[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.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

I really take umbrage at being called a liar. Will you wager Ł1,000 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?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I really take umbrage at being called a liar. Will you wager Ł1,000 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?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

Of course not 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.

[user104658]

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 Ł100/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 Ł40 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]

Originally Posted by 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 Ł100/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 Ł40 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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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 Ł2

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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 Ł2

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.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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 Ł57pw jobseekers what would you have for tea?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by 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 Ł100/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 Ł40 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 Ł100 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 Ł50 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 Ł50- Ł100 pw on shopping, how does that relate to people on jobseekers?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yes when you're working it's easy to nip to 6 different supermarkets and spend Ł50- Ł100 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".

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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...

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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?

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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 . 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: .

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.