[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Kizzy]

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

Quite funny this Kizzy.

[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.

[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]

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[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?

[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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 Ł900 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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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 Ł900 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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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 Ł900 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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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 Ł900 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

[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 Ł12,000 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...s-working-poor

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by 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 Ł12,000 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...s-working-poor

The sooner the Tories are out, the better.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by dezzy

the sooner the tories are out, the better.

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

[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.