at them, either there benefit cheats, or its not aimed at them.
Once again, you seem to think my comments were aimed soley at you when it wasnt, I could get angry if i thought for one minute your implying im a benefit cheat....but i wont.
i will rise above such slurs
It was not a slur, it was an observation, of your comments made.
Do I take that you don't wish to elaborate on your comments, by no means is im saying you have to answer to me, but i answered you points it would be rude not to
Oh i dont mind answering but will it make any difference, it seems you have made your mind up about the world and his wife already.
For the records...............
PEACHES AINT A BENEFIT SCROUNGER....OK
"Peaches stop justifying yourself you don't need to...remember you live your world not strangers on a bloody swinging site... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here
As i said.........a very emotive, volatile subject and it always ends up with some being angry or aggrieved ... I am not angry or aggrieved, if any one is they have took it personally to them, as it was not aimed at them. And if it's touched a nerve because they feel it is aimed at them, either there benefit cheats, or its not aimed at them.
Once again, you seem to think my comments were aimed soley at you when it wasnt, I could get angry if i thought for one minute your implying im a benefit cheat....but i wont.
i will rise above such slurs
It was not a slur, it was an observation, of your comments made.
Do I take that you don't wish to elaborate on your comments, by no means is im saying you have to answer to me, but i answered you points it would be rude not to
Oh i dont mind answering but will it make any difference, it seems you have made your mind up about the world and his wife already.
For the records...............
PEACHES AINT A BENEFIT SCROUNGER....OK
Peaches stop justifying yourself you don't need to...remember you live your world not strangers on a bloody swinging site... "very true but the im getting bloody angry....maybe we can just respond by thumbs and get rid of the damned thing before i do say something | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here
As i said.........a very emotive, volatile subject and it always ends up with some being angry or aggrieved ... I am not angry or aggrieved, if any one is they have took it personally to them, as it was not aimed at them. And if it's touched a nerve because they feel it is aimed at them, either there benefit cheats, or its not aimed at them.
Once again, you seem to think my comments were aimed soley at you when it wasnt, I could get angry if i thought for one minute your implying im a benefit cheat....but i wont.
i will rise above such slurs
It was not a slur, it was an observation, of your comments made.
Do I take that you don't wish to elaborate on your comments, by no means is im saying you have to answer to me, but i answered you points it would be rude not to
Oh i dont mind answering but will it make any difference, it seems you have made your mind up about the world and his wife already.
For the records...............
PEACHES AINT A BENEFIT SCROUNGER....OK
Peaches stop justifying yourself you don't need to...remember you live your world not strangers on a bloody swinging site...
very true but the im getting bloody angry....maybe we can just respond by thumbs and get rid of the damned thing before i do say something " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They would not be working fir free they would get there benefits, which I'm sure we can all agree to a certain degree adds up to around or more than minimum wage. Can you clarify this for me please. I just looked up the rates myself and as I understand it from 1 October this year the minimum wage will be: 21 and over £6.31 18-20 years £5.03 My calculation based on an average 35 hour week is that someone over the age of 21 would earn £220.85 p.w whereas an 18-20 year old would be £176.05 p.w. (Hardly a living wage in my opinion!) I am confused how you get someone on job seekers allowance getting either £71.70 p.w or £56.80 p.w (dependant on age) getting the same or more money than someone working? your talking about a younger person who may be at home with mum and dad, im talking bout the person who live as a couple and get rent council tax, tax credit ect ect. So please don't quote me £50/70 as that's just mainly youth, or people that live with parents. really ? I am 38 lost my job last year that was paying 45k pa. I claimed jsa at 71 a week plus some council tax relief. That is ALL I was entitled to as I had a mortgaged home. As a result I lost my home and I now earn minimum wage. If it wasnt for my other half I would now be up shit creek. 71 a week is not for the youth or those living with parents. Please get your facts right before pontificating to people. Its these attitudes and false facts that make it so much harder for some people . No please get your facts right and don't miss quote me, i mean the people I was aiming my statement at, the average couple claiming, i was just pointing out that the average person who only gets £70 a week was younger or people living at home. We're in any way did I say all, so please gets your facts correct
You need to be a bit clearer in who you are aiming your figures at it comes across as you really don't know what you are talking about and you appear all disjointed with your point of view. more objective and less objectionable will get your point across better. Now o disagree, i come up with my point, I was aiming it at the small minority who are dishonestly claiming benefits, i tried to put some points of who I was not including so i did not cause offense to anyone. But go and look at almost all reply most have said how dare you this, how dare you that, im mot this im not that ect ect.
I don't see one person who has come on here and said I'm a dishonest claimant, i lie and fuck you. So take a step back people this whole thread is not based on any one of you people unless you are cheating the system, and therefore braking the law.
So why have you all jumped, either you have something to hide or you have miss read, misunderstood what my point was.
I challenge some to show me one of my posts were i have said, you now something along the lines of all benefit claimants are scum ect ect. Because I have not and never would think that. Like I gave said i have claimed when needed. I'm no better or lower than every single one of you on here
As i said.........a very emotive, volatile subject and it always ends up with some being angry or aggrieved ... I am not angry or aggrieved, if any one is they have took it personally to them, as it was not aimed at them. And if it's touched a nerve because they feel it is aimed at them, either there benefit cheats, or its not aimed at them.
Once again, you seem to think my comments were aimed soley at you when it wasnt, I could get angry if i thought for one minute your implying im a benefit cheat....but i wont.
i will rise above such slurs
It was not a slur, it was an observation, of your comments made.
Do I take that you don't wish to elaborate on your comments, by no means is im saying you have to answer to me, but i answered you points it would be rude not to
Oh i dont mind answering but will it make any difference, it seems you have made your mind up about the world and his wife already.
For the records...............
PEACHES AINT A BENEFIT SCROUNGER....OK
"Peaches that was not aimed at you, read the post its was aimed at the guy who said he wares 45k. I'm not being patronising when I say I don't believe your a benefit cheat. I really am not, and i swear on my kids life's. I am not against you, your life us your life. I just wanted a debate on the way people are taking advantage of our good benefits system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Well I feel rather embarked now, i do admit when I'm at fault. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "More thumbs
let's get rid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? exactly, there are not enough actual jobs otherwise people like me would have one.....if they can pull jobs out the air for scroungers then they can for people who want to work Fixing the holes in the roads. Helping at libraries and museums..." So pay people a wage to fix these holes in the road. And as for helping at museums and libraries, thats what librarians and curators are paid to do. But oh! Aren't the councils cutting back on the funding for these services. So whats the answer? Cheap, slave labour to take the strain? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please go back and actually read what you have written. You have performed more "U" turns than Dave has "As fir peaches that was my mistake I gave said sorry for that. If I have made u turns dhow me them quote them, it's easy to say in your opinion. Quote them black and white end of. And font worry about thread closing people we can have benefits 2 on the go. But as they say if you don't like it then don't read comment. I'm not forcing you to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Peaches I tried to message you to apologies, but your filters block me. I really am sorry again. When I'm in the wrong I will admit it. X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please go back and actually read what you have written. You have performed more "U" turns than Dave has
As fir peaches that was my mistake I gave said sorry for that. If I have made u turns dhow me them quote them, it's easy to say in your opinion. Quote them black and white end of.
And font worry about thread closing people we can have benefits 2 on the go.
But as they say if you don't like it then don't read comment. I'm not forcing you to "Do you really want to open up another thread about benefits when you randomly pick out innocent people and accuse them of being benefit cheats? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please go back and actually read what you have written. You have performed more "U" turns than Dave has
As fir peaches that was my mistake I gave said sorry for that. If I have made u turns dhow me them quote them, it's easy to say in your opinion. Quote them black and white end of.
And font worry about thread closing people we can have benefits 2 on the go.
But as they say if you don't like it then don't read comment. I'm not forcing you to
Do you really want to open up another thread about benefits when you randomly pick out innocent people and accuse them of being benefit cheats?"This is not an attack on you but, do you want a big wooden spoon. I have not accused innocent people of being benefit cheats. I made a genuine mistake of who I was talking to. And I have apologised for that, why keep going on making untrue statements?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Peaches I tried to message you to apologies, but your filters block me.
I really am sorry again.
When I'm in the wrong I will admit it. X"Ive forgotton all about it , tho thanks for the apology | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just a quick question. Where would all these 'compulsory jobs' come from? exactly, there are not enough actual jobs otherwise people like me would have one.....if they can pull jobs out the air for scroungers then they can for people who want to work Fixing the holes in the roads. Helping at libraries and museums... So pay people a wage to fix these holes in the road. And as for helping at museums and libraries, thats what librarians and curators are paid to do. But oh! Aren't the councils cutting back on the funding for these services. So whats the answer? Cheap, slave labour to take the strain?" Well actually I think prisoners should fix the roads but I was using those as examples of jobs that need doing that can be of public benefit. It's not slave labour - its keeping people busy and useful while they're seeking proper work. I can't see why anybody would have an issue with giving something back other than being a lazy bastard, in which case getting them active would be a very good thing for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "yahooooooooo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
