Obese go on a Diet or lose your benefits

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/2/13/370553/default/v1/times-1-720x960.jpg


Its getting tough out there
you fat feckers move your ass

[Mystic Mock]

The Tories being lovely as usual.

For these people to be able to get jobs, businesses have to actually employ them.

[kirklancaster]

I have no problem with this, but let's see if they start by first removing the huge benefit cheques (salaries with perks included) of all those overweight MP's whose bulging stomachs overhang their pinstripe trouser waistbands as they tuck into yet another gourmet meal subsidised by the tax-payer.

[Mokka]

I have no problem with this, but let's see if they start by first removing the huge benefit cheques (salaries with perks included) of all those overweight MP's whose bulging stomachs overhang their pinstripe trouser waistbands as they tuck into yet another gourmet meal subsidised by the tax-payer.

:joker: truly

I have volunteered at many a food bank and what always struck me was how our society thinks donating crap food without nutritional value does to help the poor, obese, and sick. Really its just another way to keep them down.

Get fit and healthy living off nothing or else lose everything... sounds about right :idc:

[Jay.]

I'm more intrigued by 'My brother is the father of my son'

[Z]

To be honest, I think they're onto something. I'm not sure it's the right approach, but obesity is a physical manifestation of our lazy lifestyles. Weight loss is as much a mental battle as it is a physical battle; you have to put the work in to lose the pounds but you also have to teach yourself what's good to eat, what's bad to eat, how to avoid binging on terrible food, knowing how to treat yourself and not gorge yourself... I say this as someone who's had struggles with his weight in the past; I'm currently at a really healthy weight and it's because I recognised what was poor in my diet (lots of bread and dairy produce), cut them down drastically and started walking everywhere instead of getting buses, taxis, trains... people moan that it's impossible, and perhaps it is extremely difficult for many people, but it is not impossible. It takes time, patience and commitment. People expect instant results because that's what we've become accustomed to - ready meals, fast food, everything instant and readily available. Losing weight is a process, not an event. I was appalled to read that 25% of adults in the UK are obese. A quarter. That's disgusting. It's an epidemic. We all need better food education, the younger we start teaching kids how to eat right, the better.

[Josy]

Hmm yeah I think they are kinda on the right path with this, I mean have you seen some of these obese people on tv lately being proud of receiving so much benefits and handouts because they are obese? (I know they only show extreme cases on these types of shows but still if even one family of obese people think it's alright or good to receive handouts and not work just because they are overweight then that's certainly not OK IMHO)

So yeah a few of these benefit type shows lately have been showing overweight people telling us how much they receive each month in disability payments, housing benefits etc whilst walking to and around supermarkets filling their trolleys with a ton of unhealthy rubbish or sitting in cafes scoffing down a massive fry up.

I guess my point is they could have some kind of job, even if it's just part time, a few hours per day in a call centre for example it's not being overweight that's stopping them it's laziness and the ease of having no financial worry because it's so easy for them to receive benefits.

[Kazanne]

Imo , it's a good thing and tbf they did say TREATABLE obesity , I guess people who are like that will hate this ,as it will mean they have to get off their arses and do a days work , so many excuses are made for lazy people these days plus the NHS is struggling enough without the added burden of greedy lazy people.

[Livia]

Presumably they're also going to cut the benefits of people who drink, smoke or take drugs and refuse to change their lifestyle.

[sassysocks]

Imo , it's a good thing and tbf they did say TREATABLE obesity , I guess people who are like that will hate this ,as it will mean they have to get off their arses and do a days work , so many excuses are made for lazy people these days plus the NHS is struggling enough without the added burden of greedy lazy people.

Agreed. This is action taken because these people will cost the NHS a fortune. We can't afford it. And as far as the NHS is concerned it may be what breaks the camel's back and destroys an NHS which is already hanging on by the skin of its teeth.

These people are not only lazy but stupid as they clearly lack understanding of just what dire straits the NHS is in and will likely not be there to help them when their appauling life style choices hits back at their bodies.

[Josy]

Presumably they're also going to cut the benefits of people who drink, smoke or take drugs and refuse to change their lifestyle.

It mentions above that they are also going to target drink and drug users

[waterhog]

i wounder will they tell the large MPs loose weight as your job is at risk or you are putting in jeopardy your career ? or is ok if you are over weight on a very well over paid job ?

[arista]

i wounder will they tell the large MPs loose weight as your job is at risk or you are putting in jeopardy your career ? or is ok if you are over weight on a very well over paid job ?



Yes Eric Pickles
for Example

[sassysocks]

i wounder will they tell the large MPs loose weight as your job is at risk or you are putting in jeopardy your career ? or is ok if you are over weight on a very well over paid job ?

Although I get your point, it isn't the same is it. MPs are working and earning a salary and could afford private health care. They put in!

Those on benefits are not earning any of the money they receive and would be reliant on the taxpayers for a second time in receiving considerable NHS care in the future. By doing nothing, contributing nothing, they cost the rest of us a fortune. They take out - twice.

Something has to be done to help not only make them more employable but save the country a lot of money.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Eat dinner in 20 minutes says some london based 30 something yah yah dawling freelance writer woman

well love I can eat it in 4 if i use the microwave so go and ****** yerself and your dreadful paper

[joeysteele]

Just look at the tone of the media, what a PM who dosen;t wait to get all the info he should have before leading the way with an idea like this.

Of course more could be done to 'genuinely' assist and support people who are greatly overweight in to work, 'if' they can really do work.
As with those with alcohol problems and drug problems too.

However 'threatening' with near financialblackmail is far from the way to go.
Also never mind the suporting of people deemed able to possibly work but where is the support once they maybe have.
I would ask this hopeless PM one question, you have an alcoholic, who has other conditions too.
He/She does get off alcohol,they do this say 'therapy' he mentions,then are found work and that is that.
However,I know of someone who had got off alcohol, they did have some Liver disease becasue of it,however they did get a job and all was fine until some idiot spiked a soft drink they were having.

That careless and stupid act by a so called new workmate,sent him spiralling down into a relapse,so badly in fact he now needs a liver Transplant but will need to be off alcohol for a defined period before any consideration for one will be enacted.
Going back into work caused greater problems for that person and I am 100% sure he would not be the only one.

That is why any idea like this needs the most careful and intense scrutiny that in fact lives are mot put more at risk by blackmailing people into work by threatening to remove their benefits.

Alcoholics, drug addicts often have other conditions that need careful consideration,also needs that would need to be fully,not partly, addressed,as to being an ay work.

Of course if someone can work and wants to,then that should be supported and all efforts done to accommodate them.
Force, threats, and blackmail should not have any part in that process however.

Here we likely go again,a chorus of words from this PM and this govt; fuelling in the media,more demonisation of sections of people claiming benefits.
I hope for their sakes, this PM is out of a job in May and his henchmen with him too.

[smudgie]

Hmmm, save 10 million or whatever.
I would like to know the cost of implementing this, and also, if the claimant has to try and help themselves, if they will also be given all the help they need, therapy etc. could cost more than they could save, and then once these people lose the weight, no saying they will get jobs.:shrug:

Just an easy target if you ask me.

[Kazanne]

Although I get your point, it isn't the same is it. MPs are working and earning a salary and could afford private health care. They put in!

Those on benefits are not earning any of the money they receive and would be reliant on the taxpayers for a second time in receiving considerable NHS care in the future. By doing nothing, contributing nothing, they cost the rest of us a fortune. They take out - twice.

Something has to be done to help not only make them more employable but save the country a lot of money.

:clap1::clap1:

[Tom4784]

It's just more demonising of the people who need help the most. Yeah sure, SOME people abuse the system but you'd have to swallow a lot of tabloid **** to believe that it's a wide spread problem.

A bigger problem is the corporations and the rich not putting in what they owe. If the major corporations that have business in the UK actually paid their way then you'd never see crap like the bedroom tax or the demonising of people who depend on benefits because taxing the rich and the corporations PROPERLY will yield a lot more money than making the poor suffer ever will.

[Josy]

Adding to what I posted above, I also don't think this should be used as just another excuse for attacking and branding all those who claim benefits that are overweight into the same category, some will genuinely need to claim benefits for health reasons probably related to the obesity but that do need to be treated separately to it, these people shouldn't be forced to work with the threat of no benefits if they can't possibly do it.

It's the people that are using just the obesity as an excuse to not work that needs to be tackled imo.

Plenty of overweight people do have jobs.

[Z]

It's just more demonising of the people who need help the most. Yeah sure, SOME people abuse the system but you'd have to swallow a lot of tabloid **** to believe that it's a wide spread problem.

A bigger problem is the corporations and the rich not putting in what they owe. If the major corporations that have business in the UK actually paid their way then you'd never see crap like the bedroom tax or the demonising of people who depend on benefits because taxing the rich and the corporations PROPERLY will yield a lot more money than making the poor suffer ever will.

I think they're separate issues. Obesity is a problem at epidemic levels, a quarter of all adults in this country are obese. That is not acceptable. The unemployment-obesity aspect is the sensationalist part that this thread is focusing on, but I think it is going to take something as harsh as "we will stop giving you money if you don't stop overfeeding yourselves" to try and solve the problem of obesity. Parents who feed their children utter crap should have the kids taken off them, not only are they physically harming them through their diet but they're giving these kids lifelong battles with their weight - if I could go back and dissuade my parents from taking me to McDonald's all the time as a kid I'd do it 100%, how was I to know any better, I was a little kid! Fat is a symptom, not a way of life.

[jennyjuniper]

I am in full agreement with stopping benefits for people with alcohol and drug problems. While people recieve money for drinking and taking drugs, where is the incentive to stop??As for obese people, they too should at least show that they are trying to live a healthier lifestyle instead of just filling their faces with unsuitable food and doing no exercise whatsoever and relying on the rest of society to support their lifestyle.
Before anyone calls me heartless and insensitive, I was/am an alcoholic, who hasn't had a drink for 20 odd years. I'm not particularly strong willed and it's been hard to resist sometimes, but it's doable. If I can do it anyone can.

[sassysocks]

I am in full agreement with stopping benefits for people with alcohol and drug problems. While people recieve money for drinking and taking drugs, where is the incentive to stop??As for obese people, they too should at least show that they are trying to live a healthier lifestyle instead of just filling their faces with unsuitable food and doing no exercise whatsoever and relying on the rest of society to support their lifestyle.
Before anyone calls me heartless and insensitive, I was/am an alcoholic, who hasn't had a drink for 20 odd years. I'm not particularly strong willed and it's been hard to resist sometimes, but it's doable. If I can do it anyone can.

Well said.

[Vicky.]

I have no problem with this, but let's see if they start by first removing the huge benefit cheques (salaries with perks included) of all those overweight MP's whose bulging stomachs overhang their pinstripe trouser waistbands as they tuck into yet another gourmet meal subsidised by the tax-payer.
:laugh2: too true...

The Tories being lovely as usual.

For these people to be able to get jobs, businesses have to actually employ them.
The elephant in the room when stuff like this comes up indeed. Yeah people can be all 'omgz they are all spending my taxes on their mcdonalds and drugs and 70 inch tvs and alcohol and fags' etc but when the jobs arent there..its impossible to work them :shrug:

As a side note, people I know have mostly tended to gain weight when they lote their jobs...I assume this is due to how much cheaper it is to buy rubbish than fresh good for you stuff...maybe thats an issue that needs looked at

[Vicky.]

I am in full agreement with stopping benefits for people with alcohol and drug problems. While people recieve money for drinking and taking drugs, where is the incentive to stop??As for obese people, they too should at least show that they are trying to live a healthier lifestyle instead of just filling their faces with unsuitable food and doing no exercise whatsoever and relying on the rest of society to support their lifestyle.
Before anyone calls me heartless and insensitive, I was/am an alcoholic, who hasn't had a drink for 20 odd years. I'm not particularly strong willed and it's been hard to resist sometimes, but it's doable. If I can do it anyone can.
I don't see how that would work in reality...all it would do is force those people to turn to crime to survive :shrug: Then we would be even worse off. See if people welcome the 0.0001p they save per month in taxes that were going to the druggie down the road when their house is burgled...

[Livia]

It mentions above that they are also going to target drink and drug users

Oh, thanks Josy. I don't have a problem with it then.

[Vicky.]

In principle I dont have a problem with it, however..I dont see how it will help anything. As I said these people wont find a job (one they are unlikely to anyway if they are ill from their weight/problems, and 2 the jobs arent there even for the healthy) and will have no option but to turn to crime...which helps noone.

Also the nhs argument doesnt hold up because unhealthy people cost less in the long run...if everyone tomorrow started eating healthy and gave up their vices, and we started living to 100...the nhs would collapse as we would have to pay for a lot more 24/7 care for age related disease such as alzheimers which is much more expensive than the odd bypass due to eating crap. Same argument as smokers really...

[Northern Monkey]

So they do this and we get loads of obese people living on the streets,Well they'd certainly lose weight then.Ridiculous.
How would they even put this into practice?Clog up the NHS more by having weekly weigh-ins at the docs who would then have report his findings to the benefits office?
Why not help people to lose weight?Slimfast vouchers or Slimming World and gym membership?not demonising people for what they eat.Too much control and interfering in peoples lives.
However obesity alone due to lazyness and greed should not be a reason to be able to claim disability living allowance in the first place imo.Fair enough if it is a symptom of a real illness.
As for Job Seekers allowance then as long as they are job seeking then their weight is nothing to do with anything.

[joeysteele]

For me, I just have not really come across anything as to ideas like this that come from David Cameron and this govt; that genuinely are looked at from the understanding,fair and compassion angle.

Nothing this man says as to things like this, inspire me with any confidence to trust him with peoples lives like this.
Since he has chosen to say it now, it is pretty clear to me that he wants this to be able to be done over the next parliament,if the Conservatives won in May.
For me, this is just another reason I hope they are not elected in May.

This needs to be looked at by those who are involved in the support of these people and know all the other conditions and needs that may have.
Before ascertaining all that, to shout this idea as he has, shows a plan to continue more demonising of some benefit claimants and to further penalise them more in my view.
I wouldn't trust David Cameron as to just about anything now.

I hope this 'review' he has asked for will list this as a non starter because I can see a lot of people being made to suffer more hardship and distress who are among the most vulnerable again probably.
To save tens of millions while others get away with not paying likely tens of billions.

[Vicky.]

Anyway, I assume this is to drum up more antibenefit sentiments to draw attention away from stories such as this, publicised today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31459067 ;)

[Livia]

I don't think it's antibenefit sentiment. I think if someone's living on benefits and refuses to do anything about their unemployability due to drink, drugs or obesity, then their position has to be looked at. The welfare system should be there for people who need it, but it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice for people who choose not to work. If someone can't find a job then the welfare system should be there to help them. If they've not found some kind of job after a couple of years then they must surely have some kind of problem. If the problem is obesity, drink or drugs, give them some help to get themselves together and become contributing members of society.

[kirklancaster]

How would they even put this into practice?Clog up the NHS more by having weekly weigh-ins at the docs who would then have report his findings to the benefits office?


They'll probably just use all the old closed down Whaleweigh stations. :hehe:

[arista]

Anyway, I assume this is to drum up more antibenefit sentiments to draw attention away from stories such as this, publicised today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31459067 ;)


No I think there is room for all news Storys


This getting Obese people "that refuse work"
is also supported by Labour
but they do not want it on a Front page etc

[kirklancaster]

I don't think it's antibenefit sentiment. I think if someone's living on benefits and refuses to do anything about their unemployability due to drink, drugs or obesity, then their position has to be looked at. The welfare system should be there for people who need it, but it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice for people who choose not to work. If someone can't find a job then the welfare system should be there to help them. If they've not found some kind of job after a couple of years then they must surely have some kind of problem. If the problem is obesity, drink or drugs, give them some help to get themselves together and become contributing members of society.

:clap1:

[Vicky.]

I don't think it's antibenefit sentiment. I think if someone's living on benefits and refuses to do anything about their unemployability due to drink, drugs or obesity, then their position has to be looked at. The welfare system should be there for people who need it, but it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice for people who choose not to work. If someone can't find a job then the welfare system should be there to help them. If they've not found some kind of job after a couple of years then they must surely have some kind of problem. If the problem is obesity, drink or drugs, give them some help to get themselves together and become contributing members of society.

Agree completely. However just stopping their income...is not help. Its the opposite of help and is likely to make their problems (and everyone elses in reality) a hell of a lot worse. The sad reality is though aswell, that some people are beyond help..or wont accept it. The problem we have there is to either keep supporting them (as lets be honest, they wouldn't find work anyway, not where there is something like 1 job for every 4 people on jsa to begin with) or to cut off everything from them, have them living on the streets begging/mugging people etc to survive.

I have said before and its not a popular view, until there is enough employment for those completely able and willing to work, I don't see what the need is in bothering with those few who don't want to/can't because of their own vices. Edit. I dont mean bothering as in helping them..I mean bothering as in trying to force them to work by threatening to take away their only form of income and such

I would rather those people had an income than run the risk of them attacking me or taking my stuff because we treat them like nothing. Even if in a lot of peoples eyes, they are nothing.

[DemolitionRed]

Here we likely go again,a chorus of words from this PM and this govt; fuelling in the media,more demonisation of sections of people claiming benefits.
I hope for their sakes, this PM is out of a job in May and his henchmen with him too.

I refuse to watch these ridiculous programmes on benefit scroungers because they very deliberately pick people with learning difficulties to be the stars of their shows.

Britain has been spread a lie and its been going on for the last couple of generations. If we are going to educate obese people about the wrongs in their diets then we need to explain why they have such glutinous addictions. Instead these doctors will suggest low fat products and exercise regimes.

Low fat foods have had all the roughage taken out of them and because food without roughage is tasteless, its injected with crystallized fructose. The entire burden of metabolising fructose falls on your liver, where is turned into free fatty acids which then get stored as fat. Fructose interferes with your brain's communication with leptin, resulting in making you feel hungry and overeating. Fructose is addictive; the more you eat, the more you need. It causes type two diabetes, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, cancer, arthritis and elevated bad cholesterol.

The problem is, us Brits have fructose in just about everything we buy off our supermarket shelves... unless its a totally natural product. Its even in baby formula and theres huge doses of it in diet products and soda. What's more, the manufacturers are under no obligation to label its ingredients as "fructose" but can merely add, "sweetener".

The French are a skinny lot, in fact I believe they are the thinnest nation in Europe and yet they consume more butter, bread, whole milk and cheese than the rest of us put together. What the French tend not to do is drink a lot of soda, eat a lot of take-aways/ready meals or graze between meals. Whilst they love their fatty foods, their diet is much more natural than ours.

America and Britain are the two biggest consumers of fructose and I call this obesity epidemic, the "fructose epidemic".

[Vicky.]

I refuse to watch these ridiculous programmes on benefit scroungers because they very deliberately pick people with learning difficulties to be the stars of their shows.

Britain has been spread a lie and its been going on for the last couple of generations. If we are going to educate obese people about the wrongs in their diets then we need to explain why they have such glutinous addictions. Instead these doctors will suggest low fat products and exercise regimes.

Low fat foods have had all the roughage taken out of them and because food without roughage is tasteless, its injected with crystallized fructose. The entire burden of metabolising fructose falls on your liver, where is turned into free fatty acids which then get stored as fat. Fructose interferes with your brain's communication with leptin, resulting in making you feel hungry and overeating. Fructose is addictive; the more you eat, the more you need. It causes type two diabetes, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, cancer, arthritis and elevated bad cholesterol.

The problem is, us Brits have fructose in just about everything we buy off our supermarket shelves... unless its a totally natural product. Its even in baby formula and theres huge doses of it in diet products and soda. What's more, the manufacturers are under no obligation to label its ingredients as "fructose" but can merely add, "sweetener".

The French are a skinny lot, in fact I believe they are the thinnest nation in Europe and yet they consume more butter, bread, whole milk and cheese than the rest of us put together. What the French tend not to do is drink a lot of soda, eat a lot of take-aways/ready meals or graze between meals. Whilst they love their fatty foods, their diet is much more natural than ours.

America and Britain are the two biggest consumers of fructose and I call this obesity epidemic, the "fructose epidemic".
Which tend to cost a bloody fortune and lets be honest, totally natural stuff is few and far between. Oddly enough the most effective way to lose weight is on a high fat, low carb diet.

Obesity IS a huge problem, but not just among the unemployed. I do feel the problem (along with not enough education about HOW to cook healthy..I mean at school we were constantly making cakes and stuff in food tech :rolleyes: ) is how expensive it is to eat right compared to eat crap :S

[DemolitionRed]

Which tend to cost a bloody fortune and lets be honest, totally natural stuff is few and far between. Oddly enough the most effective way to lose weight is on a high fat, low carb diet.

Obesity IS a huge problem, but not just among the unemployed. I do feel the problem (along with not enough education about HOW to cook healthy..I mean at school we were constantly making cakes and stuff in food tech :rolleyes: ) is how expensive it is to eat right compared to eat crap :S

I agree, I'm half French and was raised on a typical French diet which includes lots of fatty food. I weigh 105lbs and my weight doesn't fluctuate. I don't find it expensive to eat natural food but I have to say, I probably eat a lot more green vegetables than what you would see in most English diets. I make my own sauces which is more time consuming than buying something ready made and I don't use tinned food. We also don't eat meat more than a couple of times a week but I tend to cook pork belly or beef mince. We do eat a lot of cheese dishes and I do make a couple of pies a week with full butter pastry.

[Kazanne]

I don't think it's antibenefit sentiment. I think if someone's living on benefits and refuses to do anything about their unemployability due to drink, drugs or obesity, then their position has to be looked at. The welfare system should be there for people who need it, but it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice for people who choose not to work. If someone can't find a job then the welfare system should be there to help them. If they've not found some kind of job after a couple of years then they must surely have some kind of problem. If the problem is obesity, drink or drugs, give them some help to get themselves together and become contributing members of society.

:clap1: Agreed SOME of these people do NOT want to work,time to move their lazy asses.

[Vicky.]

I agree, I'm half French and was raised on a typical French diet which includes lots of fatty food. I weigh 105lbs and my weight doesn't fluctuate. I don't find it expensive to eat natural food but I have to say, I probably eat a lot more green vegetables than what you would see in most English diets. I make my own sauces which is more time consuming than buying something ready made and I don't use tinned food. We also don't eat meat more than a couple of times a week but I tend to cook pork belly or beef mince. We do eat a lot of cheese dishes and I do make a couple of pies a week with full butter pastry.

I mean compared to junk here, not sure if its different in France. When you compare say..the price of a few different kinds of veg, some potatoes and some fresh meat.. to a giant bag of chicken nuggets and a giant bag of fries for £1.50 each in iceland which would probably do a family of 4 for a couple of meals...well eating healthy seems a fortune in comparison. Especially to those on low incomes.

[Vicky.]

:clap1: Agreed SOME of these people do NOT want to work,time to move their lazy asses.

But they still wont work, as the work isnt there for those do who want it, nevermind those who dont and are too fat/addicted to do so anyway :laugh:

[DemolitionRed]

I think its really sad to see such huge obesity problems in this country. People are using mobility scooters because their own gluttony has disabled them. Nobody wants to be like that, so when we shout, "its self inflicted" we should perhaps all try to walk a mile in their shoes.

We see self induced illnesses through smoking, alcohol and drugs and now we are seeing it from the over consumption of food. If you asked an emphysema patient, if he was happy whilst he puffed away on a cigarette in between gulps from his oxygen mask, do you think his answer would be "yes"? its the same with obesity; whilst some may claim they like being big and round, they do so from shame and embarrassment. Nobody wants to be obese.

[Vicky.]

I mean compared to junk here, not sure if its different in France. When you compare say..the price of a few different kinds of veg, some potatoes and some fresh meat.. to a giant bag of chicken nuggets and a giant bag of fries for £1.50 each in iceland which would probably do a family of 4 for a couple of meals...well eating healthy seems a fortune in comparison. Especially to those on low incomes.

I read your post completely wrong and assumed you lived in france :facepalm:

Apologies :laugh:

[waterhog]

just to complicate the issue think about this one - you work from your 16 till 49 and you are made redundant. you have always been large all your life. from being in a job so long has not given you the need to get any other education as you have had maoney comming in and not needed to worry about it.

are you tell me that this person has worked all his life and through no fault of his own as he is made redundant he will not be alliwed to claim benefit after paying in tax all his working life -


smells very rotten to me.

[arista]

just to complicate the issue think about this one - you work from your 16 till 49 and you are made redundant. you have always been large all your life. from being in a job so long has not given you the need to get any other education as you have had maoney comming in and not needed to worry about it.

are you tell me that this person has worked all his life and through no fault of his own as he is made redundant he will not be alliwed to claim benefit after paying in tax all his working life -


smells very rotten to me.


No Hog
this for more younger Obese folks
who Outright Refuse work
due to being Obese.


But Look at MP Eric Pickles
he ids Obese but works every day hard

[arista]

just to complicate the issue think about this one - you work from your 16 till 49 and you are made redundant. you have always been large all your life. from being in a job so long has not given you the need to get any other education as you have had maoney comming in and not needed to worry about it.

are you tell me that this person has worked all his life and through no fault of his own as he is made redundant he will not be alliwed to claim benefit after paying in tax all his working life -


smells very rotten to me.


No Hog
this for more younger Obese folks
who Outright Refuse work
due to being Obese.


But Look at MP Eric Pickles
he is Obese but works every day hard

[Vicky.]

No Hog
this for more younger Obese folks
who Outright Refuse work
due to being Obese.


But Look at MP Eric Pickles
he is Obese but works every day hard

Where does it say this?

I see no clarification between ages/previous employment/etc. Just 'rarrr obese'.

[Vicky.]

Tbf too IDS could do with losing a few pounds himself. Maybe he should have less full englishes paid for by the public purse :hehe: What he spends on one breakfast would support another person for half a week...

[InOne]

I'm glad not many people actually pay attention to these faux outrage articles. Another good deflection by the media and government to divert us from the real problems of the country.

[joeysteele]

just to complicate the issue think about this one - you work from your 16 till 49 and you are made redundant. you have always been large all your life. from being in a job so long has not given you the need to get any other education as you have had maoney comming in and not needed to worry about it.

are you tell me that this person has worked all his life and through no fault of his own as he is made redundant he will not be alliwed to claim benefit after paying in tax all his working life -


smells very rotten to me.

That is a good point and a very valid one that is discounted by those who just want to bash benefit claimants overall.

You see,I hear this govt saying that no one on benefits should be getting in as benefits more than if they were in work.
Another example similar to what you have said, I came across someone who had worked over 45 years from leaving school.
His memory started to fade and he had to give up work, why should he too, have to take such a massive drop in income for being genuinely ill.

What he is getting is a pittance compared to his original salary, paying into a system for all his working life, then having to hear people on benefits demonised and got at all the time.
For me, people likek him should certainly have more coming in than he has and this govt; along with presvious govts; too,Labour failed too, never go looking for the people who should be getting certain benefits which are provided.
We rarely if ever, hea of the benefits that go unclaimed by people, however govt;s never lift a finger to make sure they get them.
That comes down to welfare organisations, the CAB and charities, if and when they come across a person who should have them.

Sadly some like to take the hard line and prefer to believe the media and this govt; with their 'odd' case of benefit cheats and it is very easy indeed to brand people lazy from looking in from the outside, branding them all the same,when more often than not that is not the case,as I found out, when you get out there and talk to and see how people are struggling.
Real support is a good thing, support doesn't fit in with financial blackmail as to threat of loss of income however.
There is little in the way of any compassion and fairness from this PM as to these issues and as to supposed 'support'.

[DemolitionRed]

And of course, this doesn't affect working middle class Britain. All these silly threats are like Inone says, taking our eye off the government and creating a blame society.

I have never been unemployed, I count myself fortunate, I have never claimed benefit but I'll never say never and I have never been obese but I count myself fortunate. I am sick to death of the propaganda our government and popular media are spewing out about those people in Britain that really do struggle. This is class hatred at its absolute worst.

And I've had one too many glasses of wine but it is valentines day!!

[arista]

Where does it say this?

I see no clarification between ages/previous employment/etc. Just 'rarrr obese'.


OK younger and any age
Obese
That Refuse To Work
due to using "being Obese as the reason why"

[DemolitionRed]

What its actually saying is, if you are unemployed and obese and if you refuse help regarding your obesity, benefits could be cut.

[Vicky.]

What its actually saying is, if you are unemployed and obese and if you refuse help regarding your obesity, benefits could be cut.

Would this be help as in the help currently offered to the disabled? Ie. see a retired midwife (not even a gp half the time...nevermind a specialist) who decides your mental health issue is false and subsequently kicks you off benefits to help you get into work etc...

:laugh:

[Johnnyuk123]

They should give them food parcels and stop handing over hard cash. That way there won't be the wrong foods in their house in the first place and it can only help them in the long term with weight issues.

[waterhog]

this argument is not valid as you are picking on a group of people - if this was about anything else it would be challenged.

[joeysteele]

They should give them food parcels and stop handing over hard cash. That way there won't be the wrong foods in their house in the first place and it can only help them in the long term with weight issues.

Good lord, this is 21st century Britain not the dark ages,I would be against any govt; planning what people could have as to what to eat and when.

There is a lot I would support and that could be done by 'voluntary support and advice' as to obesity and drug/alcohol addictions,however when at the end of things,the threat to remove part or all income comes into play,that stinks to high heaven,in my view, as to what this govt; terms as support and advice and as to its real agenda.

[Kizzy]

Just bring back the workhouse and give the poor gruel and have done with it...

[joeysteele]

Just bring back the workhouse and give the poor gruel and have done with it...

Shhh Kizzy,:joker: Don't give David Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith that info.

The sad thing is I am pretty sure they would, if they thought they could get away with it.

[Kizzy]

This is just a red herring to divert people away from the issue of tax avoidance anyway, nothing will come of it it's too unspecific it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to implement.

[Kazanne]

This is just a red herring to divert people away from the issue of tax avoidance anyway, nothing will come of it it's too unspecific it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to implement.

Kizzy ,I hope you are not working my corner tonight:joker::joker: (swings bag at Kizbot)

[Kizzy]

Kizzy ,I hope you are not working my corner tonight:joker::joker: (swings bag at Kizbot)

Shhhhhhh... we'll have to declare our income if you blab, are lube and nip tassels tax deductible? :joker:

[Kazanne]

Shhhhhhh... we'll have to declare our income if you blab, are lube and nip tassels tax deductible? :joker:

:joker::joker:ha ha,I'm hoping to gain a few pounds tonight:hehe:I'll be obese if it's a good night.

[Northern Monkey]

Good lord, this is 21st century Britain not the dark ages,I would be against any govt; planning what people could have as to what to eat and when.

There is a lot I would support and that could be done by 'voluntary support and advice' as to obesity and drug/alcohol addictions,however when at the end of things,the threat to remove part or all income comes into play,that stinks to high heaven,in my view, as to what this govt; terms as support and advice and as to its real agenda.

This^

[Northern Monkey]

This is just a red herring to divert people away from the issue of tax avoidance anyway, nothing will come of it it's too unspecific it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to implement.

This too.It would probably cost too much to implement to be worth doing.

[Johnnyuk123]

Good lord, this is 21st century Britain not the dark ages,I would be against any govt; planning what people could have as to what to eat and when.

There is a lot I would support and that could be done by 'voluntary support and advice' as to obesity and drug/alcohol addictions,however when at the end of things,the threat to remove part or all income comes into play,that stinks to high heaven,in my view, as to what this govt; terms as support and advice and as to its real agenda.

Well right now we give out cash and let people decide what they want to spend it on, unfortunately the majority spend it on the usual junk food, cigs and booze.

[lostalex]

Well right now we give out cash and let people decide what they want to spend it on, unfortunately the majority spend it on the usual junk food, cigs and booze.

yea, heaven forbid anyone have any pleasure in life, lets go back to the soviet model. everyone gets rations of bread and meat, just enough to survive. no extra, no indulgence, everyone just taken in the basic needs and live basic boring unpleasurable lives...

how dare humans want to do pleasurable things!!

[jennyjuniper]

I don't see how that would work in reality...all it would do is force those people to turn to crime to survive :shrug: Then we would be even worse off. See if people welcome the 0.0001p they save per month in taxes that were going to the druggie down the road when their house is burgled...

I see your point, but what if they used the benefits money to pay for re-habilitation clinics? That's how I got off the stuff. I know it wouldn't work for everyone, but at least some could have a decent life again .

[jennyjuniper]

yea, heaven forbid anyone have any pleasure in life, lets go back to the soviet model. everyone gets rations of bread and meat, just enough to survive. no extra, no indulgence, everyone just taken in the basic needs and live basic boring unpleasurable lives...

how dare humans want to do pleasurable things!!

It's not pleasure to live in the gutter as an alcoholic or druggie, or to be so fat that you cut 30 years off your life.

[joeysteele]

Well right now we give out cash and let people decide what they want to spend it on, unfortunately the majority spend it on the usual junk food, cigs and booze.

'If' they really are spending it more on booze and cigs as you say,and I'd like to see your official independent statistics as to the majority of doing so, at least a great deal of tax is then going back to the treasury,if they are,from buying those things.
That actually makes them considerable tax payers themselves too in that case.

If there is an agreed entitlement that people should have why then should any govt; say how they should spend same.
That would amount to dictatorship.
Not a road I would want to go down in the UK at all.

[joeysteele]

yea, heaven forbid anyone have any pleasure in life, lets go back to the soviet model. everyone gets rations of bread and meat, just enough to survive. no extra, no indulgence, everyone just taken in the basic needs and live basic boring unpleasurable lives...

how dare humans want to do pleasurable things!!

I agree totally, I am becoming more and more disappointed at the lack of understanding and compassion being shown in the UK towards its most vulnerable.

Some actually believe every benefit claimant is wrongly in some way getting money, rather than taking on board the independent official statistic that says only around at best 1% are.
Ina recent channel 4 debate on this, Richard Bacon revealed that only 0.8% of claims could be wrong or by fraud.

To listen to this govt; the media and other real hardliners, you'd think it was the other way round.
Easy to judge and condemn all from the outside by believing a biased and prejudiced media and this heartless buch of cowards we have as a govt; now that can only sanction and penalise the weakest.

I really think I may emigrate in the near future if the UK keeps on the road of these unfair misjudgements of the vast majority of those who are the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable in the UK.
This govts; cruel and heartless demonising policies, make me almost ashamed to be British.

[Kazanne]

Well we may aswell all leave work,get fat and live off the state,seriously NO one is saying those that don't need benefits should not get them,but there ARE certain sections of society that ARE lazy,do NOT want to work and benefits is their way of life,I give up on this thread ,I really do.

[GypsyGoth]

They should build big hamster wheels for the obese people.

[Kazanne]

They should build big hamster wheels for the obese people.

:joker: and generate electricity,we could pay them in McDonalds:hehe:

[GypsyGoth]

:joker: and generate electricity,we could pay them in McDonalds:hehe:

:laugh2:

[Cherie]

'If' they really are spending it more on booze and cigs as you say,and I'd like to see your official independent statistics as to the majority of doing so, at least a great deal of tax is then going back to the treasury,if they are,from buying those things.
That actually makes them considerable tax payers themselves too in that case.

If there is an agreed entitlement that people should have why then should any govt; say how they should spend same.
That would amount to dictatorship.
Not a road I would want to go down in the UK at all.

Great post Joey, i would like to see some actual figures as well instead of the sweeping generalisations made, similar to all immigrants being on benefits when it has been proven that most immigrants pay much more into the system than they take out ..a bit off topic I know but just for comparison

[Kazanne]

:laugh2:

:wavey: hello GG not seen you post in a while,nice to have you back.

[GypsyGoth]

:wavey: hello GG not seen you post in a while,nice to have you back.

Thanks :love:

[Kizzy]

It's not pleasure to live in the gutter as an alcoholic or druggie, or to be so fat that you cut 30 years off your life.

It would be better to work through any issues you have in a rehabilitation facility it helped you...
But that isn't financially viable for the thousands that need it, so what's the alternative for them.. is it this, make the poor poorer so they will suddenly realise they need to get clean and lean?

Living on benefits is not an option now, if you're on jobseekers your benefits are restricted if you don't actively seek work, and if you don't have a job within a specified timescale a job will be found for you whether you are fat or thin.

So what here is under threat? My guess is it's accessing disability benefit for weight related issues.

[kirklancaster]

Well we may aswell all leave work,get fat and live off the state,seriously NO one is saying those that don't need benefits should not get them,but there ARE certain sections of society that ARE lazy,do NOT want to work and benefits is their way of life,I give up on this thread ,I really do.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Don't give up Kaz - that's the mistake I nearly made.

Every time someone mentions on here, the reality that SOME fraudently claim benefits who could work but don't want to, or SOME fraudently claim benefits who are working 'on the side', or that SOME immigrants are terrorist sympathisers, or that SOME Muslims are fundamentalist terrorists, the thread is immediately tattoed by Left Wing rebuttal posts which IGNORE what has actually been said in the original post, and false premises are then worked from which suggest that what has been said in the original post is that ALL claimants are fraudulent, or ALL immigrants are terrorist sympathisers, or that ALL Muslims are terrorists.

This hysterical defensiveness is ridiculous.

I personally KNOW at least 8 disgustingly obese women - all in their late 20's, and all who have from 2 to 5 children (most to different non-present, 'baby-daddies') and all who claim benefits far in excess of the average weekly working wage, and all who are seldom seen without guzzling down Big Mac meals, Fish and Chips or huge '99 ice cream cones/chocolate bars.

I personally know dozens of people who claim benefits who are fit and well but who do not work and don't want to work. Some of these are over 50 years old and HAVE NEVER HAD ONE JOB IN THEIR LIVES. Another is on Mobility for life yet plays football for a local team and trains 3 times a week at Bannatyne's Gym.

Yet another was awarded mobility for life because his bad back debilitated him, then the government paid thousands of pounds for him to enroll on a HGV course and he is now employed as a long distance lorry driver but still receives his mobility allowance????

One woman - 38 years old - has 12 children -- yes 12 children (to many different 'baby-daddies') -- and receives over £900 per week, not including Housing Benefits. She is at least a size 24 and regularly traipses around town with some of her friends and a couple of pushchairs, with other of her kids walking along sides, and she is always loaded up with carrier bags of new clothes and always munching on burgers or KFc's. And no, she has never worked from having her first baby at 15 years old.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say that these twats DO exist, and although they are in a minority, it is still a very sizeable minority which is costing the tax-payer multi-millions of pounds per year.

I will also repeat - that the more of these lazy fecking leeches there are that are barred from benefits, then the more money there is in the system to PROPERLY alleviate the suffering of GENUINE claimants.

THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE SYSTEM JUST ON THOSE WHO MILK IT AND ABUSE IT.

Back to obese people;

Obesity through genuine physiological or medical reasons aside, it is naive to PRESUME that the rest of obese people need educating on healthy eating habits, because most of them know that gorging on takeaways 6 nights a week, drinking copious amounts of alcohol and fizzy drinks, and stuffing burgers, multiple bags of crisps, and chocolates and ice creams down their gullets, and not taking any exercise at all by WORKING OUT or even just WORKING, will result in becoming a BEACHED WHALE with heath problems galore.

Here's Dr Kirk's way to lose weight and get healthier:

1) FECKING EAT LESS.
2) FECKING START ACTUALLY COOKING.
2) FECKING GET A JOB.
3) FECKING THROW AWAY THE TV.
4) FECKING THROW AWAY THE COUCH.

Simple 'innit.

[Vicky.]

I see your point, but what if they used the benefits money to pay for re-habilitation clinics? That's how I got off the stuff. I know it wouldn't work for everyone, but at least some could have a decent life again .

Can you really see that happening? The benefits will be stopped and the people forgotten about

The problem with saying people have to get help for stuff like this (which tbf, they should be getting anyway) is that the help isn't there...and the government dont actually care about helping people, just saving cash. It would cost so much to put all drug addicts etc into rehab. It just would never happen.

If there was a proper system in place it would be fine. As to get the amount of help required, more staff would have to be taken on, more buildings built etc, so a lot of people would get work out of it all too, along with people getting help out of the whole thing. But this is not what IDS and co would do. Stopping more peoples income is the only thing on their minds.

[Vicky.]

One woman - 38 years old - has 12 children -- yes 12 children (to many different 'baby-daddies') -- and receives over £900 per week, not including Housing Benefits. She is at least a size 24 and regularly traipses around town with some of her friends and a couple of pushchairs, with other of her kids walking along sides, and she is always loaded up with carrier bags of new clothes and always munching on burgers or KFc's. And no, she has never worked from having her first baby at 15 years old.


Simple 'innit.

Not getting into the rest of your post, but this part in particular is actually impossible. If you do not know why, then you don't know what you are talking about at all :)

She may brag (god knows why mind) about receiving that much, but she wont actually...

[kirklancaster]

Not getting into the rest of your post, but this part in particular is actually impossible. If you do not know why, then you don't know what you are talking about at all :)

Well please enlighten me just why it's impossible Vicky please. I do not lie. I have direct knowledge about this actual woman but cannot breach Data Protection law.

And I most certainly DO KNOW what I am talking about - from direct, personal experience and involvement in some cases.

I am reasonably intelligent, so if I wanted to merely post Right Wing propaganda by fabricating examples I would not have used 12 children and £900 per week - I related such because it is the truth.

I await your response.

[Vicky.]

Also the problem with these with loads of kids receiving high amount of benefits is..I don't see what can be done about it. I know so many are for a cap on the amount of children you can claim for, and I do see that view, but you are punishing the kids for the parents stupidity by doing that. Besides forcibly sterilizing people on benefits after 2 kids..I dont see a solution that doesn't punish the children, who are innocents in all of this.

Also if we went down the draconian forced sterilization path, we would still have the problem of people who had ****loads of kids when working and then lost their jobs :S

[Vicky.]

Well please enlighten me just why it's impossible Vicky please. I do not lie. I have direct knowledge about this actual woman but cannot breach Data Protection law.

And I most certainly DO KNOW what I am talking about - from direct, personal experience and involvement in some cases.

I am reasonably intelligent, so if I wanted to merely post Right Wing propaganda by fabricating examples I would not have used 12 children and £900 per week - I related such because it is the truth.

I await your response.

Because there is a cap of £500 per week that anyone can claim in benefits, including housing benefit...

[DemolitionRed]

I don't hang around in the same circles you do Kirk and so apart from my sister who has a brain tumour and is enormously over weight through the medication, I don't know any morbidly obese unemployed people. I do though, know quite a few large people who have bank accounts in Geneva who will happily sit round a dinner table taking triple portions whilst advising the rest of us how to evade tax through unscrupulous measures.

Perhaps, instead of weekly documentaries on benefit scroungers we could have, just for a change, a documentary or two on those responsible for the missing billions in tax contributions, because although we all know that benefit scrounging is wrong, its a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the tax that major corporations and individuals are avoiding paying on their profits.

[kirklancaster]

Because there is a cap of £500 per week that anyone can claim in benefits, including housing benefit...

She receives £540 per week in Tax Credits and then ESA and Child Benefits, and it does NOT include Housing Benefits. Incidentally, the Council are currently knocking two semi-detached house through and carrying out £50,000 + worth of conversion works for her to move into.

Hers is not a unique case either.

[Vicky.]

I wonder how one goes about finding out the income rates of all the people they know aswell. I am curious about the income of some people I know, let me in on your secrets kirk please :o

[Vicky.]

She receives £540 per week in Tax Credits and then ESA and Child Benefits, and it does NOT include Housing Benefits. Incidentally, the Council are currently knocking two semi-detached house through and carrying out £50,000 + worth of conversion works for her to move into.

Hers is not a unique case either.

Again, can't happen. Could have a few years back, but not now.

[kirklancaster]

I don't hang around in the same circles you do Kirk and so apart from my sister who has a brain tumour and is enormously over weight through the medication, I don't know any morbidly obese unemployed people. I do though, know quite a few large people who have bank accounts in Geneva who will happily sit round a dinner table taking triple portions whilst advising the rest of us how to evade tax through unscrupulous measures.

Perhaps, instead of weekly documentaries on benefit scroungers we could have, just for a change, a documentary or two on those responsible for the missing billions in tax contributions, because although we all know that benefit scrounging is wrong, its a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the tax that major corporations and individuals are avoiding paying on their profits.
I love your posts Dem, but these two issues - though both very real - are very different. I am not anti-working class but I believe that it is categorically wrong to tolerate or mitigate 'working class' abuse of the Benefits System just because the 'middle to upper class' tax avoiders and evaders are allowed to 'manipulate' the law under the present system.

I think we all know how corrupt and biased against the 'working classes' certain institutions in this country are, and have been for centuries - including the core of our Judicial and Revenue systems - but it needs concerted effort by the people here to highlight such corruption and protest about it -- Poll Tax style -- until the loop holes are closed and the relevant laws and policies are rendered more equitable through revision.

The irony here is that the issue of Benefit Fraud as outlined, is NOT 'Working Class' crime, but 'NON WORKING CLASS crime perpetuated against the very section of the 'working classes' who most desperately need the money being defrauded.

Oh, and I don't hang around in these circles Dem, but I am not only involved through my work with such 'circles', but also have direct experience and acquired knowledge of the same because I have been a professional landlord for years, and have had thousands of tenants who were/are claimants for the lower value stock in my portfolio.

[Niamh.]

I don't hang around in the same circles you do Kirk and so apart from my sister who has a brain tumour and is enormously over weight through the medication, I don't know any morbidly obese unemployed people. I do though, know quite a few large people who have bank accounts in Geneva who will happily sit round a dinner table taking triple portions whilst advising the rest of us how to evade tax through unscrupulous measures.

Perhaps, instead of weekly documentaries on benefit scroungers we could have, just for a change, a documentary or two on those responsible for the missing billions in tax contributions, because although we all know that benefit scrounging is wrong, its a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the tax that major corporations and individuals are avoiding paying on their profits.

:clap1:

Exactly

[kirklancaster]

Again, can't happen. Could have a few years back, but not now.

Not true Vicky. The woman in question made certain applications 12 months ago for which she had to provide conclusive proof of her income via the furnishing of checkable information and the supply of original documents which were rigorously scrutinised and validated. j

[Cherie]

She receives £540 per week in Tax Credits and then ESA and Child Benefits, and it does NOT include Housing Benefits. Incidentally, the Council are currently knocking two semi-detached house through and carrying out £50,000 + worth of conversion works for her to move into.

Hers is not a unique case either.

I'm amazed at how much you know about this woman's personal business Kirk and how do you know it is not a unique case, how many other people do you personally know in similar situations?

[Vicky.]

Not true Vicky. The woman in question made certain applications 12 months ago for which she had to provide conclusive proof of her income via the furnishing of checkable information and the supply of original documents which were rigorously scrutinised and validated. j

Unless she receives DLA for either her or her kids (which you never mentioned...I'm sure you would have as DLA is substantially more than other benefits) it is impossible for her to get around the benefit cap.

I would love to know how you have such indepth knowledge of 'people you know' also. I don't even know my fathers income details, let alone people I just know

[DemolitionRed]

I wonder how one goes about finding out the income rates of all the people they know aswell. I am curious about the income of some people I know, let me in on your secrets kirk please :o

I was wondering that too. Perhaps its an accumulation of resentful Chinese whispers!

[Cherie]

Unless she receives DLA for either her or her kids (which you never mentioned...I'm sure you would have as DLA is substantially more than other benefits) it is impossible for her to get around the benefit cap.

I would love to know how you have such indepth knowledge of 'people you know' also. I don't even know my fathers income details, let alone people I just know

I said as much in the post above, there is no category of person that Kirk doesn't have intimate knowledge of :laugh:

[kirklancaster]

I wonder how one goes about finding out the income rates of all the people they know aswell. I am curious about the income of some people I know, let me in on your secrets kirk please :o

I have already explained that I cannot due to Data Protection law.

[Vicky.]

I have already explained that I cannot due to Data Protection law.

LOL. Ok :D

[Vicky.]

I was wondering that too. Perhaps its an accumulation of resentful Chinese whispers!

Possibly...I mean, whats not to be jealous of. 12 kids to bring up..I bet thats a barrel of laughs, I bet she spends all day in the pub too. And has a 70 inch plasma, and goes on 5 holidays a year..etc etc.

If this case is actually true, I think its to be pitied not envied tbh. For it to be true there has to be some element of disability involved (either the mother or the kids..I know esa was mentioned but unless she receives the support component for herself...which is very hard to do without a serious disability then that would not exempt her from the cap.) And I would never resent someone being supported as they/their kids have a disability :S


On the subject of it being more common than people think also...the daily mail couldnt even make it seem common to have so many kids. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083998/Benefit-cap-190-families-10-children-cost-taxpayers-11m-A-YEAR.html
Nearly 100,000 people on benefits have four or more children, with more than 900 claimants having at least eight.


900 people have at least 8 (though this doesn't say WHICH benefits they claim, could be child benefit for some)...will try and find the figure for 12.

[DemolitionRed]

I think we all know how corrupt and biased against the 'working classes' certain institutions in this country are, and have been for centuries - including the core of our Judicial and Revenue systems - but it needs concerted effort by the people here to highlight such corruption and protest about it -- Poll Tax style -- until the loop holes are closed and the relevant laws and policies are rendered more equitable through revision.



I am sick to death of walking past a newspaper stand and some headline jumping out at me about benefit scroungers. I'm fed up prime time television being taken up with documentaries about how the Polish, Rumanian and fat people are ****ing this country over. This is all about creating a division within a class system. Its incitement to hatred and discontent and I believe its a kin to propaganda because its indoctrinating how we think.

Benefit fraud is a tiny problem in this country. Of course it goes on but its nothing like as big as our media portray it to be. The simple solution is, if you think someone is defrauding the system you report them to the appropriate authorities. If you are wrong, nothing will happen. If you're right the fraud is stopped.

[Vicky.]

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-truth-about-the-child-benefits-cap/11739

Ah. 10 families in the uk claim benefits and have 12 kids. Yes, a massively widespread problem :o

I feel I need to make it clear here that I am not supporting popping out kid after kid and expecting the state to support you/them. However, again, I don't see a realistic solution to it. And I don't think so much emphasis needs to be put on it when the reality is the amount of people doing this IS very small, no matter what some would try to make you believe.

[Tom4784]

I agree with pretty much everything Demolition and Vicky have said. The Benefits witch hunt is just a distraction and a vote grab aimed at the middle classes who look at Shameless and think it's a documentary. The Media only run with it because Benefits (and Tax issues) are one of three subjects that will always lead to high circulation numbers, the other two being peadophillia and Terrorism. Every time anything happens involving these three, newspaper editors across the country rub their hands together in glee.

People who need benefits are an easy target, one that's rarely defended due to the fact that these people have been demonised at every turn.

I have already explained that I cannot due to Data Protection law.

If you were that concerned about Data Protection you would not have mentioned this supposed baby factory of a woman in the first place, confidentiality isn't something that you can switch on and off when it suits your argument.

The numbers don't make sense, the story doesn't make sense and that excuse doesn't cover it. You may as well admit that you made it up.

[Toy Soldier]

Possibly...I mean, whats not to be jealous of. 12 kids to bring up..I bet thats a barrel of laughs, I bet she spends all day in the pub too. And has a 70 inch plasma, and goes on 5 holidays a year..etc etc.

If this case is actually true, I think its to be pitied not envied tbh. For it to be true there has to be some element of disability involved (either the mother or the kids..I know esa was mentioned but unless she receives the support component for herself...which is very hard to do without a serious disability then that would not exempt her from the cap.) And I would never resent someone being supported as they/their kids have a disability :S


On the subject of it being more common than people think also...the daily mail couldnt even make it seem common to have so many kids. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083998/Benefit-cap-190-families-10-children-cost-taxpayers-11m-A-YEAR.html


900 people have at least 8 (though this doesn't say WHICH benefits they claim, could be child benefit for some)...will try and find the figure for 12.
Not only that, but just look at the title of the article. Emphasising "£11 million" like it means something, knowing that their thick readers will see those figures and think "OMG dats a lot of money omg". In terms of the budget, £11 million is nothing. It's a grain of sand. A completely insignificant amount of money.

The UK's military expenditure is 37.5 billion pounds.

That's £37500 million. And by here's this rag making the utterly ludicrous claim that "taxpayers" should be worried about the £11 million going to a tiny minority of families with a large number of children.

[joeysteele]

I am sick to death of walking past a newspaper stand and some headline jumping out at me about benefit scroungers. I'm fed up prime time television being taken up with documentaries about how the Polish, Rumanian and fat people are ****ing this country over. This is all about creating a division within a class system. Its incitement to hatred and discontent and I believe its a kin to propaganda because its indoctrinating how we think.

Benefit fraud is a tiny problem in this country. Of course it goes on but its nothing like as big as our media portray it to be. The simple solution is, if you think someone is defrauding the system you report them to the appropriate authorities. If you are wrong, nothing will happen. If you're right the fraud is stopped.

Brilliant post and the post of the thread for me.
It really astounds me that people believe the media rubbish and the 'so called need' from this particular govt; to do something about it.

As you rightly point out and offical statistics on many debate programmes bear your argument out too as to benefit fraud being a 'tiny' problem.
It is disgraceful that people on benefits are generalsed as being demonised in the media, fuelled by govt; statement after statement that seems to call for a need to for 'benefit scrounging' to be stopped.

I admit,I believed a few years ago that it likely was much larger than it is, however, I got into a law firm and I ended up seeing the problems people really in need and also even terminally ill, were having with the new govt; clampdowns and re-assessments of benefits.
As I got to work with others on the issues people had, as many turn to law firms now due to the CAB being swamped with problems and other organisations also unable to cope.
I was stunned at the times an appeal against a benefit cut or total loss, ended up at tribunals or courts,which were in the main amost all overturned 'eventually' in the claimants favour.

The vulnerable and those doing things right suffer heavily when attacks like this are made on them, then they have the added insult of the stigma of being on benefits and people branding them all cheats and scroungers.
Even govt; ministers.

I agree in part with how you ended your post as to if you think someone is getting benefits wrongly report them,I agree it would then be looked into obviously.
However should someone accuse someone wrongly I would like to see the book thrown at them, after some of the horror stories I have seen happen to people in dire need who then often have a long road of appeals and trauma before getting all re-instated.

Absolutely a brilliant post from you on this topic,I have to say,one that leaves me dismayed so many can be swayed by govt; propaganda and the medias gross misrepresentation of the facts.

[Kizzy]

Exactly it's just another folk devil dreamed up to keep the tutters tutting about something that doesn't involve the establishment atm.

[kirklancaster]

I was wondering that too. Perhaps its an accumulation of resentful Chinese whispers!

I hope that you're not implying that I personally, am resentful of this woman?
She has nothing that I want or envy.

I don't understand how a truthful post attacking fraudulent claimants because they are abusing a system put into place to assist poor people in genuine need and therefore diverting much needed funds away from them, is always perceived as both an attack on the system itself and those in genuine need of its help?

I am not defending my stance, because I have already made clear that I am not attacking the genuine claimants or the Benefits System just those very real people in every town and city who abuse it.

I know what I know, and it doesn't matter how many disagree.

[kirklancaster]

I agree with pretty much everything Demolition and Vicky have said. The Benefits witch hunt is just a distraction and a vote grab aimed at the middle classes who look at Shameless and think it's a documentary. The Media only run with it because Benefits (and Tax issues) are one of three subjects that will always lead to high circulation numbers, the other two being peadophillia and Terrorism. Every time anything happens involving these three, newspaper editors across the country rub their hands together in glee.

People who need benefits are an easy target, one that's rarely defended due to the fact that these people have been demonised at every turn.



If you were that concerned about Data Protection you would not have mentioned this supposed baby factory of a woman in the first place, confidentiality isn't something that you can switch on and off when it suits your argument.

The numbers don't make sense, the story doesn't make sense and that excuse doesn't cover it. You may as well admit that you made it up.

Please do not imply that I am a liar. You are supposed to be a moderator and above this type of juvenile behaviour. And as for Data Protection, it is one thing to be non-specific with general details but quite another to delve into sensitive information.

I am not a liar.

[kirklancaster]

The vulnerable and those doing things right suffer heavily when attacks like this are made on them, then they have the added insult of the stigma of being on benefits and people branding them all cheats and scroungers.
Even govt; ministers.

I agree in part with how you ended your post as to if you think someone is getting benefits wrongly report them,I agree it would then be looked into obviously.
However should someone accuse someone wrongly I would like to see the book thrown at them, after some of the horror stories I have seen happen to people in dire need who then often have a long road of appeals and trauma before getting all re-instated.

Absolutely a brilliant post from you on this topic,I have to say,one that leaves me dismayed so many can be swayed by govt; propaganda and the medias gross misrepresentation of the facts.

I am not swayed by any government propaganda Joey - no more than I am about to capitulate and change the truth of what I know from personal direct experience just because my view is unpopular.

If the government officials and medical staff wrongly asses genuine claimants as fraudulent or able to work, then those injustices are later officially overturned and benefits rightfully restored - then that is very welcome. But all this means is that genuine people are wrongfully being targeted and having their benefits wrongly taken away by an inefficient government screening process. It has no bearing whatsoever on the very real examples of benefit fraudsters who are cheating the system - irrespective of numbers.

If anything it further scandalises government policy, because their initiative should be screening out these fraudsters not wrongly victimising genuine claimants.

I'm afraid that merely reporting benefit fraudsters does not always result in the cheats being punished. If only it was that simple.

I had the tenants of a detached house in Burnley, Lancashire 'do a moonlight' and they left the property in a trashed condition. To cut a long complicated story short, the property was left empty for several months awaiting the catalogue of works needed to restore it. When I went to the property to start work, the next door neighbour told me that the ex-tenant was regularly coming back to the property and entering it by key and collecting his mail despite the fact I had changed all the locks.

When I left the property after working on it, I screwed up and secured the all the external doors from inside. The next day when I entered, there were several letters addressed to the ex-tenant on the hall floor which had been posted through the letterbox. One - clearly - was a Housing Benefit giro cheque, yet these toe-rags were both self-employed and ran 2 businesses in Burnley, and were supposed to have been funding the rent from their own pocket.

I rang the Housing Benefits and told them what had happened and pointed out that they may have been fraudulently claiming from day one without my knowledge. After some time, the HB employee I was talking to said that they had - over £6,000 in total - and that she was putting me through to someone else. She did put me through and the person I was then talking to said; "Just tear it up love if you will and bin it". I had quite an argument with her but got nowhere as she kept maintaining that; "there wasn't anything they could do", even when I said that surely it was obtaining money by deception - especially the 3 months which he had continued to claim for when he wasn't even living in my property.

Like all customer services via phone, the degree of response and service you actually obtain depends on who you end up talking to - some just can't be bothered.

Anyway, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my view - that is their prerogative on a forum - but I have a problem understanding just why they should disagree when all I am attacking are those who are fleecing the system.

[kirklancaster]

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-truth-about-the-child-benefits-cap/11739

Ah. 10 families in the uk claim benefits and have 12 kids. Yes, a massively widespread problem :o

I feel I need to make it clear here that I am not supporting popping out kid after kid and expecting the state to support you/them. However, again, I don't see a realistic solution to it. And I don't think so much emphasis needs to be put on it when the reality is the amount of people doing this IS very small, no matter what some would try to make you believe.

Read my post again and you will see clearly that I am not referring to anyone with large families claiming - and I never said it was a 'massively widespread problem'. I was referring specifically to certain fraudulent claimants who I know from direct personally experience are cheating the Benefits System.

I am also convinced that - although admittedly in a minority - the problem of Benefit Cheats is not as 'tiny' as people think.

In any event, I do not understand the hostility to a post which is clearly not attacking the Benefits System or genuine claimants but only those who are claiming when they should not be.

It does not matter one iota either in my book whether the total claimed by benefit cheats is £3 million, £11 million or £100 million P.A - it is still desperately needed money that is being diverted from those genuine claimants who need such benefits.

[Vicky.]

The hostility is likely because you reckon you know 'personally' 8 obese women who are claiming..all who have 2-5 kids by different fathers, and their exact income. Along with 'dozens' of people who are fit and well but don't want to work. Along with someone whos cheating the system on a massive scale whilst playing football...that post is like some daily mail wet dream in all honesty...

I doubt there would have been as many questioning your post if not for the ridiculous amount of people you reckon are playing up, and that you reckon you have inside knowledge of their income also.

[kirklancaster]

Unless she receives DLA for either her or her kids (which you never mentioned...I'm sure you would have as DLA is substantially more than other benefits) it is impossible for her to get around the benefit cap.

I would love to know how you have such indepth knowledge of 'people you know' also. I don't even know my fathers income details, let alone people I just know

Business in a nutshell. If you are referring to the issue being discussed Vicky. Business which involves Application Forms being filled in and the processing of certain documentation.

Why would I lie? I am not out to make Political Capital by fabricating Right Wing propaganda. I am attacking fraudsters not poor people. The same way in which I denounce Islamic Terrorists and NOT ordinary Muslims.

It is not what I am saying, it is the misconception by others of what I am saying which people take issue with. I have not made one insincere post on here and I only speak about what I know.

I have no affiliation to any political party - electing to vote on the day for what I regard as the lesser of all evils, because I believe that the whole corrupt system needs serious overhaul and purging.

[kirklancaster]

The hostility is likely because you reckon you know 'personally' 8 obese women who are claiming..all who have 2-5 kids by different fathers, and their exact income. Along with 'dozens' of people who are fit and well but don't want to work. Along with someone whos cheating the system on a massive scale whilst playing football...that post is like some daily mail wet dream in all honesty...

I doubt there would have been as many questioning your post if not for the ridiculous amount of people you reckon are playing up, and that you reckon you have inside knowledge of their income also.

I really take umbrage at being called a liar. Will you wager £1,000 with me if I prove to say, Josy, or maybe Kyle, the truth of what I am saying? The winnings can be donated to The McMillan Cancer Support Charity.

I am not desk-bound and learning my knowledge from mere reading or from moving in relatively sheltered circles. All my life - from being 22 anyway - I have run my own businesses and have moved through all levels of society as a consequence.

I do not exaggerate or tell lies. Why would I?

In any event - are you actually claiming that no such people as these exist?

[joeysteele]

I am not swayed by any government propaganda Joey - no more than I am about to capitulate and change the truth of what I know from personal direct experience just because my view is unpopular.

If the government officials and medical staff wrongly asses genuine claimants as fraudulent or able to work, then those injustices are later officially overturned and benefits rightfully restored - then that is very welcome. But all this means is that genuine people are wrongfully being targeted and having their benefits wrongly taken away by an inefficient government screening process. It has no bearing whatsoever on the very real examples of benefit fraudsters who are cheating the system - irrespective of numbers.

If anything it further scandalises government policy, because their initiative should be screening out these fraudsters not wrongly victimising genuine claimants.

I'm afraid that merely reporting benefit fraudsters does not always result in the cheats being punished. If only it was that simple.

I had the tenants of a detached house in Burnley, Lancashire 'do a moonlight' and they left the property in a trashed condition. To cut a long complicated story short, the property was left empty for several months awaiting the catalogue of works needed to restore it. When I went to the property to start work, the next door neighbour told me that the ex-tenant was regularly coming back to the property and entering it by key and collecting his mail despite the fact I had changed all the locks.

When I left the property after working on it, I screwed up and secured the all the external doors from inside. The next day when I entered, there were several letters addressed to the ex-tenant on the hall floor which had been posted through the letterbox. One - clearly - was a Housing Benefit giro cheque, yet these toe-rags were both self-employed and ran 2 businesses in Burnley, and were supposed to have been funding the rent from their own pocket.

I rang the Housing Benefits and told them what had happened and pointed out that they may have been fraudulently claiming from day one without my knowledge. After some time, the HB employee I was talking to said that they had - over £6,000 in total - and that she was putting me through to someone else. She did put me through and the person I was then talking to said; "Just tear it up love if you will and bin it". I had quite an argument with her but got nowhere as she kept maintaining that; "there wasn't anything they could do", even when I said that surely it was obtaining money by deception - especially the 3 months which he had continued to claim for when he wasn't even living in my property.

Like all customer services via phone, the degree of response and service you actually obtain depends on who you end up talking to - some just can't be bothered.

Anyway, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my view - that is their prerogative on a forum - but I have a problem understanding just why they should disagree when all I am attacking are those who are fleecing the system.


I was meaning the electorate in general Kirklancaster, I would never get at you or any other member,which would be against the rules anyway.

What annoys me is that you can get these odd few cases of extreme incidents of claimants and benefits, which are splashed all over the media and then you see polls later which are saying,since likely those interviewed have taken that as gospel, voters take the view that those on benefits must be claiming wrongly.

I see you have listed 2 incidents, I could list incidents I have come across as well,as to incorrect claiming of benefits.
However for every one of those wrong casesI could list in double figures, claims that are right.

I object to these odd cases being presented as the norm and the further millions demonised because of that.
Also you state, someone who has their benefits removed wrongly, get them back and that is good.
However the point is, they should never have lost them in the first place and I have to add that great numbers of people are losing benefits day in and day out wrongly, due to this particualr govts; near persecution and hounding of them.

Also getting their benefits restored can take on average 6 months to a year or even longer, especially when you have to end up going to the courts to achieve that.
These are genuine claimants who are deprived of entitled funds for that time, they don't get it restored until the appeal is won.
That can be devastating and far too long for people who really need the funds to be without them.
That should not happen and should never be right,this govt; gets told this by the CAB, welfare groups and charities endlessly but just arrogantly dismisses those concerns.

This govt; which I am I admit, fed up to the back teeth of, has caused misery for massive amounts of genuine benefit claimants.
The unemployed with their daft sanctions, the changing of names of benefits with even more daft and ridiculous questions that decide if they even get them and the distress and anxiety caused to genuinely sick and disabled people, even those incurably and terminally ill too.

All done on the strength of these odd one or 2 cases that are presented as proof of wrong in the system but which ignore the fact that all but a very tiny proportion do everything pretty much right.

The zeal this govt; employs to save this bit from here and there as to people who are most vulnerable is in my view a disgrace.
All govts; have failed to get to grips with the benefit fraud issue,maybe that is because it is so hard to find because there is in truth so little of it actually happening.

However, as to the weakest,poorest,sick and disabled and therefore the most vulnerable I doubt any govt; since the war has been as heartless and showing no compassion in its dealings with the most vulnerable like this one has been.
It is disgraceful in my view and although sick of saying how wrong I think this govt; treats the most vulnerable in the UK, I feel the need to keep doing so in the hope that decency from the electorate will prevail and they will turn on this govt;for its cowardly beating with a stick those who are among the most in need.

All its language, all its policies as to them is aggressive and bringing them down rather than building up.

So when I see a case or a few cases even of benefit cheating,I quantify it and qualify it by telling myself, from the experience I have found from getting in there with people,that those cases are a tiny minority as Demolition Red said,I prefer to look out for the vast majority who do things in the main, right.

I feel ashamed that any govt; allows a media,especially our lying corrupt media,to demonise those most vulnerable and set those in work against those not for whatever reasons.
However I add total disgust to being ashamed too when I see govt; ministers and even the Prime Minister doing so too.

I see no justification for it whatsoever and for me the sooner these arrogant cowards are sent packing the better for me, will the alternative be better, I have to hope for that but I am sure of one thing, some high level of compassion needs to be instilled into the welfare policies and I have no belief this govt; even knows what compassion is.

[Vicky.]

I really take umbrage at being called a liar. Will you wager £1,000 with me if I prove to say, Josy, or maybe Kyle, the truth of what I am saying? The winnings can be donated to The McMillan Cancer Support Charity.

I am not desk-bound and learning my knowledge from mere reading or from moving in relatively sheltered circles. All my life - from being 22 anyway - I have run my own businesses and have moved through all levels of society as a consequence.

I do not exaggerate or tell lies. Why would I?

Yeah go on then. No problem. Though wont these 'data protection issues' that you speak of prevent you from proving anything? :laugh:

[Vicky.]

In any event - are you actually claiming that no such people as these exist?

Of course not :laugh: I have even said in my posts that I do not support such behaviour at all. I would never deny that they exist. I actually do know one guy who is actively scamming the system who has been reported numerous times yet always finds a way around it (one time by posting razor blades and dog **** through his OWN letterbox and calling the police to say it was a homophobic attack or something similar, and now he is afraid to leave the house...)

What I find hard to swallow is that one person who comes across as seriously right wing generally, personally happens to know EIGHT people who are obese and have loads of kids by different fathers and knows their exact income situation. And along with that knows at least 12 (dozens implies more though) people who chose to be on benefits instead of working and make a fact of saying so if you know about it. And to go with this you know people who manage to pass the work capability assessment with ease whilst playing football...when people with no arms and legs are being found fit for work...along with people who have the mental capacity of a 7 year old...its just all so unbelievable to me. Sorry.

Adding to this this woman with 12 kids (who is literally 1 of 10 people in the entire country...) who claims child tax credit in amounts that do not add up to the amount of kids she has and also avoids the benefit cap by some unknown way.

[Tom4784]

Please do not imply that I am a liar. You are supposed to be a moderator and above this type of juvenile behaviour. And as for Data Protection, it is one thing to be non-specific with general details but quite another to delve into sensitive information.

I am not a liar.

I did nothing wrong, You told a tall tale and you got called out on it. Don't try to make out that I've insulted you because you've been caught in a lie. Also stop bringing up the fact that I'm a mod, I'm doing nothing wrong and your attempts to make out that I have will not work.

Now discuss the topic and stop discussing the fact that I'm a mod.

[kirklancaster]

I was meaning the electorate in general Kirklancaster, I would never get at you or any other member,which would be against the rules anyway.

What annoys me is that you can get these odd few cases of extreme incidents of claimants and benefits, which are splashed all over the media and then you see polls later which are saying,since likely those interviewed have taken that as gospel, voters take the view that those on benefits must be claiming wrongly.

I see you have listed 2 incidents, I could list incidents I have come across as well,as to incorrect claiming of benefits.
However for every one of those wrong casesI could list in double figures, claims that are right.

I object to these odd cases being presented as the norm and the further millions demonised because of that.
Also you state, someone who has their benefits removed wrongly, get them back and that is good.
However the point is, they should never have lost them in the first place and I have to add that great numbers of people are losing benefits day in and day out wrongly, due to this particualr govts; near persecution and hounding of them.

Also getting their benefits restored can take on average 6 months to a year or even longer, especially when you have to end up going to the courts to achieve that.
These are genuine claimants who are deprived of entitled funds for that time, they don't get it restored until the appeal is won.
That can be devastating and far too long for people who really need the funds to be without them.
That should not happen and should never be right,this govt; gets told this by the CAB, welfare groups and charities endlessly but just arrogantly dismisses those concerns.

This govt; which I am I admit, fed up to the back teeth of, has caused misery for massive amounts of genuine benefit claimants.
The unemployed with their daft sanctions, the changing of names of benefits with even more daft and ridiculous questions that decide if they even get them and the distress and anxiety caused to genuinely sick and disabled people, even those incurably and terminally ill too.

All done on the strength of these odd one or 2 cases that are presented as proof of wrong in the system but which ignore the fact that all but a very tiny proportion do everything pretty much right.

The zeal this govt; employs to save this bit from here and there as to people who are most vulnerable is in my view a disgrace.
All govts; have failed to get to grips with the benefit fraud issue,maybe that is because it is so hard to find because there is in truth so little of it actually happening.

However, as to the weakest,poorest,sick and disabled and therefore the most vulnerable I doubt any govt; since the war has been as heartless and showing no compassion in its dealings with the most vulnerable like this one has been.
It is disgraceful in my view and although sick of saying how wrong I think this govt; treats the most vulnerable in the UK, I feel the need to keep doing so in the hope that decency from the electorate will prevail and they will turn on this govt;for its cowardly beating with a stick those who are among the most in need.

All its language, all its policies as to them is aggressive and bringing them down rather than building up.

So when I see a case or a few cases even of benefit cheating,I quantify it and qualify it by telling myself, from the experience I have found from getting in there with people,that those cases are a tiny minority as Demolition Red said,I prefer to look out for the vast majority who do things in the main, right.

I feel ashamed that any govt; allows a media,especially our lying corrupt media,to demonise those most vulnerable and set those in work against those not for whatever reasons.
However I add total disgust to being ashamed too when I see govt; ministers and even the Prime Minister doing so too.

I see no justification for it whatsoever and for me the sooner these arrogant cowards are sent packing the better for me, will the alternative be better, I have to hope for that but I am sure of one thing, some high level of compassion needs to be instilled into the welfare policies and I have no belief this govt; even knows what compassion is.

Joey - the great irony here, is that I do not disagree with anything you are saying. I really don't.

I used to help genuine claimants with their appeals back in the day of 'The All Work Test', and I know that like every ill thought out Government B.S. initiative that more often than not the 'big stick' hits the wrong targets and 'The New Broom' misses the **** and sweeps out the genuine claimants - who are often intimidated, confused and bewildered, whereas the fraudulent claimants 'know the ropes' and being more devious, are harder to shift.

I know how the billions which the Government bailed out the bankers with during the property crash and recession did not result in mortgages being offered to the lower paid or loans being offered to SME's as per the caveat, but found its way into the pockets of their top earners by way of £ million pound + bonuses.

I know that in 2012 the abysmal George Osborn froze personal allowances for over 4.5 million tax-paying pensioners and cut child benefits for the poorest families in the UK so he could fund income tax cuts for over 300,000 of the wealthiest households. That was during the peak of the other 'Austerity Budget', and they're repeating the trick with most of the money raised now by these draconian and heartless cuts finding its way by stealth into the coffers of the UK's wealthiest families again by stealth.

I wish someone would see that I am not attacking the system or genuine claimants, but those crooks who are diverting money from going where it should - those genuinely in need.

[Kizzy]

I was meaning the electorate in general Kirklancaster, I would never get at you or any other member,which would be against the rules anyway.

What annoys me is that you can get these odd few cases of extreme incidents of claimants and benefits, which are splashed all over the media and then you see polls later which are saying,since likely those interviewed have taken that as gospel, voters take the view that those on benefits must be claiming wrongly.

I see you have listed 2 incidents, I could list incidents I have come across as well,as to incorrect claiming of benefits.
However for every one of those wrong casesI could list in double figures, claims that are right.

I object to these odd cases being presented as the norm and the further millions demonised because of that.
Also you state, someone who has their benefits removed wrongly, get them back and that is good.
However the point is, they should never have lost them in the first place and I have to add that great numbers of people are losing benefits day in and day out wrongly, due to this particualr govts; near persecution and hounding of them.

Also getting their benefits restored can take on average 6 months to a year or even longer, especially when you have to end up going to the courts to achieve that.
These are genuine claimants who are deprived of entitled funds for that time, they don't get it restored until the appeal is won.
That can be devastating and far too long for people who really need the funds to be without them.
That should not happen and should never be right,this govt; gets told this by the CAB, welfare groups and charities endlessly but just arrogantly dismisses those concerns.

This govt; which I am I admit, fed up to the back teeth of, has caused misery for massive amounts of genuine benefit claimants.
The unemployed with their daft sanctions, the changing of names of benefits with even more daft and ridiculous questions that decide if they even get them and the distress and anxiety caused to genuinely sick and disabled people, even those incurably and terminally ill too.

All done on the strength of these odd one or 2 cases that are presented as proof of wrong in the system but which ignore the fact that all but a very tiny proportion do everything pretty much right.

The zeal this govt; employs to save this bit from here and there as to people who are most vulnerable is in my view a disgrace.
All govts; have failed to get to grips with the benefit fraud issue,maybe that is because it is so hard to find because there is in truth so little of it actually happening.

However, as to the weakest,poorest,sick and disabled and therefore the most vulnerable I doubt any govt; since the war has been as heartless and showing no compassion in its dealings with the most vulnerable like this one has been.
It is disgraceful in my view and although sick of saying how wrong I think this govt; treats the most vulnerable in the UK, I feel the need to keep doing so in the hope that decency from the electorate will prevail and they will turn on this govt;for its cowardly beating with a stick those who are among the most in need.

All its language, all its policies as to them is aggressive and bringing them down rather than building up.

So when I see a case or a few cases even of benefit cheating,I quantify it and qualify it by telling myself, from the experience I have found from getting in there with people,that those cases are a tiny minority as Demolition Red said,I prefer to look out for the vast majority who do things in the main, right.

I feel ashamed that any govt; allows a media,especially our lying corrupt media,to demonise those most vulnerable and set those in work against those not for whatever reasons.
However I add total disgust to being ashamed too when I see govt; ministers and even the Prime Minister doing so too.

I see no justification for it whatsoever and for me the sooner these arrogant cowards are sent packing the better for me, will the alternative be better, I have to hope for that but I am sure of one thing, some high level of compassion needs to be instilled into the welfare policies and I have no belief this govt; even knows what compassion is.

I agree, and the disdain is spreading like a virus, the small percentage of fraudsters are portrayed as the majority of welfare claimants and it's believed... regardless of statistics to the contrary.
People who have their head just above the water are looking down on those sinking, they are fracturing communities and society as a whole with this misinformation.
The message from the government appears to be do as I say not as I do..

[kirklancaster]

I did nothing wrong, You told a tall tale and you got called out on it. Don't try to make out that I've insulted you because you've been caught in a lie. Also stop bringing up the fact that I'm a mod, I'm doing nothing wrong and your attempts to make out that I have will not work.

Now discuss the topic and stop discussing the fact that I'm a mod.

I told a tall tale! I did not fully expound because the truth is far more horrific.

I really take umbrage at being called a liar and you have just repeated it. Will you wager £1,000 with me if I prove to say, Josy, or maybe Kyle, the truth of what I am saying? The winnings can be donated to The McMillan Cancer Support Charity.

As for; "discuss the topic" - it's not me insulting members but you love. I am discussing the topic and not calling anyone a liar.

I can prove that I am not a liar if you'd like to accept my challenge.

[Tom4784]

I told a tall tale! I did not fully expound because the truth is far more horrific.

I really take umbrage at being called a liar and you have just repeated it. Will you wager £1,000 with me if I prove to say, Josy, or maybe Kyle, the truth of what I am saying? The winnings can be donated to The McMillan Cancer Support Charity.

As for; "discuss the topic" - it's not me insulting members but you love. I am discussing the topic and not calling anyone a liar.

I can prove that I am not a liar if you'd like to accept my challenge.

There's no point in betting monopoly money. Now back to the topic at hand.

[kirklancaster]

I agree, and the disdain is spreading like a virus, the small percentage of fraudsters are portrayed as the majority of welfare claimants and it's believed... regardless of statistics to the contrary.
People who have their head just above the water are looking down on those sinking, they are fracturing communities and society as a whole with this misinformation.
The message from the government appears to be do as I say not as I do..

Who is portraying the small percentage of fraudsters as the majority of welfare claimants Kizzy? Do you mean official propagandists?

I am only claiming that fraudsters exist and doing so from my own personal knowledge.

I gather from your post that it is the portrayal that the small minority are the majority which amounts to misinformation, and I have no argument with that at all.

[kirklancaster]

Yeah go on then. No problem. Though wont these 'data protection issues' that you speak of prevent you from proving anything? :laugh:

I won't be on a public forum. If you really think that I am a liar and accept the wager, I will pm Kyle to arrange matters.

[joeysteele]

Joey - the great irony here, is that I do not disagree with anything you are saying. I really don't.

I used to help genuine claimants with their appeals back in the day of 'The All Work Test', and I know that like every ill thought out Government B.S. initiative that more often than not the 'big stick' hits the wrong targets and 'The New Broom' misses the **** and sweeps out the genuine claimants - who are often intimidated, confused and bewildered, whereas the fraudulent claimants 'know the ropes' and being more devious, are harder to shift.

I know how the billions which the Government bailed out the bankers with during the property crash and recession did not result in mortgages being offered to the lower paid or loans being offered to SME's as per the caveat, but found its way into the pockets of their top earners by way of £ million pound + bonuses.

I know that in 2012 the abysmal George Osborn froze personal allowances for over 4.5 million tax-paying pensioners and cut child benefits for the poorest families in the UK so he could fund income tax cuts for over 300,000 of the wealthiest households. That was during the peak of the other 'Austerity Budget', and they're repeating the trick with most of the money raised now by these draconian and heartless cuts finding its way by stealth into the coffers of the UK's wealthiest families again by stealth.

I wish someone would see that I am not attacking the system or genuine claimants, but those crooks who are diverting money from going where it should - those genuinely in need.

Likewise Kirk, I don't disagree with anything from you in your post above, in fact in many of your posts overall on tibb I agree with a lot you say.

Your sentence above that says 'the big stick hits the wrong targets' is totally correct,I agree with that and that is what I come across all the time at present as to the most vulnerable on benefits.
Which is why the policies being enacted and also just about all this govts; ideas are not planned fairly with understanding and compassion.
When that is the case, with such really bad policy making,then the last people that should be hit are the most vulnerable.

I agree with you, although it seems on the surface we disagree, that a lot of the time,maybe we would like to see the same result.
I admit for my sins, I was dismissive in the past up to being 19,as to welfare and benefit issues,I supported this govts; plan to simplify them and even hold back rises for a time too.
However now at 23 I see what they have done and the way they have done it,which is for me 100% unacceptable and also for me beyond any forgiving too for it.

Thank you for your reply above, there we are, 2 posts with total agreement,hey that is pretty good going on here.
I do also see that you ,like myself, and a great many others, would love to see all benefit cheating ended.

My point to that is, with it actually in all truth being so small, it will probably in the end cost more than it saves to try to eradicate it.
While it should always be looked for, investigated and dealt with, it should not be the passionate all consuming demonisation and victimisation which this govts; efforts as to it have resulted in happening overall.

[Kizzy]

Who is portraying the small percentage of fraudsters as the majority of welfare claimants Kizzy? Do you mean official propagandists?

I am only claiming that fraudsters exist and doing so from my own personal knowledge.

I gather from your post that it is the portrayal that the small minority are the majority which amounts to misinformation, and I have no argument with that at all.

I was replying to Joey agreeing with him on his view on the media and our current govt.

[joeysteele]

I agree, and the disdain is spreading like a virus, the small percentage of fraudsters are portrayed as the majority of welfare claimants and it's believed... regardless of statistics to the contrary.
People who have their head just above the water are looking down on those sinking, they are fracturing communities and society as a whole with this misinformation.
The message from the government appears to be do as I say not as I do..

Spot on again Kizzy.

[Vicky.]

I won't be on a public forum. If you really think that I am a liar and accept the wager, I will pm Kyle to arrange matters.

Hmm josy or kyle has now turned into kyle when I am serious. I think I may pass, given he's one of your mates ;) No offence to Kyle there mind.

[kirklancaster]

Likewise Kirk, I don't disagree with anything from you in your post above, in fact in many of your posts overall on tibb I agree with a lot you say.

Your sentence above that says 'the big stick hits the wrong targets' is totally correct,I agree with that and that is what I come across all the time at present as to the most vulnerable on benefits.
Which is why the policies being enacted and also just about all this govts; ideas are not planned fairly with understanding and compassion.
When that is the case, with such really bad policy making,then the last people that should be hit are the most vulnerable.

I agree with you, although it seems on the surface we disagree, that a lot of the time,maybe we would like to see the same result.
I admit for my sins, I was dismissive in the past up to being 19,as to welfare and benefit issues,I supported this govts; plan to simplify them and even hold back rises for a time too.
However now at 23 I see what they have done and the way they have done it,which is for me 100% unacceptable and also for me beyond any forgiving too for it.

Thank you for your reply above, there we are, 2 posts with total agreement,hey that is pretty good going on here.
I do also see that you ,like myself, and a great many others, would love to see all benefit cheating ended.

My point to that is, with it actually in all truth being so small, it will probably in the end cost more than it saves to try to eradicate it.
While it should always be looked for, investigated and dealt with, it should not be the passionate all consuming demonisation and victimisation which this govts; efforts as to it have resulted in happening overall.

A brilliant and reasoned response Joey and I sincerely thank you for it. I am too often under fire and outnumbered on here when it is genuine misconception of what I am really saying which is the problem If only all discussions which start out at with 'seemingly' opposing views could end like this.

[Vicky.]

A brilliant and reasoned response Joey and I sincerely thank you for it. I am too often under fire and outnumbered on here when it is genuine misconception of what I am really saying which is the problem If only all discussions which start out at with 'seemingly' opposing views could end like this.

I actually agree with a lot of the points you have made in here. I just find the first post making out that you know huge numbers of people defrauding the system too hard to believe :shrug:

[kirklancaster]

Hmm josy or kyle has now turned into kyle when I am serious. I think I may pass, given he's one of your mates ;) No offence to Kyle there mind.

It's OK Vicky - It's just that Kyle does not live too far from me and I would require someone to physically accompany me on quite a tour to prove what I say. It is not just having sight of documentation.

I think Josy lives in Scotland - a bit far to travel.

Anyway, I'm not trying to fall out with you, I have always tried to be civil, polite and friendly on here, but I seem to be continually having to defend myself when all I am doing is truthfully stating my view based on my own direct experience, and no matter how difficult it may be for some to accept what I am genuinely saying, it is not nice to be called a liar - especially when there is no evidence at all to support such an allegation.

Anyway, no problem Vicky, can we just agree to differ?

[Vicky.]

Anyway, no problem Vicky, can we just agree to differ?

Of course :p

[Cherie]

It's OK Vicky - It's just that Kyle does not live too far from me and I would require someone to physically accompany me on quite a tour to prove what I say. It is not just having sight of documentation.

I think Josy lives in Scotland - a bit far to travel.

Anyway, I'm not trying to fall out with you, I have always tried to be civil, polite and friendly on here, but I seem to be continually having to defend myself when all I am doing is truthfully stating my view based on my own direct experience, and no matter how difficult it may be for some to accept what I am genuinely saying, it is not nice to be called a liar - especially when there is no evidence at all to support such an allegation.

Anyway, no problem Vicky, can we just agree to differ?

I think Kyle just put The For Sale board up :hehe:

[kirklancaster]

I was replying to Joey agreeing with him on his view on the media and our current govt.

I thought you were. No prob. I just genuinely didn't know just who was manipulating the truth about minority to majority. I know now.

[kirklancaster]

I think Kyle just put The For Sale board up :hehe:

:laugh:

[DemolitionRed]

What I said about Chinese whispers wasn't a personal dig at you but a dig at the words you used. People will often use a personal experience to explain why they feel the way they do; I've done it myself from time to time.

I worked as an estate agent for 4 years (I don't blame you all if you hate me for that ;)) We dealt with lets as well as sales and so I fully understand the process of letting to a tenant. Unfortunately our agency would advise landlords not to accept tenants on benefits and even when a landlord insisted they didn't mind, the agency would turn away benefit enquirers.

Reading between the lines, you are a private landlord who does or will consider taking tenants on benefits. If that's the case I would like to shake your hand because you go way up in my estimation. As you know, benefit tenants are usually very reliable. Some aren't but its not because they are benefit claimants, its because they are dishonest individuals.

People who deliberately steal benefits are the same people who would steal from their employer if they had a job. Fortunately most people are honest and sadly, its the honest majority on benefits that live on the poverty line.

[kirklancaster]

What I said about Chinese whispers wasn't a personal dig at you but a dig at the words you used. People will often use a personal experience to explain why they feel the way they do; I've done it myself from time to time.

I worked as an estate agent for 4 years (I don't blame you all if you hate me for that ;)) We dealt with lets as well as sales and so I fully understand the process of letting to a tenant. Unfortunately our agency would advise landlords not to accept tenants on benefits and even when a landlord insisted they didn't mind, the agency would turn away benefit enquirers.

Reading between the lines, you are a private landlord who does or will consider taking tenants on benefits. If that's the case I would like to shake your hand because you go way up in my estimation. As you know, benefit tenants are usually very reliable. Some aren't but its not because they are benefit claimants, its because they are dishonest individuals.

People who deliberately steal benefits are the same people who would steal from their employer if they had a job. Fortunately most people are honest and sadly, its the honest majority on benefits that live on the poverty line.

You've just succinctly hit a very controversial nail squarely on the head. It's not whether someone is on benefits or not which is the issue - it's what caliber of person they are. They're are turds who are on benefits just like there are those who have millions, and just like there are turds who deceitfully claim benefits who shouldn't.

It's a simple fact of life, and no one should take umbrage because someone attacks turds who just happen to belong to the 'working classes' - I am working class, we all are if we work for a living.

You are also correct in your statement that the great majority of landlords will not entertain tenancy applications from people on benefits but I have never practiced such prejudice, and though I have had my share of thoroughly modernised properties being decimated by tenants through illicit cannabis farming, sub-letting to multiple tenants, theft of fixtures and fittings etc, as well as skipping out owing thousands in rent, I have a great majority of tenants on benefits who have been model tenants - some who have been with me for years.

I also let detached houses and have had certain 'middle class' tenants who were utter pigs and left more than one property in a disgraceful condition, though I never had much trouble receiving rent with this type - probably because they could afford it.

I actually do have personal experience of those fraudsters I stated in my post Dem, because apart from the thousands of tenants which I have come into very real and personal contact with over the years, I also have an interest in another business which is subject to the FCA - enough said.

I do agree with you and Joey that claimants in general are being made scapegoats by the current government to deflect public attention away from the abysmal failures in their policies, but I don't think that reality has anything to do with my post and what I was stating in it - one truth does not negate another.

Anyway, I'm glad that you were not personally having a dig at me - really I am - so thank you.

[joeysteele]

A brilliant and reasoned response Joey and I sincerely thank you for it. I am too often under fire and outnumbered on here when it is genuine misconception of what I am really saying which is the problem If only all discussions which start out at with 'seemingly' opposing views could end like this.

Never worry about being out numbered or under fire Kirk, I am often in that situation myself.
The point is, the written word is hard to convey the way we are thinking it or saying it,it can be taken as hostile or even aggressive when it is not intended that way at all.

I ramble on loads and I think people get sick of reading through all my long posts :joker:,however I have things to say and so I say them on the forum as to the topic in hand.

We all have opposing views on issues and people too,we can even agree with each other and it still appear to be that we don't via the written word.
You have made some very valid points on this issue and the extended issues that stem from it too.

Nothing wrong with that and I always believe anyway as to your posts,that nothing negative is being pushed forwards as to the others view, you are just expressing your own.
So, never worry about seeming outnumbered and under fire, sometimes on some issues, it can in fact likely be the better place to be.

[Nedusa]

Please do not imply that I am a liar. You are supposed to be a moderator and above this type of juvenile behaviour. And as for Data Protection, it is one thing to be non-specific with general details but quite another to delve into sensitive information.

I am not a liar.

I have come into this thread late and can see it is quite heated.

First of all I do not believe Kirk is lying to prove a point why would he, in fact his knowledge of this family is what has allowed him to illustrate his wider argument. Other posters on here might not agree with his point of view but I support his view.

And although I can appreciate that the monies involved in benefit fraud are small compared with say the defense Budget or the monies lost in Corporation Tax fraud, it is I feel more about the ethos and ambivalence of large groups of formerly working class people who are under the mindset that they are "entitled" to benefits (of any kind).

This mindset has become pervasive through large areas of the Country especially in inner city areas. The idea that you get "free money and other stuff" and then go out and work in the black economy, paying no Tax is an INSULT to all the hardworking honest Tax paying people of this Country. It is our tax that funds their lazy,idle, scrounging livestyles and regardless of what proportion of cost this amounts to, it is still plain wrong.

This is what the Govt in their usual ham fisted way are trying to tackle and for that they should be applauded.

The obesity angle however is interesting because people on benefits can feed their families on junk food more cheaply than shopping for organic foods in Waitrose. That said however, if the Govt really wants to reduce the levels of Obesity in this Country they need to sit down and think about the problem from all angles not just come up with right wing Newspaper grabbing sensationalist headlines attacking a very small part of the problem.





.

[Kizzy]

I have come into this thread late and can see it is quite heated.

First of all I do not believe Kirk is lying to prove a point why would he, in fact his knowledge of this family is what has allowed him to illustrate his wider argument. Other posters on here might not agree with his point of view but I support his view.

And although I can appreciate that the monies involved in benefit fraud are small compared with say the defense Budget or the monies lost in Corporation Tax fraud, it is I feel more about the ethos and ambivalence of large groups of formerly working class people who are under the mindset that they are "entitled" to benefits (of any kind).

This mindset has become pervasive through large areas of the Country especially in inner city areas. The idea that you get "free money and other stuff" and then go out and work in the black economy, paying no Tax is an INSULT to all the hardworking honest Tax paying people of this Country. It is our tax that funds their lazy,idle, scrounging livestyles and regardless of what proportion of cost this amounts to, it is still plain wrong.

This is what the Govt in their usual ham fisted way are trying to tackle and for that they should be applauded.

The obesity angle however is interesting because people on benefits can feed their families on junk food more cheaply than shopping for organic foods in Waitrose. That said however, if the Govt really wants to reduce the levels of Obesity in this Country they need to sit down and think about the problem from all angles not just come up with right wing Newspaper grabbing sensationalist headlines attacking a very small part of the problem.





.

This is what I feel is the common misconception, if you see an overweight person on benefits it's acceptable to suggest or suspect they are a fraudster...
Over the last 10yrs the cost of fresh food has exploded and the cost of high fat, high sugar convenience foods and the amount available has rocketed.
The multipacks and 3 for 2 deals in the supermarkets are all geared to appearing to offer value. I'm not suggesting that this is a excuse however I would say shopping habits of those on a low income have been influenced negatively.
The effect this diet has on health has been grossly underestimated.

[Toy Soldier]

Yes, I do think that certain politicians need to actually go around various supermarkets and look at what is going on. Junk food is cheap. And I mean, really, really cheap. Your typical Iceland / farm foods ready meals are so cheap that I have to wonder what part of the animal is actually in them. Hooves and arseholes I can only imagine? Anyway, yes, any normal supermarket, the cheapest possible weekly shopping trolley is going to be stuffed full of hydrogenated fats, metabolism-busting additives, salt, MSG, sugar, sugar and more sugar. A healthy, balanced diet is far more expensive.

As a family of four (and that's with two little'uns, not hungry teenagers) we easily spend over £100/week on our shopping and we eat well and healthily. I reckon I could do a quick trip round Iceland and feed us for a week for under £40 on microwave / oven junk, no problem.

To put it simply: A lot of people in this country are fat because they are poor. They are not poor because they are fat. As has been mentioned already, there are plenty of rich fat bastards swaggering around. What of them? What of their punishment? Shall we refuse them treatment when they hit 50 and need their inevitable triple heart bypass? An operation like that costs a small fortune.

[kirklancaster]

Yes, I do think that certain politicians need to actually go around various supermarkets and look at what is going on. Junk food is cheap. And I mean, really, really cheap. Your typical Iceland / farm foods ready meals are so cheap that I have to wonder what part of the animal is actually in them. Hooves and arseholes I can only imagine? Anyway, yes, any normal supermarket, the cheapest possible weekly shopping trolley is going to be stuffed full of hydrogenated fats, metabolism-busting additives, salt, MSG, sugar, sugar and more sugar. A healthy, balanced diet is far more expensive.

As a family of four (and that's with two little'uns, not hungry teenagers) we easily spend over £100/week on our shopping and we eat well and healthily. I reckon I could do a quick trip round Iceland and feed us for a week for under £40 on microwave / oven junk, no problem.

To put it simply: A lot of people in this country are fat because they are poor. They are not poor because they are fat. As has been mentioned already, there are plenty of rich fat bastards swaggering around. What of them? What of their punishment? Shall we refuse them treatment when they hit 50 and need their inevitable triple heart bypass? An operation like that costs a small fortune.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying T.S. The publicity stunts of certain politicians 'living on benefits for a week' are pathetic. Anyone can live on benefits for a week, but it is the reality of struggling with a meager fixed income and wrestling with cumulative debt, the repayments of which swallows up most of that income, that is the real issue - and this applies to working people on (disgustingly) low incomes as well as genuine claimants.

That said, I must point out that I was not 'tarring' all obese people on benefits 'with the same brush', but referring to one in particular whom I have direct personal knowledge of. There are dozens of obese people I pass by in an average week and I would not know if they were on benefits or not, let alone whether they were fraudulently claiming or not.

Another point is that there are cheap alternatives to eating processed low nutritional packaged foods just because they are cheap. I love mashed potatoes, baked beans and liver and onions, and can cook a substantial, wholesome, and deliciously tasty meal for 4 people for a couple of pounds.

Home made stews and hashes, and even curries, are also relatively cheap to make and are all delicious and very nourishing - throw in Yorkshire puddings or dumplings with the stews and hash, and you can fill the hungriest family for a few pounds.

Home made poached egg and baked beans on toast is a quick and cheap meal - far cheaper than most frozen processed foods - and provides nutrients, and roughage.

I agree that processed sh[I]t with 'mechanically recovered meat' (there's a nice 'get out of jail free card if ever there was one which covers bone, fat, sinew, offal etc.) and all types of chemical enhancements are unhealthy, and that anyone forced to live on a diet consisting of such 'food', will be prone to obesity or health problems, but I still maintain that quantity as well as quality is causal in this issue. Metabolic or physiological problems aside, most obese people are obese through gluttony - not only eating too much of the 'wrong' type of foods, but just simply eating too much.

Ice creams, crisps, chocolates, cakes, buns, fizzy drinks and 'fast food' are fine in moderation, but in quantity are a recipe for disaster, and I'm sorry, but whether walking around town, the markets, or the 'Garden Center', or strolling on the seafront at Scarborough or Blackpool - it is the obese people who I cannot help but notice, are the ones usually gorging on copious amounts of junk food as they walk. Whether they are on 'benefits' I wouldn't know, or care, but the facts are - in my own direct experience - that these people are both obese and gluttonous.

Finally, coming to your very valid point about wealthy people being obese as well, I am in full agreement, but I hardly think that when the day comes should they need surgery or specialist medical attention for heart disease or any other illness caused by their gluttony, that they will be relying on the NHS for such treatment - which is a good thing, and why I've never understood opposition to private healthcare. If those that can afford not to, don't use the already failing NHS, then good, that alleviates the burden on it and leaves it better able to cater for those it was originally initiated to help.

I'm glad we seem to be agreeing more here and there though T.S and I detect a mutual respect creeping in which I'm also pleased about.

[Kizzy]

I actually agree with most of what you're saying T.S. The publicity stunts of certain politicians 'living on benefits for a week' are pathetic. Anyone can live on benefits for a week, but it is the reality of struggling with a meager fixed income and wrestling with cumulative debt, the repayments of which swallows up most of that income, that is the real issue - and this applies to working people on (disgustingly) low incomes as well as genuine claimants.

That said, I must point out that I was not 'tarring' all obese people on benefits 'with the same brush', but referring to one in particular whom I have direct personal knowledge of. There are dozens of obese people I pass by in an average week and I would not know if they were on benefits or not, let alone whether they were fraudulently claiming or not.

Another point is that there are cheap alternatives to eating processed low nutritional packaged foods just because they are cheap. I love mashed potatoes, baked beans and liver and onions, and can cook a substantial, wholesome, and deliciously tasty meal for 4 people for a couple of pounds.

Home made stews and hashes, and even curries, are also relatively cheap to make and are all delicious and very nourishing - throw in Yorkshire puddings or dumplings with the stews and hash, and you can fill the hungriest family for a few pounds.

Home made poached egg and baked beans on toast is a quick and cheap meal - far cheaper than most frozen processed foods - and provides nutrients, and roughage.

I agree that processed sh[I]t with 'mechanically recovered meat' (there's a nice 'get out of jail free card if ever there was one which covers bone, fat, sinew, offal etc.) and all types of chemical enhancements are unhealthy, and that anyone forced to live on a diet consisting of such 'food', will be prone to obesity or health problems, but I still maintain that quantity as well as quality is causal in this issue. Metabolic or physiological problems aside, most obese people are obese through gluttony - not only eating too much of the 'wrong' type of foods, but just simply eating too much.

Ice creams, crisps, chocolates, cakes, buns, fizzy drinks and 'fast food' are fine in moderation, but in quantity are a recipe for disaster, and I'm sorry, but whether walking around town, the markets, or the 'Garden Center', or strolling on the seafront at Scarborough or Blackpool - it is the obese people who I cannot help but notice, are the ones usually gorging on copious amounts of junk food as they walk. Whether they are on 'benefits' I wouldn't know, or care, but the facts are - in my own direct experience - that these people are both obese and gluttonous.

Finally, coming to your very valid point about wealthy people being obese as well, I am in full agreement, but I hardly think that when the day comes should they need surgery or specialist medical attention for heart disease or any other illness caused by their gluttony, that they will be relying on the NHS for such treatment - which is a good thing, and why I've never understood opposition to private healthcare. If those that can afford not to, don't use the already failing NHS, then good, that alleviates the burden on it and leaves it better able to cater for those it was originally initiated to help.

I'm glad we seem to be agreeing more here and there though T.S and I detect a mutual respect creeping in which I'm also pleased about.

So anyone overweight having fish and chips at the seaside is justification for this...Those on benefits don't get enough to eat takeaway food everyday.
Delia Smith would struggle to feed a family using fresh foods, it sounds easy but it really isn't when you can get 20 horse burgers and a bag of value chips for £2

[AnnieK]

Yes, I do think that certain politicians need to actually go around various supermarkets and look at what is going on. Junk food is cheap. And I mean, really, really cheap. Your typical Iceland / farm foods ready meals are so cheap that I have to wonder what part of the animal is actually in them. Hooves and arseholes I can only imagine? Anyway, yes, any normal supermarket, the cheapest possible weekly shopping trolley is going to be stuffed full of hydrogenated fats, metabolism-busting additives, salt, MSG, sugar, sugar and more sugar. A healthy, balanced diet is far more expensive.

As a family of four (and that's with two little'uns, not hungry teenagers) we easily spend over £100/week on our shopping and we eat well and healthily. I reckon I could do a quick trip round Iceland and feed us for a week for under £40 on microwave / oven junk, no problem.

To put it simply: A lot of people in this country are fat because they are poor. They are not poor because they are fat. As has been mentioned already, there are plenty of rich fat bastards swaggering around. What of them? What of their punishment? Shall we refuse them treatment when they hit 50 and need their inevitable triple heart bypass? An operation like that costs a small fortune.

It is possible to feed a family on less than £100 but you do have to shop around. I shop in Aldi for the super 6 on fruit and veg, some of their meat is also cheap. I also use the market and a local meat wholesaler. We cook a healthy fresh meal every evening and my weekly shopping is around £50 for a family of 3. I always have a pan of homemade soup on the go for lunches usually just made from whatever veg we don't eat from the previous week and I often make broths etc from left over chicken. Its a pain and if I did not have a car it would be much harder but I refuse to spend a fortune on food that can be sourced quite cheaply if you have the time and the means to get it.

[Kizzy]

Yes when you're working it's easy to nip to 6 different supermarkets and spend £50- £100 pw on shopping, how does that relate to people on jobseekers?

[kirklancaster]

So anyone overweight having fish and chips at the seaside is justification for this...Those on benefits don't get enough to eat takeaway food everyday.
Delia Smith would struggle to feed a family using fresh foods, it sounds easy but it really isn't when you can get 20 horse burgers and a bag of value chips for £2

I never said those on benefits get enough to eat takeaway food everyday - but those fraudulently claiming benefits with jobs on the side, or illicit live-in working partners, or 12 kids certainly do get enough to eat takeaways twice a day, unlike ordinary less 'street-wide' genuine claimants and ordinary honest tax-paying workers.

I'm not Delia Smith and I'm a man, but I have no trouble making nutritious and delicious tasting meals for my family using fresh foods bought cheaply. It's all about investing a little time and effort into sourcing foodstuff and preparing and cooking it, but medical or physiological reasons apart, time and effort are not factors obese people are predisposed to favour investing in, are they? Not while the chippie and the couch and TV beckon.

[Niamh.]

I never said those on benefits get enough to eat takeaway food everyday - but those fraudulently claiming benefits with jobs on the side, or illicit live-in working partners, or 12 kids certainly do get enough to eat takeaways twice a day, unlike ordinary less 'street-wide' genuine claimants and ordinary honest tax-paying workers.

I'm not Delia Smith and I'm a man, but I have no trouble making nutritious and delicious tasting meals for my family using fresh foods bought cheaply. It's all about investing a little time and effort into sourcing foodstuff and preparing and cooking it, but medical or physiological reasons apart, time and effort are not factors obese people are predisposed to favour investing in, is it? Not while the chippie and the couch and TV beckon.

:suspect:

[kirklancaster]

Yes when you're working it's easy to nip to 6 different supermarkets and spend £50- £100 pw on shopping, how does that relate to people on jobseekers?

The logic of this post is seriously flawed - working people have LESS time to "nip to 6 different supermarkets".

[AnnieK]

Its actually not that easy to do when you're working Kizzy to be honest - I don't have unlimited free time but I want my family (young son in particular) to eat healthily and cheaply and was just responding to TS's point that you are able to do it and as I said if you have the means. Also, just because someone is working doesn't mean they have loads of expendable income, I certainly have to ensure I count my pennies and if that means shopping around a bit I will. The point I was making is just because you are on a low income doesn't mean you can't eat healthily.

[kirklancaster]

:suspect:

Why suspect Niamh?

[Niamh.]

Why suspect Niamh?

why would you being a man have any bearing on whether you can cook or not? :laugh:

[kirklancaster]

Its actually not that easy to do when you're working Kizzy to be honest - I don't have unlimited free time but I want my family (young son in particular) to eat healthily and cheaply and was just responding to TS's point that you are able to do it and as I said if you have the means. Also, just because someone is working doesn't mean they have loads of expendable income, I certainly have to ensure I count my pennies and if that means shopping around a bit I will. The point I was making is just because you are on a low income doesn't mean you can't eat healthily.

I totally agree Annie. I know because I do it.

[kirklancaster]

why would you being a man have any bearing on whether you can cook or not? :laugh:

:laugh: I meant in relation to Delia Smith. :joker:

[Kizzy]

I never said those on benefits get enough to eat takeaway food everyday - but those fraudulently claiming benefits with jobs on the side, or illicit live-in working partners, or 12 kids certainly do get enough to eat takeaways twice a day, unlike ordinary less 'street-wide' genuine claimants and ordinary honest tax-paying workers.

I'm not Delia Smith and I'm a man, but I have no trouble making nutritious and delicious tasting meals for my family using fresh foods bought cheaply. It's all about investing a little time and effort into sourcing foodstuff and preparing and cooking it, but medical or physiological reasons apart, time and effort are not factors obese people are predisposed to favour investing in, are they? Not while the chippie and the couch and TV beckon.

This change has nothing to do with single parents... or with those families on benefits with 12 kids, of which there are what, 10 if that?
Benefits don't double the more kids you have so no they don't get enough to eat take out twice a day.
I would love to see a costing for one of your culinary delights,if you were 23 and on £57pw jobseekers what would you have for tea?

[Kizzy]

The logic of this post is seriously flawed - working people have LESS time to "nip to 6 different supermarkets".

Job seekers have to be actively seeking work ... how can they do that running from shop to shop?

[kirklancaster]

Job seekers have to be actively seeking work ... how can they do that running from shop to shop?

:facepalm: Oh come on Kizzy - please.

A) Jobseekers have to say they are actively seeking work.
B) Are you saying that even the most earnest of job seekers spend 8 hours each and every day looking for work - a comparable working shift for employed people?
C) Who are all the thronging masses sitting on benches in the town center every day - some swigging cider/lager from bottles and cans, some scoring drugs, some already stoned out of their heads or already drunk?

Are you really claiming that the average unemployed person has less disposable time than the average worker?

[AnnieK]

Job seekers have to be actively seeking work ... how can they do that running from shop to shop?

Not 7 days per week though. They can do what people who are working do and shop at weekends? I deal with jobseekers every day and I know they are expected to do a ridiculous amount of applying for positions or risk losing the paltry amount they get but they could do it

[Kizzy]

:facepalm: Oh come on Kizzy - please.

A) Jobseekers have to say they are actively seeking work.
B) Are you saying that even the most earnest of job seekers spend 8 hours each and every day looking for work - a comparable working shift for employed people?
C) Who are all the thronging masses sitting on benches in the town center every day - some swigging cider/lager from bottles and cans, some scoring drugs, some already stoned out of their heads or already drunk?

Are you really claiming that the average unemployed person has less disposable time than the average worker?

Nope, they have to show they are actively seeking work via the government gateway or lose benefits.

[Kizzy]

Not 7 days per week though. They can do what people who are working do and shop at weekends? I deal with jobseekers every day and I know they are expected to do a ridiculous amount of applying for positions or risk losing the paltry amount they get but they could do it

What drag all 12 to tesco, aldi, morrisons, asda, sainsburys and lidl?... On a saturday, even tyler and shaniqua? ;)

[AnnieK]

What drag all 12 to tesco, aldi, morrisons, asda, sainsburys and lidl?... On a saturday, even tyler and shaniqua? ;)

Its a day out....fresh air and exercise and all that! :thumbs:

[Toy Soldier]

:facepalm: Oh come on Kizzy - please.

A) Jobseekers have to say they are actively seeking work.

This is sort of the case and sort of not, a certain number of applications do have to be made for questions not to be asked, however (somewhat ironically) the ones who are really determined not to work tend to actually be quite clever, and know exactly how to ensure that they can apply without being taken on. However, these days those people will just end up on unpaid "work experience" so it's quite counter-productive.

B) Are you saying that even the most earnest of job seekers spend 8 hours each and every day looking for work - a comparable working shift for employed people?

I actually think, for most, that would be technically impossible. Unless you live IN a big city (or they start providing free public transport for jobseekers, which IMO is a good idea) then there simply aren't enough positions available to spend 8 hours actively seeking or applying for jobs. I suppose one could argue that the rest of the time should be spent developing skills for employment. I think the problem there is motivation, though. It's a complete myth that long-term unemployment is in any way desirable - these people are miserable and often bordering on depression. Finding the energy to study or learn skills is hard in that position. It's somewhat of a catch-22, though, as engaging in those activities probably helps to combat that feeling of hopelessness. That first step though...

C) Who are all the thronging masses sitting on benches in the town center every day - some swigging cider/lager from bottles and cans, some scoring drugs, some already stoned out of their heads or already drunk?

Those are junkies. Junkies do not claim JSA, most of them are on disability benefits and don't have to do anything at all except keep being junkies. Junkies are another story entirely... one that I find hard to nail down my opinions on. On the one hand - what horribly, thoroughly broken people. They are certainly not happy or living nice lives, from everything I see of them it's an absolutely horrific existence, and most of them are there because they come from horrific family backgrounds. I feel awful for them, but at the same time, I can't stand them. What is there to be done, really? Would you employ one of them? Or even work beside one of them? I can tell you for certain that I wouldn't be trusting an ex-addict with the money that flies around at my work... whether that's right or wrong. So I just don't know. They are what they are, but they are utterly unemployable. What's the point in having them waste everyone's time by submitting applications or - god forbid - attending interviews?

Are you really claiming that the average unemployed person has less disposable time than the average worker?

This much is quite true. I was unemployed for nearly 5 months following University, and whilst I was actively seeking employment, I will admit that there was a not-too-small amount of Playstation and DVD box sets involved. Especially as I secured a job after 3 months but didn't start for 8 weeks. And, whilst my wife was pregnant, it was with my first so we were child-free. I pretty much did absolutely nothing.

I'm not even going to pretend that it wasn't great :joker:. I actually fully understand the desire to not work - especially as an employee doing something that you have zero passion for. Maybe it's just a balancing act. For me, the desire to support my family and for us not to struggle over-rides that laziness, as it should. If I was single and childless? I'm not so sure. I would probably want to work, but I can say with some certainty that I would have walked out of the door of my current job LONG ago, doing this: http://fc01.deviantart.net/images/emoticons/odd/icon_finger.gif.

[Kizzy]

Well the one thing junkies have in their favour.... they're not fat.

[Toy Soldier]

Well the one thing junkies have in their favour.... they're not fat.

Skeletal. It's quite haunting, some of them barely look human. All bones and dead eyes. Yeah... like I said, whilst I can't stand them, I can't imagine a fate much worse than that.

[kirklancaster]

Well the one thing junkies have in their favour.... they're not fat.

:joker: Quite funny this Kizzy.

[kirklancaster]

This change has nothing to do with single parents... or with those families on benefits with 12 kids, of which there are what, 10 if that?
Benefits don't double the more kids you have so no they don't get enough to eat take out twice a day.
I would love to see a costing for one of your culinary delights,if you were 23 and on £57pw jobseekers what would you have for tea?
The thread has deviated from the strict parameters of the original post and I was referring to one obese woman with 12 kids, not the benefit cuts per se.

Incidentally if I was 23 with just £57.00 income, I could eat perfectly well - I couldn't gamble in the bookies every day, or drink in the pubs even once a week, or buy a £10.00 wrap of heroin 4 times a day, but I wouldn't expect to be able to because I know that the benefits system is a safety net not a replacement for life's requirements and an alternative route to life's non-essentials.

At 23 I was working over 90 hours per week, and I did not take any kind of holiday for 15 years. My wife works now an average 62 hour week for minimum wage.

Anyway, back to the budget of £57.00;

ASDA Pig Liver by Weight (100g) 17p
I Kg White Potatoes: 47p average Market price (enough for 5 more meals)
Aldi 200 g Fresh Geen beans 75p (enough for 2 meals)
Oxo 6 Beef Stock Cubes 35G £0.80 (enough for 5 other meals)
2.5 kg Onions £1.00 (enough for 7 more meals at least)
98 g Tesco Everyday butter 98p (enough for all week or more)

Delicious Creamed mash potatoes, fresh green beans, and Liver in a rich onion gravy - very nutritious and only £4.17 but with more than enough potatoes, butter, green beans, onions and stock cubes to make the next meals even cheaper - for example; the next days dinner could be Baked Jacket potatoes with a sliver of butter, green beans and a grilled pork chop -- ASDA Smartprice Pork Chops (765g) £2.79 with enough Pork chops to do other meals.

[Kizzy]

The thread has deviated from the strict parameters of the original post and I was referring to one obese woman with 12 kids, not the benefit cuts per se.

Incidentally if I was 23 with just £57.00 income, I could eat perfectly well - I couldn't gamble in the bookies every day, or drink in the pubs even once a week, or buy a £10.00 wrap of heroin 4 times a day, but I wouldn't expect to be able to because I know that the benefits system is a safety net not a replacement for life's requirements and an alternative route to life's non-essentials.

At 23 I was working over 90 hours per week, and I did not take any kind of holiday for 15 years. My wife works now an average 62 hour week for minimum wage.

Anyway, back to the budget of £57.00;

ASDA Pig Liver by Weight (100g) 17p
I Kg White Potatoes: 47p average Market price (enough for 5 more meals)
Aldi 200 g Fresh Geen beans 75p (enough for 2 meals)
Oxo 6 Beef Stock Cubes 35G £0.80 (enough for 5 other meals)
2.5 kg Onions £1.00 (enough for 7 more meals at least)
98 g Tesco Everyday butter 98p (enough for all week or more)

Delicious Creamed mash potatoes, fresh green beans, and Liver in a rich onion gravy - very nutritious and only £4.17 but with more than enough potatoes, butter, green beans, onions and stock cubes to make the next meals even cheaper - for example; the next days dinner could be Baked Jacket potatoes with a sliver of butter, green beans and a grilled pork chop -- ASDA Smartprice Pork Chops (765g) £2.79 with enough Pork chops to do other meals.

Well now you're deviating the thread from overweight welfare claimants to addicts.

Oh.. sorry you haven't factored in water, gas, electric, phone, bus fares (to interviews) a wonga loan to get the cooker fixed, laundrette (no washer in the flat) and bedroom tax.

[joeysteele]

Oh gosh Kirk, asda smart price meat I wouldn't touch with a bargepole,it is awful, totally tasteless unless you competely cover it with something else.

I am really fussy as to what 'meat' I eat anyway,I don't see why being on JSA or ESA or other disability benefits means not t eat properly.
Also as to JSA,I wonder how someone living alone with bills to pay and to get around too, how on earth they manage.

The question really is should people who are out of work, ill, disabled and vulnerable really have to live an existence where they have to eat really cheap,often substandard food,with no variation as to real choice, day in day out, week in week out, year after year unless they hit lucky and someone does offer them a job eventually.

I have even come across jobcentres actually checking as to if someone unemployed actually had an interview with a company or firm and that they even went to it..

There are still not the jobs available for all the unemployed,nowhere near the vacancies needed,to be encouraging and forcing the sick and disabled into work too only adds to that problem,never mind increasing the retirement age.
Until that environment is there that has vacancies for those out of work,they can sanction all the like and threaten this and that as to all ways of making people look for work.
It isn't there,with a wage that would be needed to cover all the additional costs of working too,such as travel costs.

The work I am currently doing and where I live and have to go to, costs me loads in fuel for the car and then parking fees to be there most of the day when I am there.
I am fortunate,I can easily manage to do so but that is not the case for everyone else.
I just don't accept that people should be 'forced' to live in a sub standard way just because they are out of a job, ill, disabled or vulnerable.
More should be done to help that majority of out of work citizens to find work but from a true supportive angle and not by sanctions that bring even more misery.

All those that are benefit claimants that make up the 99% that official independent statistics say are claiming rightly.
If that is so, then why should they, whether they be unemployed, overweight or disabled and vulnerable be expected to live in a sub standard way.

If this govt; had created enough 'genuine',I stress genune, vacancies with regularly paid work over the year, then there would be little defence of people not finding work or not going to work ' 'if they can'.however that day is a long way off and all this shambles of a govt; can do is set out to create havoc and misery in those vulnerable peoples lives.
Jobcentre staff are snowed under trying to help people into work,they must feel they are banging their heads against a brick wall as the task they have is an impossible one, since you canot fit the unemployed into the far less vacancies currently available.

[kirklancaster]

Well now you're deviating the thread from overweight welfare claimants to addicts.

Oh.. sorry you haven't factored in water, gas, electric, phone, bus fares (to interviews) a wonga loan to get the cooker fixed, laundrette (no washer in the flat) and bedroom tax.

Now you're moving the goalposts - The statement which included your question was; "I would love to see a costing for one of your culinary delights,if you were 23 and on £57pw jobseekers what would you have for tea?" And I answered your question. Which you make no mention of or comment on.

Anyway, are we assuming that this 23 year old claimant has never worked at all then for 8 full years and has no possessions at all?

If his accommodation is a bedsit, the cooker is the responsibility of the landlord. If not there are grants available for essentials and also schemes which provide free white goods.

The rest of your list are all things which everyone has to pay and budget for. A 23 year old man working a 40 hour week for minimum wage has all the same outgoings and expenses as your 23 year old non-working man, but in addition he has bus fares to work, work clothes to buy and wash in addition to his non-working clothes (so much more expense because work clothes need more frequent washing) and he has his lunch to buy at work or packed lunch to cater for, and he has his rent and council tax to pay, and I will wager that when all deductions and payments are made, the working guy is not much better off - if at all - than the non-working guy. Which is a very real reason why SOME people do not want work at any price.

[Tom4784]

:facepalm: Oh come on Kizzy - please.

A) Jobseekers have to say they are actively seeking work.
B) Are you saying that even the most earnest of job seekers spend 8 hours each and every day looking for work - a comparable working shift for employed people?
C) Who are all the thronging masses sitting on benches in the town center every day - some swigging cider/lager from bottles and cans, some scoring drugs, some already stoned out of their heads or already drunk?

Are you really claiming that the average unemployed person has less disposable time than the average worker?

My friend's on benefits and she's been put on courses that involve her sitting in front of a computer in the job centre and looking for jobs from 9-5 every week day. It's easy to use stupid generalisations to say how easy a life on benefits is but hearing some of the horror stories she has to say about it makes me glad I'm working. I could not do what she has to do every week.

I'd hate to be employed in today's climate and be demonised by people like you for simply trying to do my best. Not only do people in her situation basically work full time hours, they get paid less than minimum wage for it too. With such draconian schemes in place it's understandable that the unemployed not only go for the cheapest option but also the easiest, I could not 'shop around' for the best deals on healthier food if I had been made to suffer 8 hours of tedium every day. At least in work your mind is switched on and you're actively doing stuff, I imagine my brain would rot and I'd fall into a constant state of death-like lethargy if I had to do any of these 'courses' I've heard about.

[kirklancaster]

My friend's on benefits and she's been put on courses that involve her sitting in front of a computer in the job centre and looking for jobs from 9-5 every week day. It's easy to use stupid generalisations to say how easy a life on benefits is but hearing some of the horror stories she has to say about it makes me glad I'm working. I could not do what she has to do every week.

I'd hate to be employed in today's climate and be demonised by people like you for simply trying to do my best. Not only do people in her situation basically work full time hours, they get paid less than minimum wage for it too. With such draconian schemes in place it's understandable that the unemployed not only go for the cheapest option but also the easiest, I could not 'shop around' for the best deals on healthier food if I had been made to suffer 8 hours of tedium every day. At least in work your mind is switched on and you're actively doing stuff, I imagine my brain would rot and I'd fall into a constant state of death-like lethargy if I had to do any of these 'courses' I've heard about.

I'm sick of 'Dancing this dance' to be honest. Again, you are misrepresenting what I've been saying. I am not referring to all claimants, especially not the genuinely unfortunate ones who do want to work but can't find a job - and NOWHERE IN MY POSTS DO I STATE SO. I was referring specifically to FRAUDULENT CLAIMANTS to begin with, then responded honestly to specific points and questions raised by Kizzy in her responses to me.

Your example might be true but it is NOT THE NORM in my experience, because most job-seekers I know whip in and out of the Job Centre in 15 minutes without being given any draconian 'grilling'. Yes, periodically, some have to prove they have actively sought work - as Joey says - but that is not all and not regularly.

So I am not making "stupid generalisations" at all - and I am not attacking anyone. You are Quixotically 'tilting at windmills' if you perceive that I am Dezzy, and there really is no need to be so ultra sensitive and over defensive for 'imagined attacks' on society's unfortunates.

[Tom4784]

I'm sick of 'Dancing this dance' to be honest. Again, you are misrepresenting what I've been saying. I am not referring to all claimants, especially not the genuinely unfortunate ones who do want to work but can't find a job - and NOWHERE IN MY POSTS DO I STATE SO. I was referring specifically to FRAUDULENT CLAIMANTS to begin with, then responded honestly to specific points and questions raised by Kizzy in her responses to me.

Your example might be true but it is NOT THE NORM in my experience, because most job-seekers I know whip in and out of the Job Centre in 15 minutes without being given any draconian 'grilling'. Yes, periodically, some have to prove they have actively sought work - as Joey says - but that is not all and not regularly.

So I am not making "stupid generalisations" at all - and I am not attacking anyone. You are Quixotically 'tilting at windmills' if you perceive that I am Dezzy, and there really is no need to be so ultra sensitive and over defensive for 'imagined attacks' on society's unfortunates.

Erm....

:facepalm: Oh come on Kizzy - please.

A) Jobseekers have to say they are actively seeking work.
B) Are you saying that even the most earnest of job seekers spend 8 hours each and every day looking for work - a comparable working shift for employed people?
C) Who are all the thronging masses sitting on benches in the town center every day - some swigging cider/lager from bottles and cans, some scoring drugs, some already stoned out of their heads or already drunk?

Are you really claiming that the average unemployed person has less disposable time than the average worker?

Looks like sweeping generalisations to me...they sound like sweeping generalisations. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

Also who are YOU to decide what the norm is? Why is your interpretation of the 'norm' more valid than mine?

It also just sounds like you pass by a job centre and make snap judgements about what you see rather than bothering to know or understand what life is like for the other side. The benefits system is not a cushy lifestyle, it may be for a few but for the majority it's rapidly becoming a vicious system that doles out torturous exercises masked as courses in which the goal is to force people off the dole by crushing them mentally instead of giving them the help they need. As more of these 'courses' get rolled out, it would not surprise me to see poverty and crime on the increase because it's obvious to anyone that they aren't meant to help jobseekers.

As for the rest of your snipe-y post, I won't rise to the obvious bait.

[kirklancaster]

Erm....

Looks like sweeping generalisations to me...they sound like sweeping generalisations. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

Also who are YOU to decide what the norm is? Why is your interpretation of the 'norm' more valid than mine?

It also just sounds like you pass by a job centre and make snap judgements about what you see rather than bothering to know or understand what life is like for the other side. The benefits system is not a cushy lifestyle, it may be for a few but for the majority it's rapidly becoming a vicious system that doles out torturous exercises masked as courses in which the goal is to force people off the dole by crushing them mentally instead of giving them the help they need. As more of these 'courses' get rolled out, it would not surprise me to see poverty and crime on the increase because it's obvious to anyone that they aren't meant to help jobseekers.

As for the rest of your snipe-y post, I won't rise to the obvious bait.

Why do you always make insulting remarks? I am not being snipey and I do not presume to declare what the 'norm' is - you are so intent on having an argument with me that you never read my posts correctly. I actually said:

"Your example might be true but it is NOT THE NORM in my experience"

So my statement is no different than yours - YOU are posting opinion based upon your experience and so am I.

So why the transparent aggression and unfounded accusations?

There really is no need, so I would appreciate it in future if you merely ignore my posts and I will reciprocate.

What you are continuing to do with me is totally unfair and you are trying to bully me by abusing your position as a moderator.

[AnnieK]

I honestly do not think Kirk is trying to bait Dezzy. I work with job seekers daily...some have been on the courses you describe but by no means all of them. I also get hundreds of cvs daily from people applying for jobs they neither have the skills or experience for but they have to apply for certain numbers of positions through jobs match to keep their benefits. They have no desire to go for interviews for these positions (from experience I know this) but they have to apply so they do. I agree these constraints that are put on them are ridiculous - it also is a problem for people who genuinely want to apply for these roles as employers get so many applications that they don't look at all the cvs. It's a no win situation for all. I honestly don't know what the answer is

[Kizzy]

Now you're moving the goalposts - The statement which included your question was; "I would love to see a costing for one of your culinary delights,if you were 23 and on £57pw jobseekers what would you have for tea?" And I answered your question. Which you make no mention of or comment on.

Anyway, are we assuming that this 23 year old claimant has never worked at all then for 8 full years and has no possessions at all?

If his accommodation is a bedsit, the cooker is the responsibility of the landlord. If not there are grants available for essentials and also schemes which provide free white goods.

The rest of your list are all things which everyone has to pay and budget for. A 23 year old man working a 40 hour week for minimum wage has all the same outgoings and expenses as your 23 year old non-working man, but in addition he has bus fares to work, work clothes to buy and wash in addition to his non-working clothes (so much more expense because work clothes need more frequent washing) and he has his lunch to buy at work or packed lunch to cater for, and he has his rent and council tax to pay, and I will wager that when all deductions and payments are made, the working guy is not much better off - if at all - than the non-working guy. Which is a very real reason why SOME people do not want work at any price.

No I'm not it's a normal everyday scenario,you have to factor in other outgoings in the budget don't you?
He has no parents and no qualifications and lives in a 2 bed council high rise flat in Birmingham.
There are no grants available anymore and yes he pays a percentage towards council tax from his JS. He can't afford insurance and was burgled last month so no he has nothing of value.
The difference between him and the guy working 40hrs is that once the guy working full time has paid his weekly or monthly expenditure there's money left for food and other things, with JS there isn't.

[AnnieK]

No I'm not it's a normal everyday scenario,you have to factor in other outgoings in the budget don't you?
He has no parents and no qualifications and lives in a 2 bed council high rise flat in Birmingham.
There are no grants available anymore and yes he pays a percentage towards council tax from his JS. He can't afford insurance and was burgled last month so no he has nothing of value.
The difference between him and the guy working 40hrs is that once the guy working full time has paid his weekly or monthly expenditure there's money left for food and other things, with JS there isn't.

Therein lies another problem which is minimum wage. I've just done some quick calculations and once someone has worked 40 hours on min wage, paid full council tax, full rent, paye and NI contributions, utilities etc (even bring conservative on rent and council tax payments) that will leave approx £50 per week for commuting to and from said job, food and any other expenses. Then just say this is a single parent factor again child care costs which will be more than tax credits it's crazy how anyone is expected to live on.

[Kizzy]

Ah yes the 'living wage' that's not even on the back burner anymore is it? it's not been mentioned for months :/
I agree minimum wage is shocking, and for young people I don't know why they even bother it's ridiculous.

[Toy Soldier]

Ah yes the 'living wage' that's not even on the back burner anymore is it? it's not been mentioned for months :/
I agree minimum wage is shocking, and for young people I don't know why they even bother it's ridiculous.
The living wage is a red herring in my opinion, for anyone but the young free and single. If wages were increased then tax credits would be decreased more or less to match. Taking the burden off of the government and onto the employers, but not leaving many people any better off.

For anyone living at home with mum and dad with no responsibilities or bills to pay other than "their keep" it would be brilliant, though. And maybe for young singles in a house-share situation. Utterly useless for working families.

[Kizzy]

The living wage is a red herring in my opinion, for anyone but the young free and single. If wages were increased then tax credits would be decreased more or less to match. Taking the burden off of the government and onto the employers, but not leaving many people any better off.

For anyone living at home with mum and dad with no responsibilities or bills to pay other than "their keep" it would be brilliant, though. And maybe for young singles in a house-share situation. Utterly useless for working families.

Not really as if the onus was on the employers not the government to subsidise wages the economy would be better off, they may even be able to reduce VAT so it would benefit working families.

[AnnieK]

Not really as if the onus was on the employers not the government to subsidise wages the economy would be better off, they may even be able to reduce VAT so it would benefit working families.

I agree but I would hazard that is employers were forced to pay a living wage we would see another swathe of mass redundancies. Managements would not want their profits / bonuses hit.

[Toy Soldier]

Not really as if the onus was on the employers not the government to subsidise wages the economy would be better off, they may even be able to reduce VAT so it would benefit working families.
This only really applies to the super - rich multinationals, though. Most businesses in the UK have a pretty strict budget for wages in order to stay in profit, and a large mandatory increase in wages across the board would simply force many of them to reduce staffing levels to compensate. Excess staff would be trimmed and unemployment would rise fairly dramatically, and there would also be no extra money (same wages going out, just to fewer people) in the consumer economy.

The only way it would be workable is if the compensation came from the other end, and the government cut certain taxes on businesses to allow them the extra money for wages. But then, of course, the money that the govt. has saved in tax credits is now swallowed up by those tax cuts.

In other words, I don't think it particularly matters where the money is coming from, at the end of the day it will all even out anyway. Although it at least might make people feel better to have bigger payslips and lower tax credits claims, I guess. More like it's really "theirs". It probably does make more sense to allow companies to keep their money to give out to employees themselves, rather than taken it from them only to pay it back out to those same employees as benefits.

It might mean those aforementioned multinationals getting even richer, though, in theory.

[Kizzy]

Yep, mind you if nobody has any money as if they're not on benefits many more than ever are on part time or 0hrs with no holiday pay sick pay or overtime/unsociable hrs bonusses.. How are businesses to survive if nobody has any money aside from essentials?

[Kizzy]

This only really applies to the super - rich multinationals, though. Most businesses in the UK have a pretty strict budget for wages in order to stay in profit, and a large mandatory increase in wages across the board would simply force many of them to reduce staffing levels to compensate. Excess staff would be trimmed and unemployment would rise fairly dramatically, and there would also be no extra money (same wages going out, just to fewer people) in the consumer economy.

The only way it would be workable is if the compensation came from the other end, and the government cut certain taxes on businesses to allow them the extra money for wages. But then, of course, the money that the govt. has saved in tax credits is now swallowed up by those tax cuts.

In other words, I don't think it particularly matters where the money is coming from, at the end of the day it will all even out anyway. Although it at least might make people feel better to have bigger payslips and lower tax credits claims, I guess. More like it's really "theirs". It probably does make more sense to allow companies to keep their money to give out to employees themselves, rather than taken it from them only to pay it back out to those same employees as benefits.

It might mean those aforementioned multinationals getting even richer, though, in theory.

I think the onus in private enterprise is fixed firmly on maximising profit for shareholders, they're driving wages down.
They've already had tax cuts... what was that for? soon the govt will be paying employers people credits for affording people the luxury of employment.

[joeysteele]

Kirklancaster is right that those situations are wrong and do need looking at, since it would appear that someone could work to provide for those children.
Likewise possibly the majority of the 190 mentioned by Josy from 2012 figures.

What is let's say in my view, where the concerns lie with those who are wondering how this can take place, since if assessors have the figures of say the 190 Josy mention, and then the example Kirk has shown above,then it should be very easy to look closely into those cases and find anything wrong.
Why penalise and cause distress to all those too, not remotely in anyway in that situation as to claiming benefits and size of family.

That is what I am against as to this gung ho govt; and its, what I see, as near persecution of those claiming rightly.
The other thing is too, this thread started as to the overweight possibly being sanctioned, the thread expanded into the welfare issues around what this govt; has done as to reforms to welfare and benefits, which I again say in my view, have been disastrous,heartless and overall plainly wrong.

Finally, the examples here and in the media, again do not bear out such demonisation and setting out to scapegoat benefit claimants.
This govt; are not Doctors, this govt; doesn't even listen to or consult Doctors,we now have 'fit' notes rather than 'sick' notes.
Doctors are constantly undermined by this hopeless PM and his Ministers.
Yet Doctors would know their patients and the reasons for those who are overweight far better than any govt;

So to decide to possibly threaten to remove benefits is wrong without the full picture.
This govt; goes through the motions of looking at things, like having this idea researched but it takes no notice if it doesn't fit in with it's 'hidden' agenda,I use the word 'hidden' lightly, because it is clear to me for one what this govts; agenda is to those on benefits.
It is not ,in my view to genuinely support,it is more about saving in welfare funding terms a near pittance while causing misery to at least hundreds of thousands meantime.

Also, again, these examples are tiny in number,of these extreme claims and also estimated fraudulent claims.
So it can be done all day, highlighting the 'few' wrong cases such as we have on here and moreso in the media too.
However I think all examples and figures should be quantified by the fact that,I say again, the estimation of 99% of claimants are doing so correctly and are a world away from the odd examples that get thrown at the public by govt;,the awful prejudiced media and those who fall for the govts; and media misrepresentations.

No one would or should support claiming of benefits wrongly, however 2 wrongs do not make a right, so for this govt; to with great gusto go about hammering all on benefits to find a handful in relation of numbers,that do wrong as to claiming, is I believe unacceptable and completely unjust.
Especially how this heartless shower have gone about it.

What this govt; and future govts; need to really take on board is the welfare bill goes on pensions and pensioners as to the greater proportion of it.
They know the risk of doing anything as to them so they bash the weaker elements.
However unless any govt; is serious about really looking at pensioners and their need from the welfare budget, then any real major savings are pie in the sky hopes.

Odd cases do not paint a right or good picture of the benefits situation,the odd wrong cases cannot be presented as a representaion of benefit claimants, who end up being stigmatised and then discriminated against too in the face of such demonisation.

I hope I live long enough to read it but I believe in the far future, history will judge this PM and his heartless coalition govt; very harshly indeed,it may even say he and his govt; persecuted a large number of its citizens in the name of saving a few pounds here and there.
I also hope history starts to come soon for this PM and he gets well and truly slung out on his ear in May,taking his cowardly bunch of heartless ministers with him.


The alternative may not look that appetising to most but all powers that be I hope protect the most vulnerable,sick and disabled from the status quo and ensure this lot are gone.

Let some other leader .(in opposition),work on getting rid of the 'nasty Conservative party',then hopefully create a better Conservative party.
This PM said in 2010,he got rid of the old nasty conservative party, he was right in that, the sad thing is, he created an even nastier one under his leadership and time as PM.

[Kizzy]

It's not just the fatties that are being targeted....


'One change in particular threatens to scupper Cameron’s claim to be on the side of Britain’s hard working people. In an alteration to legislation that went largely unnoticed at the end of last month, the government introduced a pilot for 15,000 low-paid working universal credit claimants. Those participating in the mandatory scheme may find that their benefits are reduced if they do not actively seek to work more hours or increase their salary.

The change is important because this policy goes beyond targeting jobseekers, the sick and disabled. If penalises those who are hard at work, maintaining part-time, low-salaried jobs'

'Sanctions can apply of claimants working less than 35 hours a week on minimum wage (typically £12,000 a year) who do not comply with the scheme. Failure may include failing to attend ‘job focused interviews’ or failing to apply for a job that might bring in extra hours. Welfare reform minister Lord David Freud says "tougher" conversations will be had with claimants after two months.'


http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/ministers-are-reaching-beyond-scroungers-and-aiming-britain-s-working-poor

[Tom4784]

It's not just the fatties that are being targeted....


'One change in particular threatens to scupper Cameron’s claim to be on the side of Britain’s hard working people. In an alteration to legislation that went largely unnoticed at the end of last month, the government introduced a pilot for 15,000 low-paid working universal credit claimants. Those participating in the mandatory scheme may find that their benefits are reduced if they do not actively seek to work more hours or increase their salary.

The change is important because this policy goes beyond targeting jobseekers, the sick and disabled. If penalises those who are hard at work, maintaining part-time, low-salaried jobs'

'Sanctions can apply of claimants working less than 35 hours a week on minimum wage (typically £12,000 a year) who do not comply with the scheme. Failure may include failing to attend ‘job focused interviews’ or failing to apply for a job that might bring in extra hours. Welfare reform minister Lord David Freud says "tougher" conversations will be had with claimants after two months.'


http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/ministers-are-reaching-beyond-scroungers-and-aiming-britain-s-working-poor

The sooner the Tories are out, the better.

[JoshBB]

I understand the thinking behind it but this is a very black-and-white approach. Many obese people have tried dieting but it just doesn't work for them. Give them help.. don't punish them for having a problem.

[kirklancaster]

the sooner the tories are out, the better.

A legitimate and reasoned post removed by kirk - to save moderators a job

[kirklancaster]

Kirklancaster is right that those situations are wrong and do need looking at, since it would appear that someone could work to provide for those children.
Likewise possibly the majority of the 190 mentioned by Josy from 2012 figures.

What is let's say in my view, where the concerns lie with those who are wondering how this can take place, since if assessors have the figures of say the 190 Josy mention, and then the example Kirk has shown above,then it should be very easy to look closely into those cases and find anything wrong.
Why penalise and cause distress to all those too, not remotely in anyway in that situation as to claiming benefits and size of family.

That is what I am against as to this gung ho govt; and its, what I see, as near persecution of those claiming rightly.
The other thing is too, this thread started as to the overweight possibly being sanctioned, the thread expanded into the welfare issues around what this govt; has done as to reforms to welfare and benefits, which I again say in my view, have been disastrous,heartless and overall plainly wrong.

Finally, the examples here and in the media, again do not bear out such demonisation and setting out to scapegoat benefit claimants.
This govt; are not Doctors, this govt; doesn't even listen to or consult Doctors,we now have 'fit' notes rather than 'sick' notes.
Doctors are constantly undermined by this hopeless PM and his Ministers.
Yet Doctors would know their patients and the reasons for those who are overweight far better than any govt;

So to decide to possibly threaten to remove benefits is wrong without the full picture.
This govt; goes through the motions of looking at things, like having this idea researched but it takes no notice if it doesn't fit in with it's 'hidden' agenda,I use the word 'hidden' lightly, because it is clear to me for one what this govts; agenda is to those on benefits.
It is not ,in my view to genuinely support,it is more about saving in welfare funding terms a near pittance while causing misery to at least hundreds of thousands meantime.

Also, again, these examples are tiny in number,of these extreme claims and also estimated fraudulent claims.
So it can be done all day, highlighting the 'few' wrong cases such as we have on here and moreso in the media too.
However I think all examples and figures should be quantified by the fact that,I say again, the estimation of 99% of claimants are doing so correctly and are a world away from the odd examples that get thrown at the public by govt;,the awful prejudiced media and those who fall for the govts; and media misrepresentations.

No one would or should support claiming of benefits wrongly, however 2 wrongs do not make a right, so for this govt; to with great gusto go about hammering all on benefits to find a handful in relation of numbers,that do wrong as to claiming, is I believe unacceptable and completely unjust.
Especially how this heartless shower have gone about it.

What this govt; and future govts; need to really take on board is the welfare bill goes on pensions and pensioners as to the greater proportion of it.
They know the risk of doing anything as to them so they bash the weaker elements.
However unless any govt; is serious about really looking at pensioners and their need from the welfare budget, then any real major savings are pie in the sky hopes.

Odd cases do not paint a right or good picture of the benefits situation,the odd wrong cases cannot be presented as a representaion of benefit claimants, who end up being stigmatised and then discriminated against too in the face of such demonisation.

I hope I live long enough to read it but I believe in the far future, history will judge this PM and his heartless coalition govt; very harshly indeed,it may even say he and his govt; persecuted a large number of its citizens in the name of saving a few pounds here and there.
I also hope history starts to come soon for this PM and he gets well and truly slung out on his ear in May,taking his cowardly bunch of heartless ministers with him.


The alternative may not look that appetising to most but all powers that be I hope protect the most vulnerable,sick and disabled from the status quo and ensure this lot are gone.

Let some other leader .(in opposition),work on getting rid of the 'nasty Conservative party',then hopefully create a better Conservative party.
This PM said in 2010,he got rid of the old nasty conservative party, he was right in that, the sad thing is, he created an even nastier one under his leadership and time as PM.

You are not only one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable members on here Joey but one of the more rational.

Whenever we have held opposing views your posts remain balanced and your attitude civil.

I applaud the fact that you discern between someone stating facts gleaned from personal experience and someone merely attacking those genuine people who have to rely on benefits.

What others seem to miss, is the fact that the obese mother of 12 who wrongfully receives benefits of £900 per week I was referring to, and other fraudsters like her, are the very ones giving ammunition to the Anti-Benefits & Bash The Poor Brigades.

Without these scum the media would not be able to highlight such cases and influence public opinion that these cases are the norm.

Thank you Joey for accepting my posts in the manner in which they were intended.

Coming to what you say in your post; I cannot fault any of which you say.

I am shortly going to be posting my very last post on here Joey and starting a new thread to do so, before deleting my account, and I think you should find a lot of what I have to say in it very interesting and enlightening.

[Kizzy]

You are not only one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable members on here Joey but one of the more rational.

Whenever we have held opposing views your posts remain balanced and your attitude civil.

I applaud the fact that you discern between someone stating facts gleaned from personal experience and someone merely attacking those genuine people who have to rely on benefits.

What others seem to miss, is the fact that the obese mother of 12 who wrongfully receives benefits of £900 per week I was referring to, and other fraudsters like her, are the very ones giving ammunition to the Anti-Benefits & Bash The Poor Brigades.

Without these scum the media would not be able to highlight such cases and influence public opinion that these cases are the norm.

Thank you Joey for accepting my posts in the manner in which they were intended.

Coming to what you say in your post; I cannot fault any of which you say.

I am shortly going to be posting my very last post on here Joey and starting a new thread to do so, before deleting my account, and I think you should find a lot of what I have to say in it very interesting and enlightening.

She isn't a fraudster though, the fact there is/are large families on benefits is not enough reason to demonise them in the media either.
By branding them scum you've shown that you subscribe to the model as portrayed in the right wing tabloids.
they are scapegoats, trawled out across the pages when there's something to cover up as it's a guaranteed headline grabber.

[arista]

"it's a guaranteed headline grabber. "

Yes it is Kizzy
it will never change

[Kizzy]

Doesn't make it right there have been poor/uneducated people since the year dot, the benefit cap has seen to it that nobody is better of on benefits than in employment and yet there is still the need to further humiliate those who are genuinely in need.
That's the real issue, they've made such a stigma of being in receipt of welfare that those that need it would rather starve than claim it!

[kirklancaster]

She isn't a fraudster though, the fact there is/are large families on benefits is not enough reason to demonise them in the media either.
By branding them scum you've shown that you subscribe to the model as portrayed in the right wing tabloids.
they are scapegoats, trawled out across the pages when there's something to cover up as it's a guaranteed headline grabber.

Kizzy - You are persisting in the same misconceptions and misrepresentations:

She IS a fraudster because I KNOW HER PERSONALLY. She is obese through gluttony and has NEVER WORKED due to having her first baby at 15 years of age and ELEVEN OTHERS SINCE, but she has NEVER HAD ANY DISABILITY OR CHRONIC ILLNESS which could have prevented her from working.

I am REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO THE ONE WOMAN ABOVE WHO HAS ALWAYS CLAIMED BUT NEVER HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO SO - APART FROM CONTINUOUSLY BREEDING BABIES WITH DIFFERENT ABSENTEE FATHERS WHICH SHE REALLY COULD NOT AFFORD TO DO.

I AM NOT THEREFORE, AND HAVE NEVER DONE - ANYWHERE IN MY POSTS - REFERRED TO ANY LARGE FAMILIES ON BENEFITS PER SE, OR ANY OTHER CLAIMANTS PER SE, ONLY ONES WHICH I PERSONALLY KNOW TO BE CLAIMING FRAUDULENTLY.

Nor do I agree that any GENUINE CLAIMANTS should be DEMONISED BY THE MEDIA and I AM NOT BRANDING ANY GENUINE CLAIMANTS 'SCUM' - IF YOU READ MY POST CORRECTLY, YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM BRANDING BENEFIT FRAUDSTERS AS SCUM.

So I am NOT subscribing to any model as portrayed in the right wing tabloids.

I cannot control what the media publish and I have even stated several times that I agree with Joey that claimants are being made an issue by the government to deflect from the failure of their other - more grave - policies.

I stated that the obese woman I know above was in receipt of £900 per week, and I was attacked as a liar and ridiculed because of the amount among other things. Well Josy's FOI post proved me right, but I am still havin g to defend myself against attack for things I JUST HAVE NOT SAID.

It is wearing, time consuming and futile, and it is not my fault if what I state is continually misconstrued when I state it clearly and in the Queen's English.

[Kizzy]

No I'm not, you said she had £900 in benefits they were given based on her circumstances... they weren't fraudulently claimed.
You now claim to be privvy to her medical history too?

[Niamh.]

Kizzy - You are persisting in the same misconceptions and misrepresentations:

She IS a fraudster because I KNOW HER PERSONALLY. She is obese through gluttony and has NEVER WORKED due to having her first baby at 15 years of age and ELEVEN OTHERS SINCE, but she has NEVER HAD ANY DISABILITY OR CHRONIC ILLNESS which could have prevented her from working.

I am REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO THE ONE WOMAN ABOVE WHO HAS ALWAYS CLAIMED BUT NEVER HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO SO - APART FROM CONTINUOUSLY BREEDING BABIES WITH DIFFERENT ABSENTEE FATHERS WHICH SHE REALLY COULD NOT AFFORD TO DO.

I AM NOT THEREFORE, AND HAVE NEVER DONE - ANYWHERE IN MY POSTS - REFERRED TO ANY LARGE FAMILIES ON BENEFITS PER SE, OR ANY OTHER CLAIMANTS PER SE, ONLY ONES WHICH I PERSONALLY KNOW TO BE CLAIMING FRAUDULENTLY.

Nor do I agree that any GENUINE CLAIMANTS should be DEMONISED BY THE MEDIA and I AM NOT BRANDING ANY GENUINE CLAIMANTS 'SCUM' - IF YOU READ MY POST CORRECTLY, YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM BRANDING BENEFIT FRAUDSTERS AS SCUM.

So I am NOT subscribing to any model as portrayed in the right wing tabloids.

I cannot control what the media publish and I have even stated several times that I agree with Joey that claimants are being made an issue by the government to deflect from the failure of their other - more grave - policies.

I stated that the obese woman I know above was in receipt of £900 per week, and I was attacked as a liar and ridiculed because of the amount among other things. Well Josy's FOI post proved me right, but I am still havin g to defend myself against attack for things I JUST HAVE NOT SAID.

It is wearing, time consuming and futile, and it is not my fault if what I state is continually misconstrued when I state it clearly and in the Queen's English.

It sounds like a pretty sad story though to me. Who would really want to have a child at 15, when you're just a child yourself? Sounds to me that no matter how much free things she got, she's actually missed out on having a proper life herself

[kirklancaster]

No I'm not, you said she had £900 in benefits they were given based on her circumstances... they weren't fraudulently claimed.
You now claim to be privvy to her medical history too?

I KNOW her. I KNOW her family. I've KNOWN her since she was about 3 years old though they are not in my circle of friends.

There was NOTHING WRONG with her MEDICALLY.

So by your logic then Kizzy - everyone who is awarded benefits is VALID. So therefore the system is INFALLIBLE. Therefore, ALL THE GENUINELY ILL PEOPLE THROWN OFF BENEFITS ARE REALLY SHIRKERS?

[kirklancaster]

It sounds like a pretty sad story though to me. Who would really want to have a child at 15, when you're just a child yourself? Sounds to me that no matter how much free things she got, she's actually missed out on having a proper life herself

I agree Niamh, but we have to remember that we tend to view others and their actions by our standards. None of her family have ever worked and the die was cast really from an early age. She sees no disadvantage or loss in the life she has, because it's unfortunately the way she was raised.

If you and your partner had adopted her at say, 3 years old, her life choices and life would probably have turned out completely different.

As it is - in my opinion - she is happy and definitely thinks she has 'one up' on the system and the world.

My son has worked part-time, but as many hours as he could, all the way through school and university, and still is, for minimum wage, having gained his law degree and saddled himself with £30,000 of loans.

[Niamh.]

I agree Niamh, but we have to remember that we tend to view others and their actions by our standards. None of her family have ever worked and the die was cast really from an early age. She sees no disadvantage or loss in the life she has, because it's unfortunately the way she was raised.

If you and your partner had adopted her at say, 3 years old, her life choices and life would probably have turned out completely different.

As it is - in my opinion - she is happy and definitely thinks she has 'one up' on the system and the world.

My son has worked part-time, but as many hours as he could, all the way through school and university, and still is, for minimum wage, having gained his law degree and saddled himself with £30,000 of loans.

Well there's always going to be people like that and no system is fool proof really. The way I look at it is, would I like to trade places with her or have my kids trade places with her? And the answer is no. I feel sorry for her that she will never have the sense of achievement of earning a wage herself or truly know what it is to be independent

[kirklancaster]

Well there's always going to be people like that and no system is fool proof really. The way I look at it is, would I like to trade places with her or have my kids trade places with her? And the answer is no. I feel sorry for her that she will never have the sense of achievement of earning a wage herself or truly know what it is to be independent

I agree again, and stated in an earlier response that she has nothing that I envy or want. I know my children wouldn't trade places with her either.

I also agree about the 'sense of achievement', but my sympathy for her is severely tempered by the fact that I know her and she is not really my 'cup of tea' to put it politely.

I do have genuine sympathy for people caught up in a poverty trap though because I've been there - though on £900 a week she hardly qualifies - and I do think that no government has really addressed this disgusting truth of the low paid and those on inadequate benefits. There always seems to be plenty of public money ever available for successive governments to squander in other areas.

[Kizzy]

I KNOW her. I KNOW her family. I've KNOWN her since she was about 3 years old though they are not in my circle of friends.

There was NOTHING WRONG with her MEDICALLY.

So by your logic then Kizzy - everyone who is awarded benefits is VALID. So therefore the system is INFALLIBLE. Therefore, ALL THE GENUINELY ILL PEOPLE THROWN OFF BENEFITS ARE REALLY SHIRKERS?

She had kids and got benefits for those kids ..whether you, me or anyone thinks that's valid is irrelevant.

[kirklancaster]

She had kids and got benefits for those kids ..whether you, me or anyone thinks that's valid is irrelevant.

Discussion over then - thankfully.

[smudgie]

I KNOW her. I KNOW her family. I've KNOWN her since she was about 3 years old though they are not in my circle of friends.

There was NOTHING WRONG with her MEDICALLY.

So by your logic then Kizzy - everyone who is awarded benefits is VALID. So therefore the system is INFALLIBLE. Therefore, ALL THE GENUINELY ILL PEOPLE THROWN OFF BENEFITS ARE REALLY SHIRKERS?

Looks to me like she is more of a parasite than a fraudster.
Time for a cap on benefits for baby farming, make it less lucrative to knock them out at such high numbers.

[Vanessa]

Looks to me like she is more of a parasite than a fraudster.
Time for a cap on benefits for baby farming, make it less lucrative to knock them out at such high numbers.

I agree. I don't like it, because the kids grow up knowing they weren't wanted. Every child should feel loved.

[Kizzy]

Are we still talking about fat addicts?...

[kirklancaster]

Are we still talking about fat addicts?...

I don't know - are you? I'm not.

[Vanessa]

I have no problem with this, but let's see if they start by first removing the huge benefit cheques (salaries with perks included) of all those overweight MP's whose bulging stomachs overhang their pinstripe trouser waistbands as they tuck into yet another gourmet meal subsidised by the tax-payer.

I bet they won't. :bored:

[kirklancaster]

I bet they won't. :bored:

:laugh: I'm not taking your bet Vanessa, because I know they won't. Thanks for actually reading my posts though.:hehe: