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.

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:

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?

Of course :p

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

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.

:laugh:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

:suspect:

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

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.

Why suspect Niamh?

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

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