# So...working for benefits



## Ashcrapper (Jul 3, 2008)

For those who haven't seen the news - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24327470



> Mr Osborne told activists: "We are saying there is no option of doing nothing for your benefits, no something for nothing any more.
> 
> "They will do useful work to put something back into their community; making meals for the elderly, clearing up litter, working for a local charity.
> 
> "Others will be made to attend the job centre every working day.


Seen a few people (coincidentally they are on benefits) saying that it is slave labour. Does that then mean that benefits are currently free money?


----------



## murphy2010 (Dec 17, 2010)

im sure if this is introduced there will be magic rise in the number of people on benefits actually getting jobs


----------



## FlunkyTurtle (Aug 5, 2013)

10000% agree with the changes. It might be seen as "slave labour" by some, but you dont get something for nothing in this world and as above, benefits should be no different.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

This will only effect the long term unemployed, ie those that have been on the dole for in excess of 9 months.

Not sure about the litter picking etc but i think certainly making people go to the job centre on a daily basis is good, but if someone lives miles away it's gonna cost them a fortune getting there and back so could be unfair. Hopefully it will force people into taking jobs that they are able to do rather than just holding out for jobs that they want to do.

I think that something needs to be done about the long term unemployed but not sure what i would suggest.


----------



## Big Kris (Aug 25, 2009)

I see no harm in this at all

It will add work to their CV, stop them dossing about all day and maybe encourage them to take a full time job

Its a win - win really


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Smitch said:


> This will only effect the long term unemployed, ie those that have been on the dole for in excess of 9 months.
> 
> Not sure about the litter picking etc but i think certainly making people go to the job centre on a daily basis is good, but if someone lives miles away it's gonna cost them a fortune getting there and back so could be unfair. Hopefully it will force people into taking jobs that they are able to do rather than just holding out for jobs that they want to do.
> 
> I think that something needs to be done about the long term unemployed but not sure what i would suggest.


IMO, if someone can get a job picking up litter, someone can do the same for their benefits.

Someone lives miles from the job centre? Get cycling or walking, they've got plenty of time on their hands.

People need to realise that we shouldn't be giving benefits out until their once in a lifetime opportunity comes along.

I have done some crap jobs in my time, I don't see why others can't also.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

The only people that will have an issue with it are the people that genuinely don't want to go to work and see the benefits system as free money, which it currently is to them.


----------



## cudsyaj (Jul 5, 2011)

My 2p and been saying it for years...

Unemployed - soft labour and community work, giving something back

Prisoners - hard labouer and graft.


----------



## Ashcrapper (Jul 3, 2008)

Smitch said:


> The only people that will have an issue with it are the people that genuinely don't want to go to work and see the benefits system as free money, which it currently is to them.


yep, pretty much my view.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

BLUE(UK) said:


> IMO, if someone can get a job picking up litter, someone can do the same for their benefits.
> 
> Someone lives miles from the job centre? Get cycling or walking, they've got plenty of time on their hands.
> 
> ...


It's a tough one, what i highlighted would effect a small minority but i think for the vast majority it will be enough of a kick up the 4rse to get them back into work before they even have to do any free labour as it will make them realise they're better off getting a sh1tty job and getting a reasonable wage than working for their dole money.


----------



## ERIC3VIKING (Jun 28, 2013)

if done properly - i agree - but there will always be the ones that wriggle out

buy smack n **** - and end up on the jeremy kyle show

stop benefits - crime shoots up

tough one to call

while some have 200 % legimate cases - its the fuk*rs that live on the benefits that we all pay for

they just dont and wont give a sh*t

threaten en with what - theyll just go out and rob more - mug old peeps - fuk*in scum buckets


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Maybe we could get them to hand-crank all the wind turbines whenever there's no breeze.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Ian_Montrose said:


> Maybe we could get them to hand-crank all the wind turbines whenever there's no breeze.


And whip the workshy mo'fo's if they ain't cranking fast enough.


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

About fvcking time.

So many people are on benefits because they love the free time. Take away the free time and they might want to work for better money than just JSA.


----------



## paul xe (Sep 24, 2011)

Also 100% agree with this. I hear a number of people on benefits can afford sky TV, a 46" plasma hanging on the wall, smoke and drink regularly, and even go on holiday abroad.

Both myself and my missus work full time and we can afford to put food on the table and a roof over our heads and support our two young children but we can't afford a holiday abroad, or to go out every weekend and drink (not that we want to)

Why should they be able to live like this and not work for a penny they get?

Make the buggers work I say. And make em work bloody hard as well!

On another note, I think benefits should be paid in vouchers only redeemable for food and utilities, not alcohol, tobacco or anything deemed a luxury.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

ERIC3VIKING said:


> if done properly - i agree - but there will always be the ones that wriggle out
> 
> buy smack n **** - and end up on the jeremy kyle show
> 
> ...


The junkies will have to go to intensive rehab things or go robbing. They'll end up with no roof over their heads unless one of them goes to the rehab thing whilst the other rats go robbing.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

I would like to see the people claiming it's slave labour get some work experience as a real slave or even a chain gain style work. They'll soon see the light.

Benefits should be seen as support for getting work. I would support people getting a few months to look for work full time, but if you can't do it in that amount of time you need some life experience and start paying your way sonny jim.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

BLUE(UK) said:


> And whip the workshy mo'fo's if they ain't cranking fast enough.


I bet some people (Mail readers especially) would pay good money for the chance to whip some dole scroungers. There's an extra profit stream right there.


----------



## Ballin (Aug 24, 2011)

I don't see how anyone can possibly object to these reforms.

Long term unemployed should have to "earn" the money. I do not even think they have to work per say, as attending training courses or getting involved in other sorts of community involvement will improve their prospects whether they like it or not.

Just seen a woman bleating on Sky that she can't get a job with a law degree because she is being discriminated against cos of her age (she couldn't have been 35) and was saying that people her age should be leading the way to the new generation. What a load of bull. Ability should be based on merit not age and therefore I suggest she should re-evaluate her life as clearly she is suffering with delusions of grandeur.

I am sure most of us have paid their dues with crap jobs in order to get oppurtunties further down the line, I know I have. It irks me off that students (having been one myself) expect a job on 30k a year just because they have a piece of paper or people, such as the woman above, who just expect something to be handed to them with no real effort. If she really was that good she would have been snapped up.


----------



## Zola (Mar 14, 2012)

Great to see something being done. But they spout this ****e every year. Will it actually be enforced? Probably not.

Anyone with a disability who can't work obviously wont be affected.

Those lazy ****es that wont work because they're too lazy should be hit very hard and forced to earn their money.

The government is fsr too much if a soft touch to actually cut off peoples benefits.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

start the worst offenders on the ****test jobs and the worst pay, if they do a decent works graft, they get a slightly easier job and slightly more money.

Do this enough times and they will learn the hard work to reward correlation we all learn the tough way earlier in life. By the time they've gone up enough rungs to earn the same benefits they were on they've got enough life and people skills to get a job that pays more than benefits so they can leave and not go back.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

It wont happened. It's just to win votes.

From what I heard this morning they will only have to do some work as a very very last resort.

Great idea, but the government don't have the balls to implement it properly.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Yes, it's a good idea as I'm sure we all know some of these 'career' unemployed people. What amazes me though is where they get the money from to spend on booze & ****?

JSA's about £60 ew or something, so how do they afford their "lifestyle"?

However this statement is pure bollox:

"And for those with underlying problems, like drug addiction and illiteracy, there will be an intensive regime of support. No-one will be ignored or left without help."

The support & treatment is available, but the waiting list is years in many cases. And why isn't Alcohol included? Ofc alcohol is a legal drug more harmful than heroin...*waits for backlash*

By that I mean route of administration with Heroin, IV is a one way street often, but smoking it, isn't.

I feel that the by saying "drug addiction" he is using it to attach some sort of blame perhaps, & sounds like he wants to elicit sedition.

Just fancy words to win votes.


----------



## Ballin (Aug 24, 2011)

Also it ****es me off that these people are called unemployed....we need to use economic definitions:

Unemployed- somebody who is not working but actively seeking work

Jobless- somebody who is not working but has no intention to work

These people are jobless and this attitude is what needs to change.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Ian_Montrose said:


> Maybe we could get them to hand-crank all the wind turbines whenever there's no breeze.


On the subject of pointless pastimes, when i was at public school we used to have our detentions between 2-4 pm on a Sunday and they would make you write an essay on a subject something like the inside of a ping pong ball, and then after the 2 hours they would rip it up and throw it in the bin in front of you without even reading it.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

Cue them all turning up with limps and getting signed off for the work lol


----------



## murphy2010 (Dec 17, 2010)

Ive had to get job seekers for a few months (not now though got a job  ) and each time I feel depressed been sat in the same room when I can clearly see people who don't want jobs, just full of chavs with attitude


----------



## ERIC3VIKING (Jun 28, 2013)

my only concern is - whats it going to cost us all to start to enforce such schemes

great if it pans out - itll cost us triple to stop a scumbags - weeks dole money

prob sell some hash to the guy behind the counter


----------



## ERIC3VIKING (Jun 28, 2013)

jon-kent said:


> Cue them all turning up with limps and getting signed off for the work lol


stick them in the ring with jon for sparring partners

:thumbup1:

probably doped up and wouldnt feel anything


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Zola said:


> Anyone with a disability who can't work obviously wont be affected.


Why on Earth not?

There are very few who are actually disabled enough to not be able to hold down a job of some sort or another.

Those who're actually disabled would much rather have a job than not, often they don't because a lot of employers don't see their 'ability' as much as their 'disability'. For example, someone in a wheelchair could work on shop tills or a call centre or suchlike.

There are grants available to employers who need to make adjustments in the workplace for such people.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

ERIC3VIKING said:


> stick them in the ring with jon for sparring partners
> 
> :thumbup1:
> 
> probably doped up and wouldnt feel anything


As long as i get paid for it mate :lol:


----------



## jason7474utd (Oct 12, 2010)

Brilliant idea as the ones it will affect are 99% of the time the people who have never worked a day in there life and see the benifits system as a way of making a living ie - baby breeders.

Benifit scroungers do get my back up mainly because if youv never worked youll get everything thrown at you if any member of my house hold went ( all worked and paid taxes for donkeys years) we would get jsa and thats it.

Get the lazy sods to work


----------



## ERIC3VIKING (Jun 28, 2013)

paul xe said:


> Also 100% agree with this. I hear a number of people on benefits can afford sky TV, a 46" plasma hanging on the wall, smoke and drink regularly, and even go on holiday abroad.
> 
> Both myself and my missus work full time and we can afford to put food on the table and a roof over our heads and support our two young children but we can't afford a holiday abroad, or to go out every weekend and drink (not that we want to)
> 
> ...


nice idea

utility vouchers etc

try inserting one of them into your pound gas meter lol


----------



## ERIC3VIKING (Jun 28, 2013)

jon-kent said:


> As long as i get paid for it mate :lol:


more chicken vouchers for you

:cool2:


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

ERIC3VIKING said:


> more chicken vouchers for you
> 
> :cool2:


 :lol:


----------



## HAWKUS (Jan 11, 2012)

Stop benefits and crimes levels will rise its obvious.


----------



## Zola (Mar 14, 2012)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Why on Earth not?
> 
> There are very few who are actually disabled enough to not be able to hold down a job of some sort or another.
> 
> ...


I was meaning more mental disabilities etc. Of course physically and some mentally disabled people can work, its finding the suitable solution that is tricky in a lot of cases.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Why on Earth not?
> 
> There are very few who are actually disabled enough to not be able to hold down a job of some sort or another.
> 
> ...


One of our top techies is disabled, has to walk with a stick after a very nasty car accident when he was younger.

His disability doesn't affect his technical abilities at all, i'm sure he could also work in a call centre or a similar not physical job like most other disabled people could if he didn't have his current skill set.


----------



## paul xe (Sep 24, 2011)

HAWKUS said:


> Stop benefits and crimes levels will rise its obvious.


Very true. They will have to try and find income from somewhere and crime is an obvious easy answer.

That's why I believe a voucher scheme to be a good alternative answer.


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

I was on Jobseekers for 3 months, spent hours every day applying for every job under the sun - there's FVCK all out there.

Finally managed to get myself an 8 hour contract at a retail shop after 3 months of searching and countless interviews. The job search sites sometimes show how many applications they receive for the advertised job, and non-specialist jobs receive well over 200 applications per position.

It's not easy to get back on your feet starting from nothing, even if you're willing to work in literally ANY industry.


----------



## Mr_Socko (Sep 18, 2009)

Leeds89 said:


> I was on Jobseekers for 3 months, spent hours every day applying for every job under the sun - there's FVCK all out there.
> 
> Finally managed to get myself an 8 hour contract at a retail shop after 3 months of searching and countless interviews. The job search sites sometimes show how many applications they receive for the advertised job, and non-specialist jobs receive well over 200 applications per position.
> 
> It's not easy to get back on your feet starting from nothing, even if you're willing to work in literally ANY industry.


The argument here isn't that it's easy to get a job, it's that there's nothing stopping most people doing something to build their skills and contribute to the economy until they find one.

If I was unemployed I'd be contacting companies to volunteer as much as possible whilst looking for paid work so there's at least something on the CV.


----------



## BoxerJay (Jan 11, 2011)

Some of the neanderthal delinquents I see regularly outside the Job Centres in Liverpool aren't capable to doing anything useful or meaningful full stop, let alone working. You try to get them to make meals or pick up litter then they will just do the absolute bare minimum or find a way to hurt themselves to get out of it. They don't want to work full stop and won't, will probably just turn to (more) crime if there benefits where to be stopped.

Only use for them is grinding them up into dog meat lol


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

Mr_Socko said:


> The argument here isn't that it's easy to get a job, it's that there's nothing stopping most people doing something to build their skills and contribute to the economy until they find one.
> 
> If I was unemployed I'd be contacting companies to volunteer as much as possible whilst looking for paid work so there's at least something on the CV.


So you'd part with your money to travel to volunteer when you already can barely feed yourself?

And to claim JSA you're meant to Jobseek for 6 hours a day minimum.

Somehow I think you're talking out your @ss mate sorry.

I'm all for forcing benefit scroungers into work, but there's plenty of genuine people in the system who have paid their tax into the government only to be shafted by schemes like this.

Edit: also, I was offered some of these "courses" by the job centre, but my advisor told me herself they are useless and employers don't care about them in the slightest.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ian_Montrose said:


> I bet some people (Mail readers especially) would pay good money for the chance to whip some dole scroungers. There's an extra profit stream right there.


Where do I sign up?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

I agree some of these people have no life skills whatsoever, no social skills & their belief system is seriously flawed.

Some of them although physically & mentally capable would just not be of any use at all.

So, I have a suggestion..!!! :lol:


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

essexboy said:


> Where do I sign up?


Whip 'em with your Hitler stick.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Whip 'em with your Hitler stick.


Be nice to dust off the SS Officers uniform too.............


----------



## Mr_Socko (Sep 18, 2009)

Leeds89 said:


> So you'd part with your money to travel to volunteer when you already can barely feed yourself?


No, walking is free where I live.


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

Mr_Socko said:


> No, walking is free where I live.


I find it difficult to believe you would walk upwards of 5 miles each way (what they wanted me to do) to work for free.


----------



## alan1971 (Mar 30, 2012)

lets face it, the tories are coming out with this bollox now coz elections are coming, so they got to get peoples votes,so time to divide and conquer.

personally if people are working for there benefits, then surely they are taking away a full time job opportunity for someone tohave a full time job earn some decent money.


----------



## Mr_Socko (Sep 18, 2009)

Leeds89 said:


> I find it difficult to believe you would walk upwards of 5 miles each way (what they wanted me to do) to work for free.


So do I. I never said I would. At times I volunteered from home using opportunities I found online, at others I walked into town (10 minute walk). This isn't about my personal circumstances mate, I'm not sure why you find it all so difficult to believe.

It's just my opinion that most unemployed people could find something constructive to do with their time, other than job searching. I'm not sure why you find that such a tough statement to take in...


----------



## Bashy (Jun 16, 2010)

In general I see to as a good way to weed out the people who are abusing the system but what does this mean for people who actually need it.

To use a personal example my old girl has been receiving some form of benefit for the past 8 or so years. Started off as a nurse and worked her way up to becoming a top screening consultant with work all across the UK, genuinely in love with her job. Herniated discs all down her spine along with fibromyalgia meant she had to give up work which almost destroyed her. She has worked all her life and it breaks my heart that someone so hardworking and talented cannot even lift a cup of tea without being in terrible pain.

Some of the processes she has been through with ATOS has been so demeaning she has been in tears most times she has to go to the job center to see if she is 'capable of work'. Does this mean she will be expected to go to the job center 'every working day' or 'pick up litter'?


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

I agree it's a good idea

However it is slave labour name me one man on here who would work all week for £70.90 cos that's pretty much what you get a week for job seekers

Break down for example my sister gets £169.

Per fortnight

£20.00 gas and electric

50.00 a week on shopping

Clothes for the kids

Now she has to go out work ...no money left for child care

No one would want to work for that she's going to be in minus figures every week


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

mrssalvatore said:


> I agree it's a good idea
> 
> However it is slave labour name me one man on here who would work all week for £70.90 cos that's pretty much what you get a week for job seekers
> 
> ...


I think that's the idea


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

It's a very good idea I think, a lot of people seem to think they have a god given right to not work and get helped out in so many ways. I'm 21 and I've been on the dole twice due to unfortunate events, but for no longer than 2 months, always found a job and I was quite picky about what type of job I wanted, so when people are saying there's no jobs about, really they just can't be bothered to look. Maybe something like this will get them to actually do something.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

mrssalvatore said:


> I agree it's a good idea
> 
> However it is slave labour name me one man on here who would work all week for £70.90


some one who gets £0 a week


----------



## Ballin (Aug 24, 2011)

2004mark said:


> I think that's the idea


LOL was just going to say that!

On a serious note when I was recruiting for 2 roles in my team if there was ever a gap on someone's CV I as told to ask why and instructed to bin anyone off who did nothing in that time to fill the void. Some, to their merit actually did charitable work or attened college etc. which is a million times better than nothing. Employers will always pick people who are proactive so it pays to dedicate a bit of time to do these things when putting together your CV.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

if its slave labour, it will lead to loads of nike and primark factories being built in the uk. less import costs and cheaper clothes and trainers for all!


----------



## Cactus87 (Mar 30, 2009)

mrssalvatore said:


> I agree it's a good idea
> 
> However it is slave labour name me one man on here who would work all week for £70.90 cos that's pretty much what you get a week for job seekers
> 
> ...


I think the point is if a man (just to go along with what you put) is not working why should he be getting payed?


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

mrssalvatore said:


> I agree it's a good idea
> 
> However it is slave labour name me one man on here who would work all week for £70.90 cos that's pretty much what you get a week for job seekers
> 
> ...


the people making them clothes are prob on a pound a week,saw a programme on it the other

day,theres always someone worse off than you,i always remind myself this.

Only thieves get stuff for free!


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Cactus87 said:


> I think the point is if a man (just to go along with what you put) is not working why should he be getting payed?


What about the example of the person (e.g. myself) who has worked all his adult life and paid taxes and NI on the understanding that he was contributing to a system that would be there to support him should he ever fall on hard times? Being forced to sit in a job centre all day or pick up litter was not part of the original deal.

More to the point, how much is Cameron proposing this scheme will save me in future tax and NI contributions? I doubt he has said and I'll bet the reality is not one single penny. Knowing the way our country is run, I'd wager the administration of any work-for-benefits system will cost more than it saves and the only winners will be the private companies that get awarded the management contracts.


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

I said it was a good fcuking idea!!! Jeeez


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

mal said:


> the people making them clothes are prob on a pound a week,saw a programme on it the other
> 
> day,theres always someone worse off than you,i always remind myself this.
> 
> Only thieves get stuff for free!


And that's in countries where a pound will buy you a weeks worth of food and pay your rent .


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Cactus87 said:


> I think the point is if a man (just to go along with what you put) is not working why should he be getting payed?


And if the man is a single parent should he still have to do it ?


----------



## Ballin (Aug 24, 2011)

Ian_Montrose said:


> What about the example of the person (e.g. myself) who has worked all his adult life and paid taxes and NI on the understanding that he was contributing to a system that would be there to support him should he ever fall on hard times? Being forced to sit in a job centre all day or pick up litter was not part of the original deal.
> 
> More to the point, how much is Cameron proposing this scheme will save me in future tax and NI contributions? I doubt he has said and I'll bet the reality is not one single penny. Knowing the way our country is run, I'd wager the administration of any work-for-benefits system will cost more than it saves and the only winners will be the private companies that get awarded the management contracts.


They still will be- I doubt it would take most people more than 9 months to find any sort of employment. I could argue me having to work whilst my feckless neighbour watches Sky TV and drinks beer wasn't part of the deal as those able should be contriubuting to society.

It will cost more money to implement at the start of course but the attitude of "I am owed a living" needs to be stamped out- in the long term it could save money but I agree I think this policy will open a can of worms. The way I am choosing to look at it, probably through rose tinted glasses admittedly, is I'd rather pay £110 out if there was an improvement being made in the community whether that be the road being clear of litter or there being more community schemes than pay £100 to some chav to get drunk.


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

Mr_Socko said:


> So do I. I never said I would. At times I volunteered from home using opportunities I found online, at others I walked into town (10 minute walk). This isn't about my personal circumstances mate, I'm not sure why you find it all so difficult to believe.
> 
> It's just my opinion that most unemployed people could find something constructive to do with their time, other than job searching. I'm not sure why you find that such a tough statement to take in...


I apologies if I came across confrontational. Having to deal with this useless system for months on end has left me with the belief that they can do NOTHING right and will only end up hurting genuinely needy people.

Useless government mate, the lot of them


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

I think its a good idea...as long as they are not working full time hours for 80 quid a week or what ever they get paid


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

Some fool on jeremy kyle the other morning said he was getting two hundred and something a fortnight off the dole !!! I nearly spat my drink over my disability allowance form !


----------



## Radioactive Man (Mar 7, 2013)

I find it a good idea, as long as they do not put people in big multi national companies, so that they are able to sack half their work force for free labour. The councils are struggling in alot of cases. My street could do with some cleaning, making the streets snow free when its heavily snowing, clean the crap from the walls on historical buildings etc. Basically giving back to their community. I'm getting pretty annoyed at the deadbeat alcoholic next door that gets everything for free. 32 years on the dole and still bragging how he will never work.

They said they want to cap it to the maximum of £500 a week? WTF? How are people managing to get that amount of money? Thats double the wage I get... yet I am on 50 hour work week.


----------



## Southern Karate Guy (Feb 27, 2014)

mrssalvatore said:


> I agree it's a good idea
> 
> However it is slave labour name me one man on here who would work all week for £70.90 cos that's pretty much what you get a week for job seekers
> 
> ...


i had a full time job( low pay) a cleaning job and a paper round to support my family while those living around me did nothing


----------



## Southern Karate Guy (Feb 27, 2014)

Its not easy getting a job to be fair and when you have been long term unemployed its even harder.

when i broke my knee i couldnt work as a baker anymore and i got pretty depressed , i stayed at home with our kids and my wife went back to work.

When i did ask about retraining i was told i had to have been unemployed for over six months, even though id been off sick for several years .

In the end i blagged my way onto a disabled persons retraining course and did some office training.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

Radioactive Man said:


> I find it a good idea, as long as they do not put people in big multi national companies, so that they are able to sack half their work force for free labour. The councils are struggling in alot of cases. My street could do with some cleaning, making the streets snow free when its heavily snowing, clean the crap from the walls on historical buildings etc. Basically giving back to their community. I'm getting pretty annoyed at the deadbeat alcoholic next door that gets everything for free. 32 years on the dole and still bragging how he will never work.
> 
> They said they want to cap it to the maximum of £500 a week? WTF? How are people managing to get that amount of money? Thats double the wage I get... yet I am on 50 hour work week.


They don't get that amount of money mate, not in their hand anyway.

They get their rent, council tax paid. Then they get the money to live on which is jsa then they get child benefit if they have kids. So what the gov are saying is that with all this put together they are going to cap it at 500.

I worked all mine out and I don't get 500, does that mean the gov will make my money up to 500? That would be nice. I work for the same amount I could get off jsa. Now that takes the p1ss lol


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

It's not just 70 quid a week though is it. Add in the 60 quid-70 quid for rent and you get 140 quid a week. That there getting ATM for fk all. Then 80 quid a month council tax.

The fact that's 20 hours wages to me really fks me off.

It should be 20 hours of work a week. Also single mums should be made to do some sort of labour, babies should not be used for cash / to get out of ever contributing to society.

When your working a 40 hour week for around minimum wage 200 quid.

It's wrong that your not actually earning more money than you would be for laying in bed smashing your Chavy girlfriend and producing babies until the 25th hour of work you do.

They shouldn't do 40 hours though as that's rediculous and I personally would refuse to do it


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

I draw the line when it comes to mums. I don't think they should be *made* to work. If you have kids then you should look after them imo


----------



## MrM (Feb 6, 2012)

I'd like to see it capped at £1000 a month including rent - I appreciate its a miserable ****ty thing to say but I know plenty of folk who work and take home not much more.

Disabled and unable to work should be treated differently.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

cas said:


> I draw the line when it comes to mums. I don't think they should be *made* to work. If you have kids then you should look after them imo


People are having kids now for money. Last thing we need is more chavs breeding to "get out of work init"

I'm sure they could find a sitter 1 or 2 days a week


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

MrM said:


> I'd like to see it capped at £1000 a month including rent - I appreciate its a miserable ****ty thing to say but I know plenty of folk who work and take home not much more.
> 
> Disabled and unable to work should be treated differently.


Yeah but these people that only earn 1k a month would get help with their bills if they have a partner and kids


----------



## MrM (Feb 6, 2012)

cas said:


> Yeah but these people that only earn 1k a month would get help with their bills if they have a partner and kids


Not sure I get your point


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

MrM said:


> Not sure I get your point


My point is people wouldn't beable to live. Add your bills up and tell me if you could live on 1k.

Rent

Tax

Gas

Leccy

Petrol, car tax, mot

Food

Kids uniforms, clothes shoes etc

Tv licence

Hair cuts

Bithdays, xmas

All adds up man


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 9, 2012)

Smitch said:


> On the subject of pointless pastimes, when i was at public school we used to have our detentions between 2-4 pm on a Sunday and they would make you write an essay on a subject something like the inside of a ping pong ball, and then after the 2 hours they would rip it up and throw it in the bin in front of you without even reading it.


 :lol: That sounds exactly like my school! Not that I ever had a detention of course :whistling:


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> :lol: That sounds exactly like my school! Not that I ever had a detention of course :whistling:


Could you tell me more about your school days please Jo. If you have any pictures that would be most helpful.


----------



## SwAn1 (Jun 4, 2012)

I'm on the streets selling brown anyway so just pass me a broom at the same time, no biggie


----------



## welbeck (Jul 23, 2010)

If you were working picking up litter or cleaning crap up shouldn't you be paid minimum wage? And who would supervise these people? You couldn't just give a chav a bin bag and set them free, they would fly away.

There are 2.5 million people unemployed, there might be 100,000 unfilled vacancies, so most people couldn't get a job even if they wanted to.

A friend of mine, an electrician with qualifications coming out of his ears can't get a job for love or money, I've never known anyone try so hard to get a job. He applied for a job as a van driver with a firm his next door neighbour works for, and didn't even get a look in (he played down his qualifications saying he was an electricians mate), he later found out there was over 800 applicants.

It's all about winning votes, the unemployed are an easy target to divert the attention away that the country is so fxxked up, everybody is hurting paying higher taxes it's all too easy turning the working people against the unemployed.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

gycraig said:


> People are having kids now for money. Last thing we need is more chavs breeding to "get out of work init"
> 
> I'm sure they could find a sitter 1 or 2 days a week


I'm sure there are plenty of trained childminders who're out of work who'd be able to look after the peoples kids whilst mummy goes on her 6hr litter pick.

I think they should do 2 x 3hr shifts so they don't get a break.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

welbeck said:


> If you were working picking up litter or cleaning crap up shouldn't you be paid minimum wage? And who would supervise these people? You couldn't just give a chav a bin bag and set them free, they would fly away.
> 
> There are 2.5 million people unemployed, there might be 100,000 unfilled vacancies, so most people couldn't get a job even if they wanted to.
> 
> ...


They could have those who perform be supervisors, supervisors get preferential treatment when any jobs come up.

Your friend could end up with a more diverse range of experience from his experiences with such a scheme.


----------



## SwAn1 (Jun 4, 2012)

welbeck said:


> If you were working picking up litter or cleaning crap up shouldn't you be paid minimum wage? And who would supervise these people? You couldn't just give a chav a bin bag and set them free, they would fly away.
> 
> There are 2.5 million people unemployed, there might be 100,000 unfilled vacancies, so most people couldn't get a job even if they wanted to.
> 
> ...


Weird that my mates a sparky got made redundant after 16 years he isn't even fully qualified and walked into a job, I have a sparky on my facebook offering out work left right and centre, I suggest your friend looks at moving locations or becomes self employed. I saw a sparky the other day self employed chav to fcuk and was pulling 60k per year I saw his books.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

cas said:


> My point is people wouldn't beable to live. Add your bills up and tell me if you could live on 1k.
> 
> Rent
> 
> ...


I personally supported myself and a partner for 6 months on 1100 a month.

My opinion is if you can't afford to have kids you shouldn't have any. A lot less people would have kids at 18 etc if they knew they would have to pay for them.

I live In grimsby just about the worst unemployment place in the country and managed to get 9 different jobs in 3 years with no qualifications. Had 3 jobs at once etc.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

BLUE(UK) said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of trained childminders who're out of work who'd be able to look after the peoples kids whilst mummy goes on her 6hr litter pick.
> 
> I think they should do 2 x 3hr shifts so they don't get a break.


Good point 2 birds one stone


----------



## tioc (Jul 16, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of trained childminders who're out of work who'd be able to look after the peoples kids whilst mummy goes on her 6hr litter pick.
> 
> I think they should do 2 x 3hr shifts so they don't get a break.


trained childminders are about £20 quid an hour, the process to get registered takes time and money for local authority accreditation, whos paying for all this so your single mum can pick up litter. Whole thing id tory propagnda to get headlines in the papers and pander to the right wing ****wits who think ukip are a political party.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

tioc said:


> trained childminders are about £20 quid an hour, the process to get registered takes time and money for local authority accreditation, whos paying for all this so your single mum can pick up litter. Whole thing id tory propagnda to get headlines in the papers and pander to the right wing ****wits who think ukip are a political party.


How many kids can a child minder look after ? I wouldn't mind if the cost of the child care cost as much as the work should of cost if it means my money is going towards nice clean streets, no graffiti etc rather than for someone to breed.

20 quid an hour for a child minder ? Iv never seen a child minder earning 800 quid a week.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 9, 2012)

latblaster said:


> Could you tell me more about your school days please Jo. If you have any pictures that would be most helpful.


You really don't want to see photos of me at school. I had train track braces and really bad hair :lol:


----------



## DeskSitter (Jan 28, 2013)

Glad their putting an end to Labour's benefits class


----------



## welbeck (Jul 23, 2010)

SwAn1 said:


> Weird that my mates a sparky got made redundant after 16 years he isn't even fully qualified and walked into a job, I have a sparky on my facebook offering out work left right and centre, I suggest your friend looks at moving locations or becomes self employed. I saw a sparky the other day self employed chav to fcuk and was pulling 60k per year I saw his books.


My next door neighbour qualified as a sparky about 3 years ago and went self employed and just couldn't make it pay, he works in a call centre now.

We live in the sticks and there just isn't the work, all 3 of us live 5 houses apart. My mate has been working away for about the last 15 years and the 2 firms he worked for have shed most of their labour. His brother has just started work in Abu Dhabi and hopefully he'll get him a job, so he's not round my house most days feeling sorry for himself.


----------



## tioc (Jul 16, 2013)

gycraig said:


> How many kids can a child minder look after ? I wouldn't mind if the cost of the child care cost as much as the work should of cost if it means my money is going towards nice clean streets, no graffiti etc rather than for someone to breed.
> 
> 20 quid an hour for a child minder ? Iv never seen a child minder earning 800 quid a week.


 Seemingly Scotland is second only to London in childcare costs, my missus is registered with our council and its a feking nightmare but thats a different story, and she charges between £20 - 30 an hour and gets it no problem, not all day everyday but enough for a decent living mate.

The problem with this proposal is it hasnt been costed out, it'll be farmed out to some private company with back door links to the tory party and it'll end up being a complete **** up. The aim of getting rid of the culture of entitlement which has grown in recent years is a good one, I just dont think making long term unemployed pick up rubbish is the way to do it, get them trained to do something so they can contribute to society.


----------



## SwAn1 (Jun 4, 2012)

welbeck said:


> My next door neighbour qualified as a sparky about 3 years ago and went self employed and just couldn't make it pay, he works in a call centre now.
> 
> We live in the sticks and there just isn't the work, all 3 of us live 5 houses apart. My mate has been working away for about the last 15 years and the 2 firms he worked for have shed most of their labour. His brother has just started work in Abu Dhabi and hopefully he'll get him a job, so he's not round my house most days feeling sorry for himself.


Fair enough I'm in a town not a city but yeah looking for electricians jobs etc out in the sticks isn't going to be easy, he needs to try and move locations if he can. Not always that easy I know having never moved in my life lol


----------



## DeskSitter (Jan 28, 2013)

tioc said:


> trained childminders are about £20 quid an hour, the process to get registered takes time and money for local authority accreditation, whos paying for all this so your single mum can pick up litter. Whole thing id tory propagnda to get headlines in the papers and pander to the right wing ****wits who think ukip are a political party.


Yeah I'm one of those **** wits mate. What is wrong with people like you I'll never understand? Was daddy a miner?


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

brilliant idea- i'd limit the time you can claim benefits for without having contributed, no NI payments made , no benefit. If people from other countries can come over here and find work it tells you theres jobs but too many believe that there above doing some kinds of work.


----------



## welbeck (Jul 23, 2010)

SwAn1 said:


> He needs to try and move locations if he can. Not always that easy I know having never moved in my life lol


Almost impossible while unemployed, financially out of most peoples reach.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

It will never happen!


----------



## tioc (Jul 16, 2013)

DeskSitter said:


> Yeah I'm one of those **** wits mate. What is wrong with people like you I'll never understand? Was daddy a miner?


So you support a party on the lunatic fringe of the right wing and theres meant to be something wrong with me ? Thank for the concern over "daddys " career but its cool he sold his business and is in spain now living it up, I'm sure he'll be pleased you took the time to ask after him :thumbup1:


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

tioc said:


> Seemingly Scotland is second only to London in childcare costs, my missus is registered with our council and its a feking nightmare but thats a different story, and she charges between £20 - 30 an hour and gets it no problem, not all day everyday but enough for a decent living mate.
> 
> The problem with this proposal is it hasnt been costed out, it'll be farmed out to some private company with back door links to the tory party and it'll end up being a complete **** up. The aim of getting rid of the culture of entitlement which has grown in recent years is a good one, I just dont think making long term unemployed pick up rubbish is the way to do it, get them trained to do something so they can contribute to society.


See not many people here could to even pay a child kinder 10 quid an hour never mind 20


----------



## SwAn1 (Jun 4, 2012)

lukeee said:


> It will never happen!


Correct, and tbf it wouldn't make any difference anyway the government have already implemented the help to buy scheme, keeping property prices above what they should be and creating a new housing bubble time bomb, they fcuk everything up everytime


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

Some strong opinions here majority seems for....I'm against it!!! I think it's not so simple and I'm tired of ppl being pigeon holed. Yes the system sucks and yes there are some who abuse the system and I think they are the ones who should be dealt with however inevitably there are genuine ppl stuck in the system too. And all this ' well any work is better than none' and 'scumbag job seekers' 'chavvy mums' sounds like some of u assume this is what is filling the system..it isn't so. Those of u wanting people to do charity work just because it means they will be doing 'something' what nonsense it makes no difference whatsoever charity work is a personal thing, I do loads and I work I have friends who work and wouldn't dream of doing it because its not their thing. Forcing someone to do a job just because they are out of work doesn't work for everyone. A 20 year old with no cv no work experience no skills maybe he will but a 57 year old also claiming JSA because he was laid off from the job he worked for 30 yrs he's not going to just do 'anything' and why should he. I'm not saying there arnt some who need looking at....but most of u have a pretty 1 dimensional view of who is claiming benefits. And out of interest how many of u do charity work??? Because it wasn't designed for unemployed it was designed for charitable people and if u haven't ever or wouldn't ...don't expect other to.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Skye666 said:


> Some strong opinions here majority seems for....I'm against it!!! I think it's not so simple and I'm tired of ppl being pigeon holed. Yes the system sucks and yes there are some who abuse the system and I think they are the ones who should be dealt with however inevitably there are genuine ppl stuck in the system too. And all this ' well any work is better than none' and 'scumbag job seekers' 'chavvy mums' sounds like some of u assume this is what is filling the system..it isn't so. Those of u wanting people to do charity work just because it means they will be doing 'something' what nonsense it makes no difference whatsoever charity work is a personal thing, I do loads and I work I have friends who work and wouldn't dream of doing it because its not their thing. Forcing someone to do a job just because they are out of work doesn't work for everyone. A 20 year old with no cv no work experience no skills maybe he will but a 57 year old also claiming JSA because he was laid off from the job he worked for 30 yrs he's not going to just do 'anything' and why should he. I'm not saying there arnt some who need looking at....but most of u have a pretty 1 dimensional view of who is claiming benefits. And out of interest how many of u do charity work??? Because it wasn't designed for unemployed it was designed for charitable people and if u haven't ever or wouldn't ...don't expect other to.


Someone just out of work isn't 'long term unemployed' as is what the whole thing is about.

If someone choses not to do it, remove their benefits.


----------



## DeskSitter (Jan 28, 2013)

tioc said:


> So you support a party on the lunatic fringe of the right wing and theres meant to be something wrong with me ? Thank for the concern over "daddys " career but its cool he sold his business and is in spain now living it up, I'm sure he'll be pleased you took the time to ask after him :thumbup1:


Well isn't' that nice, and he has Blair's slave labour immigration policy to thank for that. Will daddy be thinking of the Slovaks, Lithuanians and Romanians that built his business while he's sitting their oiled up and roasting in the hot sun?


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

gycraig said:


> I personally supported myself and a partner for 6 months on 1100 a month.
> 
> My opinion is if you can't afford to have kids you shouldn't have any. A lot less people would have kids at 18 etc if they knew they would have to pay for them.
> 
> I live In grimsby just about the worst unemployment place in the country and managed to get 9 different jobs in 3 years with no qualifications. Had 3 jobs at once etc.


I resent it when people say if you can't afford kids then don't have them. You know this is the uk, not a 3rd world country, don't you? Comments like that are so ignorant

I had kids and then got laid off, circumstances change. No one can help that. Although tbf I have a job now.

I know its probably a lot different where you live, people popping out kids all over the place and living off child benefit. But its not like that across the country.

How was your life while only on 1.1k and not getting any handouts? Did you live comfortably?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Shall we talk about the Miners then...& how dear Margaret devastated many Welsh Towns, & coz of the fact that all those people knew was mining, lived miles from anywhere

they never got another job & lived utterly miserable lives on "the dole"!

These were & are people whose lives were ruined. Yea, bunch of scroungers, eh?!!!

@Bashy

@cuggster


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Someone just out of work isn't 'long term unemployed' as is what the whole thing is about.
> 
> If someone choses not to do it, remove their benefits.


Don't understand ur comment?? The title says working for benefit..iv explained how 'that' is not so black and white, and I have referred to how most of the comments have pigeon holed the system. So ur point is??


----------



## Zola (Mar 14, 2012)

That was ****ing decades ago though...not too many miners in the city, just milions of chav ****s with no ambition.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Skye666 said:


> Don't understand ur comment?? The title says working for benefit..iv explained how 'that' is not so black and white, and I have referred to how most of the comments have pigeon holed the system. So ur point is??





BBC:page1 said:


> Those who had not found work after two years on the existing Work Programme - where contractors are paid a fee to get people into a job - will face a new scheme called help-to-work.


Did you read the opening post and link?


----------



## shaunmac (Aug 13, 2010)

I personally think that they should be given 1 day a weeks work, doing jobs like council work etc.

BUT I think they should get paid for an honest days work for doing so.

I don't agree with people rinsing on the dole. I work shifts full time, but think that saying you're not going to get paid could end up bad, and the council could end up sacking some members and getting dole workers in at a cost of zero. Therefore making people unemployed.


----------



## DeskSitter (Jan 28, 2013)

cas said:


> But its not like that across the country.


Is round my way. Should I doubt what I see and hear every ****ing day of my life and believe the left wing BBC instead?


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

All political parties are w&nk, doesnt matter whether you vote tory, labour, lib dems or the monster fcuking loony party they are all in it for themselves so all those blaming this party or that party may just as well go and pi$$ in the wind!

No one has given me anything so i look after myself and the people i care about and i dont blame others for anything as i dont expect anything from anyone!


----------



## tioc (Jul 16, 2013)

lukeee said:


> All political parties are w&nk, doesnt matter whether you vote tory, labour, lib dems or the monster fcuking loony party they are all in it for themselves so all those blaming this party or that party may just as well go and pi$$ in the wind!
> 
> No one has given me anything so i look after myself and the people i care about and i dont blame others for anything as i dont expect anything from anyone!


This is the attitude thats missing in my opion, too many people wanting something for nothing not enough standing on their own two feet and supporting themselves and their families, training and education will help people into work not forcing them to do menial jobs.

@DeskSitter dont let your petty prejudices form your image, my ol' man sold up before Blair was elected leader never mind PM. He employed people all his days but still managed to abhor ****wits like Ukip, its easy to blame others for this countries woes the pity is most of them come from the native population not from immigrants.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

I am not on benefits and don't agree with it. Probably just another way for mp's to use people for below minimum wage. Wouldn't surprise me if it happens there is a drop in the sort of jobs the dossers are put on. What they need to do is make working genuinely worth while compared to benefits. Would be interested to know the comparison between a family with 1 stay at one parent and 1 working minimum wage and paying rent council tax etc and 2 dossers that get it all paid for. I don't think the family working would be that much better off in most cases and this is why so many are happy to be out of work


----------



## DeskSitter (Jan 28, 2013)

tioc said:


> This is the attitude thats missing in my opion, too many people wanting something for nothing not enough standing on their own two feet and supporting themselves and their families, training and education will help people into work not forcing them to do menial jobs.
> 
> @DeskSitter dont let your petty prejudices form your image, my ol' man sold up before Blair was elected leader never mind PM. He employed people all his days but still managed to abhor ****wits like Ukip, its easy to blame others for this countries woes the pity is most of them come from the native population not from immigrants.


You're a socialist and the socialists bring the standard down into the ****ing gutter. Something for nothing is the labour party manifesto, how on earth do you have the nerve to come out with that ****e? I'd very much like to know a bit about you mate? Do you have a religious background? Just curious. What's your dads business?


----------



## tioc (Jul 16, 2013)

lol, no mate no socialist nor religious just a realist, extremes just cause strife, be it far left or right dont have any time for them, you seem to be mixing my dislike of right wing as a liking for left wing, truth be told I dislike them just as much :001_tt2:


----------



## frenchpress (Nov 22, 2012)

It won't work. Too many people forget that council houses aren't where jobs are, and you can't move from say a council house in Liverpool down to a council house in Portsmouth if there is work in Portsmouth but no work in Liverpool. If you asked, you'd be at the very bottom of the priority list for council housing!


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Im completely on board with this. So long as the wage matches national minimum wage. Whats the dole these days? £60 a week? Thats like 9 hours minimum wage. 9 hours of work for their dole is great plan. 40 hours work for £60 a week is criminal.


----------



## frenchpress (Nov 22, 2012)

husky said:


> brilliant idea- i'd limit the time you can claim benefits for without having contributed, no NI payments made , no benefit. If people from other countries can come over here and find work it tells you theres jobs but too many believe that there above doing some kinds of work.


You've gotta remember that for an Eastern European doing a **** job here, it gives them a very middle class salary back home. They get far far far more for their money because they exploit the exchange rates and different values. When you get foreign qualified doctors, dentists and pilots working as HCAs in the UK its not because they are harder working than the average Brit, its because they'll take home more to their country of origin than they'd earn being a doctor or a dentist over there.

Foreigners aren't more hard working than British people, they work hard because they get far more in real terms than any British person would get.


----------



## James s (Sep 18, 2010)

IGotTekkers said:


> Im completely on board with this. So long as the wage matches national minimum wage. Whats the dole these days? £60 a week? Thats like 9 hours minimum wage. 9 hours of work for their dole is great plan. 40 hours work for £60 a week is criminal.


Pretty much this.


----------



## frenchpress (Nov 22, 2012)

paul xe said:


> Also 100% agree with this. I hear a number of people on benefits can afford sky TV, a 46" plasma hanging on the wall, smoke and drink regularly, and even go on holiday abroad.
> 
> Both myself and my missus work full time and we can afford to put food on the table and a roof over our heads and support our two young children but we can't afford a holiday abroad, or to go out every weekend and drink (not that we want to)
> 
> ...


I here that the grass is greener on the other side...

And to be fair, if you knew and genuinely believed that if you went on 'benefits' you'd get all that (and you don't have that now), you'd be bloody stupid not to sack off your job and go on benefits.

Too many people say 'those benefit scroungers have so much more than me', but they certainly wouldn't put their money where their mouth is!


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

cas said:


> I resent it when people say if you can't afford kids then don't have them. You know this is the uk, not a 3rd world country, don't you? Comments like that are so ignorant
> 
> I had kids and then got laid off, circumstances change. No one can help that. Although tbf I have a job now.
> 
> ...


You got laid off then found another job. The benefits system is a SUPPORT network for emergencies it isn't meant to be a lifestyle.

My lifestyle on 1.1k was Decent I stayed in a nice little shared house drove a car ate nice food. Was hardly bread line.

I work in a phone shop now and every single day do I get a girl who's got kids and unemployed applying for iphone 5s contracts at 42 a month, get girls who are 8 months pregnant "I can afford it now I got a kid"

Unemployed people who absolutely stink have no hygiene and absolutely no chance of landing a decent job applying for s4 contracts. Benefits shouldn't pay. For them kind of luxuries.

I delivered pizzas on a horrible council estate, saw families LIVE off pizzas they ordered every single night. No one could afford to do that on minimum to middle wage on top of bills.

Everyone will at some point fall on bad times. They shouldn't then milk it for all it's width though.

You should get benefits like you do now for first 6 months then be given some sort of labour.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

Skye666 said:


> Some strong opinions here majority seems for....I'm against it!!! I think it's not so simple and I'm tired of ppl being pigeon holed. Yes the system sucks and yes there are some who abuse the system and I think they are the ones who should be dealt with however inevitably there are genuine ppl stuck in the system too. And all this ' well any work is better than none' and 'scumbag job seekers' 'chavvy mums' sounds like some of u assume this is what is filling the system..it isn't so. Those of u wanting people to do charity work just because it means they will be doing 'something' what nonsense it makes no difference whatsoever charity work is a personal thing, I do loads and I work I have friends who work and wouldn't dream of doing it because its not their thing. Forcing someone to do a job just because they are out of work doesn't work for everyone. A 20 year old with no cv no work experience no skills maybe he will but a 57 year old also claiming JSA because he was laid off from the job he worked for 30 yrs he's not going to just do 'anything' and why should he. I'm not saying there arnt some who need looking at....but most of u have a pretty 1 dimensional view of who is claiming benefits. And out of interest how many of u do charity work??? Because it wasn't designed for unemployed it was designed for charitable people and if u haven't ever or wouldn't ...don't expect other to.


To me a roof over your head and 70 quid a week in your back pocket is well worth 10-20 hours labour.

I'd of killed for anything to fill my spare time when I was unemployed for a month.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

latblaster said:


> Shall we talk about the Miners then...& how dear Margaret devastated many Welsh Towns, & coz of the fact that all those people knew was mining, lived miles from anywhere
> 
> they never got another job & lived utterly miserable lives on "the dole"!
> 
> ...


This!

People are so bloody short sighted and ignorant. So what if people on the dole buy **** and beer with it.. its their money that they are entitled to and should spend it how they like. I really dont like how the unemployed as a whole are looked down upon as scroungers and scum. Maybe some day all your jobs wont be there iether, maybe for whaetever reason you lose your house and end up in some ****hole estate miles from an affluent area. Good luck getting out of the cycle.

The people to blame and to look down upon is the government which fuels this. Its the government that builds the secluded housing estates, its the government that allows the schools in those areas to continue to fail, the government and councils that put all the poor, socialy disadvantaged people in the same place, then deprive the area of resources while spending millions on hanging plant pots in 'nice towns' and £20000 stone carvings on roundabouts.

What chance to do these "scroungers" have in life? The people arnt to blame, any of you that voted, you can blame yourselves.


----------



## MiXiN (Mar 25, 2013)

It just means that the JSA (jobseekers) fraternity will migrate and blag their way onto ESA (Sickness benefits), and that way it's easily avoided.

Just another mindless move by Mr Tefal head, AKA - David Cameron.


----------



## Loveleelady (Jan 3, 2012)

BLUE(UK) said:


> And whip the workshy mo'fo's if they ain't cranking fast enough.


lols sounds like an episode of True Blood!

Defo make them get out and work!


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2013)

Not read the whole thread but what happens to the split ar$es who churn out sprogs for fun, claim benefits and get a council house?

If I ever have the misfortune of been on job seekers again, I most certainly would work.

I don't like the fact though that some tramp is at home with her/his feet up watching jezza with a *** in her/his mouth just because they've spat out a few tiny delinquents.


----------



## JankyClown (Aug 3, 2013)

Problem is the people who go on the sicky because of an "unexplained bad back". They, as always, won't be doing fcuk all.

My neighbour who lives 3 houses down: they live in a 4 bedroom/2 bathroom house (all of the houses on the street are the same). They have 4 kids, both of them are in their 40s but look like they're in the 50s. Every thursday morning on way to work I'll see their recycle bins out on the street chocka block with cheap lager cans. They have chickens, 2 dogs and a cat or two, they don't maintain their garden whatsoever (it hasn't been mown/trimmed in over 12 months at least)... why? because they're BOTH on disability and can't be seen doing the gardening, or they might lose their money. Can afford 2+ buckets worth of lager cans a week, ****, chickens/maintenance, dogs/maintenance, and this is all on benefits. And the funny (when I say funny, I mean infuriating) thing is, the guy had the cheek to tell our mutual neighbour he doesn't look for work or go out of his way to make money, he's gotten too used to his lie-ins. ****es me off when me and the mrs are putting in 100 hours of work in between us just to fcuking afford a nice place, and this **** is on his ass, petting chickens, watching jezza and drinking lager all day. Fcuks me right off. And don't understand how someone can be fulfilled/content doing that, day in, day out.

Fcuk you Colin you diickhead!


----------



## paul xe (Sep 24, 2011)

frenchpress said:


> I here that the grass is greener on the other side...
> 
> And to be fair, if you knew and genuinely believed that if you went on 'benefits' you'd get all that (and you don't have that now), you'd be bloody stupid not to sack off your job and go on benefits.
> 
> Too many people say 'those benefit scroungers have so much more than me', but they certainly wouldn't put their money where their mouth is!


The point I'm trying to make is that all of the things I've listed are LUXURY'S, not necessities to live on. As others have pointed out, iPhone 5 contracts at £42 a month is not a necessity. This goes to show it's not me just making things up.

Where I work we run a 2 week programme for the unemployed to gain new skills to help them be in a better position for employment. We've been running it for 6 months now and have roughly 10 per group, so that's 10 new people every 2 weeks. Each and every one of them so far have smoked, with most smoking tailor mades.

How can they afford this? Why can they afford this?

Smoking, drinking etc. are not essential for living, they are luxury's (if you want to do those things!)

The benefit system should be there to help people who need it to be able to survive, not live a lazy sponging lifestyle.

As for not going on benefits myself or "putting my money where my mouth is", I love my job and so does my missus and one reason we can not afford some desirable items is a huge amount of our income goes straight out on childcare. We could quit our jobs and allow the country to pay for us and our children but A; we would probably loose our choice in where our children go to during working hours and B; they would stay at home with us, get no other child interaction and development not mixing with other children and most likely follow our poor example and sponge off of the system as well.

I, like most want the best for our children and working full time gives us the best opportunity to achieve this.


----------



## Cactus87 (Mar 30, 2009)

Ian_Montrose said:


> What about the example of the person (e.g. myself) who has worked all his adult life and paid taxes and NI on the understanding that he was contributing to a system that would be there to support him should he ever fall on hard times? Being forced to sit in a job centre all day or pick up litter was not part of the original deal.
> 
> More to the point, how much is Cameron proposing this scheme will save me in future tax and NI contributions? I doubt he has said and I'll bet the reality is not one single penny. Knowing the way our country is run, I'd wager the administration of any work-for-benefits system will cost more than it saves and the only winners will be the private companies that get awarded the management contracts.





ewen said:


> And if the man is a single parent should he still have to do it ?


You're both right and I agree with both of you. I should/could have explained better in my original post. I did mean people who just don't work because they're lazy scabs should not be getting payed anything. It's not my fault they're wasters.

There's situations where working isn't going to be possible such as single parents, disabilities etc.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

@JankyClown

Yup agree 100% mate..difference is...you have self respect, decency & live your life honestly..& healthily. 

Repped!


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

JankyClown said:


> Problem is the people who go on the sicky because of an "unexplained bad back". They, as always, won't be doing fcuk all.
> 
> My neighbour who lives 3 houses down: they live in a 4 bedroom/2 bathroom house (all of the houses on the street are the same). They have 4 kids, both of them are in their 40s but look like they're in the 50s. Every thursday morning on way to work I'll see their recycle bins out on the street chocka block with cheap lager cans. They have chickens, 2 dogs and a cat or two, they don't maintain their garden whatsoever (it hasn't been mown/trimmed in over 12 months at least)... why? because they're BOTH on disability and can't be seen doing the gardening, or they might lose their money. Can afford 2+ buckets worth of lager cans a week, ****, chickens/maintenance, dogs/maintenance, and this is all on benefits. And the funny (when I say funny, I mean infuriating) thing is, the guy had the cheek to tell our mutual neighbour he doesn't look for work or go out of his way to make money, he's gotten too used to his lie-ins. ****es me off when me and the mrs are putting in 100 hours of work in between us just to fcuking afford a nice place, and this **** is on his ass, petting chickens, watching jezza and drinking lager all day. Fcuks me right off. And don't understand how someone can be fulfilled/content doing that, day in, day out.
> 
> Fcuk you Colin you diickhead!


keeping chickens is cheaper than buying eggs. What he saves on eggs he may spend on the beer? Thats uo to him surely?


----------



## GeordieSteve (May 23, 2010)

I think it's a fantastic thing! I think most people miss out on the fact that this 'work' is mainly made up of going to the job center and doing training. Apart from that I'm quite looking forward to seeing clean streets where I live. People (normally the unemployed) say they don't get much money but that don't take into consideration the roof over their heads. If I didn't have to pay my rent and council tax I'd be bloody well off as well! My misses works 5-6 days a week, 12 hour shifts looking after people with dementia who attack her and shit themselves constantly and she comes away with about a grand a month. Show me the justice there! I normally drive through my local area scowling at people. People who have never done a days work in the lives who are constantly stood outside the pub. Yesterday I drove through grinning like a wanking jap


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Cactus87 said:


> You're both right and I agree with both of you. I should/could have explained better in my original post. I did mean people who just don't work because they're lazy scabs should not be getting payed anything. It's not my fault they're wasters.
> 
> There's situations where working isn't going to be possible such as single parents, disabilities etc.


To clarify, I hadn't noticed the 9 month qualifying period in the proposal when I posted. If I'm ever out of work for that long I'll quite happily do community service for my benefits but I'd take literally any job going rather than be unemployed for that length of time.

I still doubt the scheme will work though for a variety of reasons.


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Exactly all you blagging about mums,..... Bla bla bla they don't have to work till their child is 5 do it won't make a blind bit of difference to the system

Which by then the child will be in school!


----------



## Raw meat 1984 (Sep 17, 2008)

Zola said:


> Great to see something being done. But they spout this ****e every year. Will it actually be enforced? Probably not.
> 
> Anyone with a disability who can't work obviously wont be affected.
> 
> ...


how many of the dole dossers will all of a sudden get a bad back and cant work due to mobility issues??


----------



## MyStyle (Apr 22, 2011)

After being unemployed myself for quite a long period due to the state of the job market where I live I have mixed views on these sorts of things. I was pushed onto a scheme in which you are forced to work 37 hours a week and get £10 extra on top of your benefits. Schemes such as this ARE slave labor, there is no doubt about it. In fact a woman took this to court on the charges of slave labor and won (See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21426928).

I understand why the government run these schemes though, its to keep unemployment figures down and make themselves look better. Basically once you are on a scheme such as the one I mentioned you will be classed as in education and not unemployed, when in fact it couldn't be any further from the truth. The other part that I don't understand is why they are capable of finding so many full time 37+ hour per week jobs for people on unpaid work schemes but these jobs are not there otherwise? The whole thing is a complete shambles.

However not saying ALL government run work schemes are bad. One of the schemes they run is 6 months temp employment with minimum wage as pay which I think is great. It gets the person out the door and into the work place, gives them the confidence to get stuck in and also puts a few quid in their pocket. It was actually that exact scheme that landed me a contract in a mortgage firm.

Work schemes need to be run with the intention of helping people, not just f*cking about with unemployment/education figures for the big wigs to make themselves look like they are doing something.


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Raw meat 1984 said:


> how many of the dole dossers will all of a sudden get a bad back and cant work due to mobility issues??


But I have a bad back

My surgeon said I can't work., I have a genetic disk degenerative disease and fibromyalgia

I can't claim mobility tried over 6 times ...

It's really not every body


----------



## GeordieSteve (May 23, 2010)

Raw meat 1984 said:


> how many of the dole dossers will all of a sudden get a bad back and cant work due to mobility issues??


I suppose that's what ATOS are there to weed out, not that they've been doing a great job I hear

I hear people complaining as well that they are interviewing literally everyone as part of the 'back to work' scheme. Even people who are completely paralyzed. Surely that's the only way to do it and not discriminate? If you come in on a stretcher and can only blink responses then they're hardly going to put you forward for a roofers job


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 6, 2012)

Would be far easier to change benefits to a food allowance in the form of a weekly hamper, or a benefits card that can only be redeemed against certain products. Plus side is that it'd create more jobs to cater for it while at the same time making a life on handouts an unattractive option and forcing the feckless into work.

Crime rates might go up? Stick the underclass ****ers in prison or outsource them to a foreign prison, stops them breeding then too


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

frenchpress said:


> You've gotta remember that for an Eastern European doing a **** job here, it gives them a very middle class salary back home. They get far far far more for their money because they exploit the exchange rates and different values. When you get foreign qualified doctors, dentists and pilots working as HCAs in the UK its not because they are harder working than the average Brit, its because they'll take home more to their country of origin than they'd earn being a doctor or a dentist over there.
> 
> Foreigners aren't more hard working than British people, they work hard because they get far more in real terms than any British person would get.


I sat on my ar$e a good few years ago and got benefits for a while, cant remember the amount but was around 70 quid a week or something like that, was smoking weed 24/7,wasted everyday, doing zero with my life-why-because it was easy, no pressure to get a job, no NEED to get a job,thats the route of the problem here in the UK.

I got up one day and decided i wanted to work and ended up taken a part time job in a shop for minimal wage that worked out that it was costing me to work with travel expenses and food but i still done it.

As for foreigners, dont tell me its because the money they earn here gives them a better standard of living back home , they live here, they dont commute every day , they pay the same expenses we do, difference is they want to work and will do jobs most lazy uk people look down their noses at and think its beneath them- i've shovelled cow **** just to provide for myself because at that time it was the only job out there.


----------



## Fortunatus (Apr 12, 2013)

this should be done. for people who have lost a job and are looking for another job in their career for instance, perhaps not.. what manager for instance who has been fired would want to go to picking litter when their waiting and wanting to find a particular job

but people who haven't worked or put no effort in to work it's a great idea. when I walk through town on my lunch I see hundreds of people clearly on benefits having a great time, shopping, having lunch having a swift pint.. I would love to see these people scattering around my feet cleaning the place up.


----------



## GeordieSteve (May 23, 2010)

Oh and to anyone who says the job center is useless... if you google "recruitment agency" on google.co.uk you get 7,170,000 results


----------



## Raw meat 1984 (Sep 17, 2008)

tbh what does it really matter what the outcome is........ We will still get taxed & there will always be scumbags with no ambitions! the Gov arnt going to lower our taxes or give some back because there's less people claiming benefits.

I couldnt give a hoot if im honest, Im lucky to have a decent job which Ive worked hard to get, if i lose it, i'll work harder to get back to where I am again. Some people are pro-active and some just are not but everyone has the ability to better them selves if they choose to.

if they dont want to work and just drink beer all day and are happy with £60 a week - more fool them. I'll just wave and smile back when they smurk at me driving past in my mercedes.


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 6, 2012)

GeordieSteve said:


> Oh and to anyone who says the job center is useless... if you google "recruitment agency" on google.co.uk you get 7,170,000 results


To be fair though, the job centre IS useless :laugh:


----------



## geeby112 (Mar 15, 2008)

I can see it as a good idea but when will they have time to for job searching? If they have the power to put u cleaning the streets why not the power to find you a job you want.


----------



## GeordieSteve (May 23, 2010)

Raw meat 1984 said:


> Im lucky to have a decent job which Ive worked hard to get


Does it not piss you off to have to pay higher tax (40%) because you work hard while the people in the next street get that money to pay for their nice houses and wide screen TVs? Does me


----------



## GeordieSteve (May 23, 2010)

Ragnar said:


> To be fair though, the job centre IS useless :laugh:


Agreed... which is why I use Reed


----------



## Agent David (Dec 20, 2011)

Lets just say the Council need 100 people to pick up litter. They use 100 people from the dole who are forced to do it for their benefit money. The other 100 people in society who are only qualified to pick up litter cant get a job, because they cant get any other litter picking positions, so they go on the dole. Eventually, they end up picking up litter for their benefit money instead of the proper wage they should be earning for doing the job.

I'm not against people earning their benefits, but we have to be careful that companies/councils etc don't exploit the situation and start to offer real jobs for benefit pay, instead of real jobs with real pay. Otherwise we might all find ourselves on the dole and back doing the same job for less money.

Sure someone more intelligent than me will shoot holes in this.


----------



## Raw meat 1984 (Sep 17, 2008)

GeordieSteve said:


> Does it not piss you off to have to pay higher tax (40%) because you work hard while the people in the next street get that money to pay for their nice houses and wide screen TVs? Does me


It used to, but It wont change, thats the way of this country, but I would rather have the nicer things knowing I worked for them. The major plan is to move to France when Im 40 anyway, in the middle of nowhere, so if i have to put up with a little bit of sh1t to get there then so be it. BUT eventually I'll be happy with my feet up living off my hard work 20 years previous.


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 6, 2012)

I imagine that these will be add on jobs rather than taking existing jobs, I would hope there is legislation put in place to ensure that existing jobs are not cut and the dole spongers are simply street assistants to existing cleaners/ care workers etc

But with the absolute pile of bureaucratic crap that our government and public sector are, they'll probably forget that part :innocent:


----------



## GeordieSteve (May 23, 2010)

Raw meat 1984 said:


> It used to, but It wont change, thats the way of this country, but I would rather have the nicer things knowing I worked for them. The major plan is to move to France when Im 40 anyway, in the middle of nowhere, so if i have to put up with a little bit of sh1t to get there then so be it. BUT eventually I'll be happy with my feet up living off my hard work 20 years previous.


I doff my cap to you I really do. I can't see why hard workers get punished for being higher earners while people who don't bother get it given to them. Surely if everyone was charged the same percentage they'd be getting more off the higher earners anyway??? Anyway who am I to comment... sat at work on uk-muscle lol


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 6, 2012)

GeordieSteve said:


> Agreed... which is why I use Reed


I have to admit I was shocked on my only visit to the job centre ten years back, it was more of a benefits office for ticking boxes than an employment aid. Makes me wonder how many people have simply given up searching for a job because of their experiences at the job centre.


----------



## JankyClown (Aug 3, 2013)

IGotTekkers said:


> keeping chickens is cheaper than buying eggs. What he saves on eggs he may spend on the beer? Thats uo to him surely?


It just doesn't seem right to me mate. I know really it's none of my business what they do and what they believe, but it just rubs me the wrong way. It goes against everything I believe in. 95% other countries in the world, they'd be out in the gutter begging for money. I don't want to be 'that guy', but if this was 65 years ago after the war, people would be disgusted by how they live... how have we come this far since then, to just accepting it? AGAIN I'm not having a pop at the unemployed. I've been unemployed, and more than likely I'll be unemployed sometime again in the future with the way the country is, but people like this specifically, who abuse the welfare system from every angle, have no intention whatsoever of picking up a shift somewhere and can't even be fcuked to get off their asses to keep their damn garden tidy... I just don't understand it. The guy's been unemployed for 20 years, so he says, and he likes it that way... then why the fcuk are him and his hippo of a mrs having kids?

I don't like to be judgemental, cycnical or negative at all. And I can't stand people who look down/dis-respect other people because they might not be as well off, but the type of people I've describe, I will say I do look down on them. They have no respect for themselves, their neighbours or their country. ****s is what they are. ****s.


----------



## murphy2010 (Dec 17, 2010)

There's a dole mong across the road from me who claims disability money for a bad back. Yet I have seen him lifting heavy objects, messing around with his car etc. his wife doesn't work either, yet they get given new cars etc, not fair


----------



## Raw meat 1984 (Sep 17, 2008)

GeordieSteve said:


> I doff my cap to you I really do. I can't see why hard workers get punished for being higher earners while people who don't bother get it given to them. Surely if everyone was charged the same percentage they'd be getting more off the higher earners anyway??? Anyway who am I to comment... sat at work on uk-muscle lol


oh damn yes imagine how much sooner I could get to where I want to be if I wasnt on the higher tax, I do agree with you that its not fair, this country isn't fair and many have the mentality that 'We will just take it from the rich'. That's why i will move away from this country at 40, trouble is this is now and I live here there isn't much we can do about it.

The country is a shambles when you look at its money, its debt, the criminal justice system, whats fair and whats not, you've just got to have a plan to better yourself and get to where you want to be, and UK in 10 years is not it for me.

I dont want to die a wealthy person in this country - the tax man has a field day!


----------



## Raw meat 1984 (Sep 17, 2008)

murphy2010 said:


> There's a dole mong across the road from me who claims disability money for a bad back. Yet I have seen him lifting heavy objects, messing around with his car etc. his wife doesn't work either, yet they get given new cars etc, not fair


Sounds like a Kodak moment to me my friend! say cheeeese mofo!


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 6, 2012)

murphy2010 said:


> There's a dole mong across the road from me who claims disability money for a bad back. Yet I have seen him lifting heavy objects, messing around with his car etc. his wife doesn't work either, yet they get given new cars etc, not fair


Get photo evidence and report the tossers, unless people take efforts to shop these people they'll continue to get away with it.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

JankyClown said:


> It just doesn't seem right to me mate. I know really it's none of my business what they do and what they believe, but it just rubs me the wrong way. It goes against everything I believe in. 95% other countries in the world, they'd be out in the gutter begging for money. I don't want to be 'that guy', but if this was 65 years ago after the war, people would be disgusted by how they live... how have we come this far since then, to just accepting it? AGAIN I'm not having a pop at the unemployed. I've been unemployed, and more than likely I'll be unemployed sometime again in the future with the way the country is, but people like this specifically, who abuse the welfare system from every angle, have no intention whatsoever of picking up a shift somewhere and can't even be fcuked to get off their asses to keep their damn garden tidy... I just don't understand it. The guy's been unemployed for 20 years, so he says, and he likes it that way... then why the fcuk are him and his hippo of a mrs having kids?
> 
> I don't like to be judgemental, cycnical or negative at all. And I can't stand people who look down/dis-respect other people because they might not be as well off, but the type of people I've describe, I will say I do look down on them. They have no respect for themselves, their neighbours or their country. ****s is what they are. ****s.


65 years ago these poor people would just be dead from ill health and starvation, and yes in most other countries they are indeed in the gutter begging and stealing by the roadsides, imo i think a few cans of beer and a scruffy garden is more ideal to see and live with lol.

The thing you have to realise is that low income families with kids are better off on benefits, so of course many would rather stay at home and do nothing. Its not like they can go back to college or uni to better themselves because if your course is more than 16 hours a week, which most are, your benefits will stop, so they can iether stay at home and beer poor, or go to college and be homeless and extremely poor, or they can stack shelves in tesco and be no better off than a family staying at home doing nothing.

As for having kids, if we had to have money to have kids the you or i wouldnt be here right now, because once upon a time money didnt exist. If its only moraly right to have kids when you are in a good financial setting then that means my mother shouldnt have had me, as she was a broke as **** 18 year old girl. And id like to think im doing ok in life and have broken the cycle of poverty that has ran through my family for generations.

Btw you should see the state of my garden currently


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

IGotTekkers said:


> Btw you should see the state of my garden currently


Buy a fecking lawn mower then ya lazy coont!!


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

GeordieSteve said:


> Does it not piss you off to have to pay higher tax (40%) because you work hard while the people in the next street get that money to pay for their nice houses and wide screen TVs? Does me


It does a little bit. However, I think the much bigger issue is the fact that there is so much disparity between the very rich and the very poor. We have enough resources and manufacturing capacity that everyone should be able to enjoy a comfortable life. Yet 100s of millions of people are starving or dying of easily treatable conditions whilst others are sitting on fortunes they couldn't spend in a thousand lifetimes. That's at a global level obviously. At a UK level there is still a great deal of social injustice. We have millions of people living below the poverty line whilst others are amassing fortunes way beyond their needs. We are conned into believing this is OK because (supposedly) the opportunities are there for us all to be wealthy if we want to be. However, statistically we are infinitely more likely to end up in poverty than we are to be the next Richard Branson.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

JankyClown said:


> Problem is the people who go on the sicky because of an "unexplained bad back". They, as always, won't be doing fcuk all.
> 
> My neighbour who lives 3 houses down: they live in a 4 bedroom/2 bathroom house (all of the houses on the street are the same). They have 4 kids, both of them are in their 40s but look like they're in the 50s. Every thursday morning on way to work I'll see their recycle bins out on the street chocka block with cheap lager cans. They have chickens, 2 dogs and a cat or two, they don't maintain their garden whatsoever (it hasn't been mown/trimmed in over 12 months at least)... why? because they're BOTH on disability and can't be seen doing the gardening, or they might lose their money. Can afford 2+ buckets worth of lager cans a week, ****, chickens/maintenance, dogs/maintenance, and this is all on benefits. And the funny (when I say funny, I mean infuriating) thing is, the guy had the cheek to tell our mutual neighbour he doesn't look for work or go out of his way to make money, he's gotten too used to his lie-ins. ****es me off when me and the mrs are putting in 100 hours of work in between us just to fcuking afford a nice place, and this **** is on his ass, petting chickens, watching jezza and drinking lager all day. Fcuks me right off. And don't understand how someone can be fulfilled/content doing that, day in, day out.
> 
> Fcuk you Colin you diickhead!


Cut his garden for him/her, then push it all through their letterbox.



GeordieSteve said:


> People who have never done a days work in the lives who are constantly stood outside the pub. Yesterday I drove through grinning like a wanking jap


Imagine how much more happier the UK working population will be, even on a bad day.



mrssalvatore said:


> But I have a bad back
> 
> My surgeon said I can't work., I have a genetic disk degenerative disease and fibromyalgia
> 
> ...


I don't know anything about yourself nor your condition but I am guessing that if you can get about, you can operate a PC/laptop, then you could get a job working in a quiet office? I am guessing you don't really need to work because your partner has a good job but if you did need to...?



husky said:


> As for foreigners, dont tell me its because the money they earn here gives them a better standard of living back home , they live here, they dont commute every day , they pay the same expenses we do, difference is they want to work and will do jobs most lazy uk people look down their noses at and think its beneath them- i've shovelled cow **** just to provide for myself because at that time it was the only job out there.


Firstly, good on you for getting a job.

I think the difference between those born and bred here and foreigners is the motivational factor. Imagine if you were told you could go to another country thats safe,good living etc and you could work a regular job but longer hours earning such good money that if you shared an house/bills, within 3yrs you could come back home and have a good sized house paid for and a car, would you go for it? Bear in mind that back home, until recently only those at the higher end of the pay scale had a car, most people were cramped into a concrete flat.


----------



## DeskSitter (Jan 28, 2013)

GeordieSteve said:


> I doff my cap to you I really do. I can't see why hard workers get punished for being higher earners while people who don't bother get it given to them. Surely if everyone was charged the same percentage they'd be getting more off the higher earners anyway??? Anyway who am I to comment... sat at work on uk-muscle lol


I agree that everyone pays far to much tax, like you say higher earnings are taxed at 40%, and when you die and god forbid have enough to leave someone some resemblance of a legacy that gets taxed at 40% as well. It is pretty disgusting IMO.

My old boss was on around 49k+ a year (had a snoop of his payslips a few times) and the accountant was paying my bosses wife the difference to avoid the higher tax bracket. She was paid as a ''secretary'' never set foot in the company office in her life lol I don't even know if this is illegal or not? But he successful avoided paying it by the looks of things and only pays the basic rate on a 49k salary


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)




----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Just revisited this thread.

It's never fails to amaze me how many people are incapable to read no further than a headline or summary before starting their rant.

Maybe the government should enforce comprehension lessons too.

Duncanbanatyne.jpg

I'm out


----------



## butrobutro (Aug 16, 2013)

Agree with this completely. I recently saw a bloke I went to school with, we spoke about we what we've been up to over the years and I asked him if he was working, "Pfft no, I don't work, **** that." So for 14 years since leaving school, this bloke has never worked, and that is the same for A LOT of people. Granted some people with families are better of not working than working as the they can receive anything of to £3k a year more, and that also needs to be addressed.

Bottom line it's about time this government did something to eradicate this benefit generation. Since leaving school I've worked, and couldn't bear not working!


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

simonthepieman said:


> Just revisited this thread.
> 
> It's never fails to amaze me how many people are incapable to read no further than a headline or summary before starting their rant.
> 
> ...


They should also learn how to post a pic?


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Cut his garden for him/her, then push it all through their letterbox.
> 
> Imagine how much more happier the UK working population will be, even on a bad day.
> 
> ...


My surgeon said not I cannot Stand or sit for more than 15 minutes per time


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

mrssalvatore said:


> My surgeon said not I cannot Stand or sit for more than 15 minutes per time


My manager is like that,obviously he still works but I guess he is lucky in that the job suits what he needs and is lucky that our employer is reasonable so long as the whole team ensures that our jobs are done as best as we can in such circumstances.

Don't get me wrong,there are some people who simply can't do 'any' job but I do think that there are jobs out there for just about everyone. This isn't aimed at you in any way,more in general.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

Fortunatus said:


> this should be done. for people who have lost a job and are looking for another job in their career for instance, perhaps not.. what manager for instance who has been fired would want to go to picking litter when their waiting and wanting to find a particular job
> 
> but people who haven't worked or put no effort in to work it's a great idea. when I walk through town on my lunch I see hundreds of people clearly on benefits having a great time, shopping, having lunch having a swift pint.. I would love to see these people scattering around my feet cleaning the place up.


If he's such a high flying manager he should have savings for incase the **** does hit the fan, I think its fair that he'd get benefits to help for 6 months as a parachute then after that he either chips in or comes off benefits and lives off his savings.

If he's genuinely to good of a people manager / gets results he would walk into a new job with a 6 month window easily

No one should be above working for there money IMO. I worked in a bookies and ****ing hated it there. Majority of staff had some form of degree.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

gycraig said:


> If he's such a high flying manager he should have savings for incase the **** does hit the fan, I think its fair that he'd get benefits to help for 6 months as a parachute then after that he either chips in or comes off benefits and lives off his savings.
> 
> If he's genuinely to good of a people manager / gets results he would walk into a new job with a 6 month window easily
> 
> No one should be above working for there money IMO. I worked in a bookies and ****ing hated it there. Majority of staff had some form of degree.


I actually think that if they went through with the scheme in the original post, I do think that when someone who has worked over 3yrs in their job, they should be given a pro rata amount of money, say 80% of their 37hrs wages for 6months, then 60% of said wages for 6months then onto bog standard dole money but I would guess that this could be muddied given some of the pay offs that some get.


----------



## Fortunatus (Apr 12, 2013)

gycraig said:


> If he's such a high flying manager he should have savings for incase the **** does hit the fan, I think its fair that he'd get benefits to help for 6 months as a parachute then after that he either chips in or comes off benefits and lives off his savings.
> 
> If he's genuinely to good of a people manager / gets results he would walk into a new job with a 6 month window easily
> 
> No one should be above working for there money IMO. I worked in a bookies and ****ing hated it there. Majority of staff had some form of degree.


I agree, I used a bad example.

I mean people with no qualifications, the stacking shelf sort of people who purposly put no effort or try to loose their jobs knowing they have the doll to fall back on.

grafters who loose their job for genuin reasons should be given a time frame to collect the doll and find a new job any longer then yeah, get sweepin


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

husky said:


> Buy a fecking lawn mower then ya lazy coont!!


Its all paving slabs mate, covered in 5 days worth of large piles of dog ****e lol


----------



## Bora (Dec 27, 2011)

Ashcrapper said:


> For those who haven't seen the news - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24327470
> 
> Seen a few people (coincidentally they are on benefits) saying that it is slave labour. Does that then mean that benefits are currently free money?


i think if its for the people who are on the dole more than 1yr+ its fine gives them something to do aswell ha


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

mrssalvatore said:


> My surgeon said not I cannot Stand or sit for more than 15 minutes per time


Do you not weight train then?

Being on here i just assumed that you did.


----------



## James s (Sep 18, 2010)

murphy2010 said:


> There's a dole mong across the road from me who claims disability money for a bad back. Yet I have seen him lifting heavy objects, messing around with his car etc. his wife doesn't work either, yet they get given new cars etc, not fair


Film it them next time, he won't be able to get out of it then.


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Smitch said:


> Do you not weight train then?
> 
> Being on here i just assumed that you did.


I do but it's all under control by my physio


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

mrssalvatore said:


> I do but it's all under control by my physio


Good on you for doing what you can.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

IGotTekkers said:


> Its all paving slabs mate, covered in 5 days worth of large piles of dog ****e lol


I sorta thought you might be growing Cocoa Plants...something like that, has a similar name I think!! :lol:


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

To give my thoughts on the initial question, I believe if the work that the long term unemployed are given is of help to society and of benefit to all parties, but I do not think it is right to ask an unemployed person, that now in this country, might be unemployed through no fault of their own, work a night shift in a Tesco warehouse, for what would probably £2 per hour working next to an immigrant on a proper wage, or at least over the national minimum wage, fare days work for a fare days pay, if you are going to give them a taste of hard work give them a taste of a living wage, to the question of free money, if you claim on your car insurance is that free money?! no you pay in to a system that should things go pear shaped paying you out, this is no different than the national insurance, but in essence I am all for finding work for the unemployed.

Remember this though, the tax payer pays far more for the working poor, while their bosses in some cases have give themselves a 49% wage rise, while the government gave them a 5% tax cut, the jobs must be there before you start the blame game, and maybe you could do with a taste of zero hours or a rip of employment agency, then make a reassessment of the issue.


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

husky said:


> brilliant idea- i'd limit the time you can claim benefits for without having contributed, no NI payments made , no benefit. If people from other countries can come over here and find work it tells you theres jobs but too many believe that there above doing some kinds of work.


I live in a house full of Italians from Sardinia mate and atm most rely on money from home to survive. The agency jobs they used to do in factories are gone and there really is fck all for anyone.

Apparently it's still better than the rest of Europe though.

They also don't get benefits before someone pulls that card


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

@Raw meat 1984 do u mind telling me why u think I'm picking arguments with people???? This is a debate and I have an opinion no one else has said I pick arguments so it appears to be just u...and for the record I like red thanks for the rep... :thumbup1:


----------



## Raw meat 1984 (Sep 17, 2008)

Skye666 said:


> @Raw meat 1984 do u mind telling me why u think I'm picking arguments with people???? This is a debate and I have an opinion no one else has said I pick arguments so it appears to be just u...and for the record I like red thanks for the rep... :thumbup1:


my pleasure.


----------



## tioc (Jul 16, 2013)

Raw meat 1984 said:


> oh damn yes imagine how much sooner I could get to where I want to be if I wasnt on the higher tax, I do agree with you that its not fair, this country isn't fair and many have the mentality that 'We will just take it from the rich'. That's why i will move away from this country at 40, trouble is this is now and I live here there isn't much we can do about it.
> 
> The country is a shambles when you look at its money, its debt, the criminal justice system, whats fair and whats not, you've just got to have a plan to better yourself and get to where you want to be, and UK in 10 years is not it for me.
> 
> I dont want to die a wealthy person in this country - the tax man has a field day!


you do realise that if you get your move to France the higher rate tax there is 75 %, thats why every fvcker is moving out of France. Hollandes socialists are on a rampage.


----------



## Raw meat 1984 (Sep 17, 2008)

tioc said:


> you do realise that if you get your move to France the higher rate tax there is 75 %, thats why every fvcker is moving out of France. Hollandes socialists are on a rampage.


I wont be working then mate plus I already have a place to go to out there. plus its close enough to get back to uk to deal with things here. best option for me for money money and the space i will have.


----------



## tioc (Jul 16, 2013)

Raw meat 1984 said:


> I wont be working then mate plus I already have a place to go to out there. plus its close enough to get back to uk to deal with things here. best option for me for money money and the space i will have.


Picked you up wrong, iirc the French system is based the same as ours so its only earnings in that country that are taxable.


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

Raw meat 1984 said:


> my pleasure.


Karma is a biitch


----------



## Raw meat 1984 (Sep 17, 2008)

Skye666 said:


> im a biitch


dont be so harsh on yourself love.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Skye666 said:


> Karma is a biitch


No, my ex wife wasn't called Karma.. :confused1:


----------



## GeordieSteve (May 23, 2010)

tioc said:


> Picked you up wrong, iirc the French system is based the same as ours so its only earnings in that country that are taxable.


IIRC the French system pays you a percentage of what your earnings were before you lost your job and then only for a certain amount of time then you fend for yourself. Sounds fair to me


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

Raw meat 1984 said:


> dont be so harsh on yourself love.


Iv no idea what ur issue is.....love?? Oh yh they do say love and hate fine line


----------



## welbeck (Jul 23, 2010)

GeordieSteve said:


> I suppose that's what ATOS are there to weed out, not that they've been doing a great job I hear
> 
> I hear people complaining as well that they are interviewing literally everyone as part of the 'back to work' scheme. Even people who are completely paralyzed. Surely that's the only way to do it and not discriminate? If you come in on a stretcher and can only blink responses then they're hardly going to put you forward for a roofers job


38% of appeals at tribunal are overturning ATOS's decision, unbelievably the fact that you make it to the "examination" is a black mark against you and if you have any condition that is intermittent and you're ok on the day you see them you are judged to be fit for work, I know, this happened to me. ATOS twist your answers round to mean what they want, they throw you off the sick, you then have 30 days to appeal but you don't know what you're appealing against until they throw your appeal out only then do they send you a ton of paperwork 70+ pages that show how they came to their decision. I read it in disbelief, they ignored things I said that were to their detriment and exaggerated parts that were to their advantage.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

When ATOS deem someone 'fit for work' they get paid a bonus. If the person appeals & is actually medically unfit for work, the bonus is not revoked.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

welbeck said:


> 38% of appeals at tribunal are overturning ATOS's decision, unbelievably the fact that you make it to the "examination" is a black mark against you and if you have any condition that is intermittent and you're ok on the day you see them you are judged to be fit for work, I know, this happened to me. ATOS twist your answers round to mean what they want, they throw you off the sick, you then have 30 days to appeal but you don't know what you're appealing against until they throw your appeal out only then do they send you a ton of paperwork 70+ pages that show how they came to their decision. I read it in disbelief, they ignored things I said that were to their detriment and exaggerated parts that were to their advantage.


ex gf had optical ms bless her was very shakey and fatigued rediculously easy (we went to london for the day and she was knackered 3 hours in)

used to do 3 hour shifts at halfords as was all she could do then got paid some benefits on top as halfords really was like 10 hours a week, they started saying if she can work that she can work more, she got hers overturned in the end i was furious


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

gycraig said:


> ex gf had optical ms bless her was very shakey and fatigued rediculously easy (we went to london for the day and she was knackered 3 hours in)
> 
> used to do 3 hour shifts at halfords as was all she could do then got paid some benefits on top as halfords really was like 10 hours a week, they started saying if she can work that she can work more, she got hers overturned in the end i was furious


How is she now..this quite often leads to systemic MS.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

latblaster said:


> How is she now..this quite often leads to systemic MS.


settled down got a kid etc with the guy after me,dunno bout her health she was a nice girl tho so hope shes ok


----------



## nunchaku101 (Aug 3, 2012)

Those wrongly convicted being forced to do hard labour too?


----------



## nunchaku101 (Aug 3, 2012)

All this austerity was planned long ago, it isn't to help the economy, what about the .00001% who are the true people in charge, they will remain rich and healthy while we curl up and die, I know personally people who are on benefits who really are less useful than a sponge but it is scapegoating morons to appease other morons who do not think things through fully.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

@nunchaku101

It's yet another tactic to divert our attention while they do something else. It helps to sell more Newspapers too.

But I think that this 'austerity' was all planned some years ago. For what reason I can't imagine but I would think it has alot to with certain people making even more money.

Perhaps to exert more control over us, because everything is getting a bit out of hand atm. Maybe @jonniequest is actually right. 

Life can be summed up thus: "Power, Control & Abuse"


----------



## welbeck (Jul 23, 2010)

BLUE(UK) said:


> They could have those who perform be supervisors, supervisors get preferential treatment when any jobs come up.


And they would be doing this for their dole money too I presume, working for nothing telling a group of chavs under your supervision to put that joint out and clean up that mess over there. If they're not working to a standard expected of them (the chavs) are they going to be reported for it and have their dole money stopped?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

All sounds a bit like a Chain Gang really...


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

welbeck said:


> And they would be doing this for their dole money too I presume, working for nothing telling a group of chavs under your supervision to put that joint out and clean up that mess over there. If they're not working to a standard expected of them (the chavs) are they going to be reported for it and have their dole money stopped?


Why single the 'chavs' out, the rules should be the same for all.

There are middle aged people who've never had a job in their life and have no intention of doing so, some even do other things to supplement their money. Why should the taxpayers be paying for these types of people? It's not just their dole money that they get, there is their housing benefits and council taxes etc that are paid for by the tax payer too.

Someone on 6quid an hour doing working 37hrs a week will get roughly 960quid a month. After their 'stoppages', they'll be lucky if they come out with 800quid?

If they live in a flat/small house, it will be about 420 a month rent(maybe more), 120 council tax, which leaves them with roughly 260quid to not only get the transport to work but also feed/clothe/wash themselves. That is 60quid a week....less than a dole claimant. If this person didn't do their job to the standard expected, they'd find themselves out of a job and therefore not paid.

Should the above person be supporting/paying towards another person deciding they don't wish to contribute towards society to live a lifestyle the same as theirs? Sounds fair to me. 

For the record, I am not on 6quid an hour so the sums could be a bit out but I'd guess they're about right.

Do remember, this isn't a scheme aimed at those who've been out of work less than 12months, it's supposedly aimed at those long term hence I think it is the right thing to do.

I'd guess that the only people who need to worry about such schemes are those who've been claiming for too long.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

latblaster said:


> All sounds a bit like a Chain Gang really...


They still have a choice, turn up and do as asked or simply don't do it.

The difference is that if you choose not to, the govt chooses not to hand out taxpayers money.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

BLUE(UK) said:


> They still have a choice, turn up and do as asked or simply don't do it.
> 
> The difference is that if you choose not to, the govt chooses not to hand out taxpayers money.


expecting people to work for money ? fking rediculous it will never catch on


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

gycraig said:


> expecting people to work for money ? fking rediculous it will never catch on


I know. :lol:


----------



## welbeck (Jul 23, 2010)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Why single the 'chavs' out, the rules should be the same for all.
> 
> There are middle aged people who've never had a job in their life and have no intention of doing so, some even do other things to supplement their money. Why should the taxpayers be paying for these types of people? It's not just their dole money that they get, there is their housing benefits and council taxes etc that are paid for by the tax payer too.
> 
> ...


My point was that it was suggested one unpaid worker would have authority over another, would the supervisor have the power to stop the dole of the "supervised" if they didn't follow his orders or do the work to a standard that was asked of them? Would they in turn have their money stopped if they didn't supervise to a standard that was asked of them? Would there be a quota of work that had to be done each day/week/month? You can't make people work by threatening them, they might turn up but so far as being productive, not a prayer.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

welbeck said:


> My point was that it was suggested one unpaid worker would have authority over another, would the supervisor have the power to stop the dole of the "supervised" if they didn't follow his orders or do the work to a standard that was asked of them? Would they in turn have their money stopped if they didn't supervise to a standard that was asked of them? Would there be a quota of work that had to be done each day/week/month? You can't make people work by threatening them, they might turn up but so far as being productive, not a prayer.


At my workplace, there is no such quota etc yet most of us know what is expected and what can and can't be done realistically.

Having a supervisor doesn't mean that they discipline over orders not being followed, even in the workplace this doesn't happen.

Who's threatening who? I don't see where you have that from.

Just because the rules may change to 'take part or lose benefits' doesn't mean they're being threatened, it means they have a choice.

It's no different to when one has to sign on or lose their benefits.


----------



## dopper (Aug 11, 2010)

Benefits are supposed to be a safety net not a life style choice.

No excuses for being unemployed for signifiacnt amounts of time IMO even the vast majority of the disabled could find employement that suits their needs (larger companies in particular will bend over backwards to make adaptations to their building etc to suit perople requirements)

Slightly off on a tangent but it would be most interesting to see how many of the "bad back" brigade still make it to the gym / football etc every week!


----------



## welbeck (Jul 23, 2010)

BLUE(UK) said:


> At my workplace, there is no such quota etc yet most of us know what is expected and what can and can't be done realistically.
> 
> Having a supervisor doesn't mean that they discipline over orders not being followed, even in the workplace this doesn't happen.
> 
> ...


Of course it's a threat, "Give me your wallet or I'll kick your head in" "Pay your fine or go to prison", or "do work in the community or lose your benefits" everything is a choice if you look at it like that.

You are motivated by payment for the work you do, if you were paid minimum wage you wouldn't work as hard as you would if you were paid well and if you working under duress you would resent doing the work altogether. If your company decided to abolish wages to save money would you still choose to go to work?


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

*sigh*

Firstly....get your facts straight

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

Don't ...please dear god...do NOT buy into the media led bs around this topic.

Secondly - people who are unable to work (including those with mental health issues ffs) will be put into "rigorous programmes" to get them back to work.......really? Can someone explain how that works in actual practice? Especially given the current ASOS debacle where people unable to even move...or see...have been deemed "fit for work". I mean...it sounds great as a political soundbite but when you pick it it apart it's b0llocks really isn't it?

Thirdly - ok so....there's all these jobs that need doing that we can get the unemployed to do. RIght. So nobody is doing any of this work now then? Why's that? And why don't we pay them minimum wage and call it a job. Then they're not unemployed anymore are they?

I could go on...........but this is a sh1tshow of an idea that panders to scare mongering about benefit scroungers that for the most part...don;t exist. Yes I know there are examples...lots of them.....but treating everyone like the lowest common denominator is poor at best. The ubiquitous "taxpayer" (fvck I hate that word) - is held up as being the injured party so we all feel it's a personal attack.....except anyone who buys goods or services with vat is a tax payer. Everyone who fills up their car is a taxpayer. We all pay taxes one way or another. It's a bs term.

Finally - so....... i'm 47, I have a BSc and MSc and i'm a qualified teacher. BUT...my job is far from secure and I could find myself unemployed through no fault of my own next year. It's possible. At my age it gets harder to find work, especially in my field. Would I take a job where I need less qualifications? Yes.... Would they give it to me? Probably not because they know i'll leave when i get a better offer.

So I could end up being on benefits for a year. So I could end up being one of the people made to do community service...or attend a jobcentre every day (not because they help me find a job...but because they want me to prove i'm trying to find one).

When I moved up from london 9 years ago I got told by the jobcentre... "We have no idea what to do with someone like you......you're over qualified".

But mainly..get away from thsi idea that the majority of people on benefits are long term unemployed who can't be ****d finding a job. It's b0llocks. It just is.


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

And this

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

kuju said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Firstly....get your facts straight
> 
> ...


Spot on and well said. .but the 'sheep' both on here and in general will continue to believe what the government tell them..


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

welbeck said:


> Of course it's a threat, "Give me your wallet or I'll kick your head in" "Pay your fine or go to prison", or "do work in the community or lose your benefits" everything is a choice if you look at it like that.
> 
> You are motivated by payment for the work you do, if you were paid minimum wage you wouldn't work as hard as you would if you were paid well and if you working under duress you would resent doing the work altogether. If your company decided to abolish wages to save money would you still choose to go to work?


I'd go get another job, again, it would be a choice thing.

Those on the dole aren't being forced to do it, they could decide to support themselves by getting a job.


----------



## King_koop (Nov 20, 2008)

People say 'pick litter etc for your dole' What about the people who actually pick litter for a living? would you like someone coming along and doing your job for free.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

kuju said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Firstly....get your facts straight
> 
> ...


You could do what I have done in the past, just put down relevant qualifications/skills on your application for that said job.

It's hardly rocket science.

Do you think that my job is safe? No, but I still think that what they're doing makes it a fairer system to all.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

King_koop said:


> People say 'pick litter etc for your dole' What about the people who actually pick litter for a living? would you like someone coming along and doing your job for free.


It isn't all about picking litter for free. It is community work, if that includes picking up the litter that hasn't been picked up by the council litter pickers then so be it. There are a LOT of places where litter doesn't get picked up.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Skye666 said:


> Spot on and well said. .but the 'sheep' both on here and in general will continue to believe what the government tell them..


To be honest, I am not a fan of any of the govt's and I am probably the last person that follows 'the rules' but I do think that it is the right thing that everyone should 'earn' their living where possible.


----------



## King_koop (Nov 20, 2008)

BLUE(UK) said:


> It isn't all about picking litter for free. It is community work, if that includes picking up the litter that hasn't been picked up by the council litter pickers then so be it. There are a LOT of places where litter doesn't get picked up.


2.49million places i hope, because thats how many are unemployed. Trust me. i did 300 Hours community service, and for 280 hours i sat in a greenhouse doing nothing, simple because there WAS nothing to do.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

King_koop said:


> 2.49million places i hope, because thats how many are unemployed. Trust me. i did 300 Hours community service, and for 280 hours i sat in a greenhouse doing nothing, simple because there WAS nothing to do.


If you wasn't happy doing that then either don't get caught or refuse to go and ask for a sentence instead?


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> It isn't all about picking litter for free. It is community work, if that includes picking up the litter that hasn't been picked up by the council litter pickers then so be it. There are a LOT of places where litter doesn't get picked up.


So why don't u pick it up then if u see it


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> To be honest, I am not a fan of any of the govt's and I am probably the last person that follows 'the rules' but I do think that it is the right thing that everyone should 'earn' their living where possible.


And u are entitled to that opinion


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Skye666 said:


> So why don't u pick it up then if u see it


Because sometimes I am in a rush whilst at WORK.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Skye666 said:


> And u are entitled to that opinion


You don't need to tell me what I am entitled to and what I am not entitled to. Just because you disapprove doesn't mean you should feel the need to add a sarcastic smiley as well.


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> You don't need to tell me what I am entitled to and what I am not entitled to. Just because you disapprove doesn't mean you should feel the need to add a sarcastic smiley as well.


It wasn't a smiley..it was an eye roll.

I commented on kuju's post..u commented on mine..I didn't ask to be having this discussion with u. U have ur opinion I have mine I haven't bombarded u so don't do it to me...don't like what I say don't have to read it.


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Skye666 said:


> It wasn't a smiley..it was an eye roll.
> 
> I commented on kuju's post..u commented on mine..I didn't ask to be having this discussion with u. U have ur opinion I have mine I haven't bombarded u so don't do it to me...don't like what I say don't have to read it.


See @ohno it's just uk-m had feisty woman.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Skye666 said:


> It wasn't a smiley..it was an eye roll.
> 
> I commented on kuju's post..u commented on mine..I didn't ask to be having this discussion with u. U have ur opinion I have mine I haven't bombarded u so don't do it to me...don't like what I say don't have to read it.


Hover your curser over the 'smiley' at the top of the quick reply box, what does it say? yup, they're 'smileys'.

I bombarded you? Don't flatter yourself.

Just like I don't have to read what you write, you don't have to read what I like.


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Hover your curser over the 'smiley' at the top of the quick reply box, what does it say? yup, they're 'smileys'.
> 
> I bombarded you? Don't flatter yourself.
> 
> Just like I don't have to read what you write, you don't have to read what I like.


Blue woteva! I didn't spk to u today YOU spoke to me ...not flattered at all.


----------



## Shady45 (Jan 5, 2010)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Hover your curser over the 'smiley' at the top of the quick reply box, what does it say? yup, they're 'smileys'.
> 
> I bombarded you? Don't flatter yourself.
> 
> Just like I don't have to read what you write, you don't have to read what I like.


NO BLUE!!

do not respond to comments made on a public forum that is targeting others and calling them sheep. That's not how forums work


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

mrssalvatore said:


> See @ohno it's just uk-m had feisty woman.


So they shouldn't speak to them then really. :confused1:


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

Shady45 said:


> NO BLUE!!
> 
> do not respond to comments made on a public forum that is targeting others and calling them sheep. That's not how forums work


Oh u aswell....anything else??


----------



## Shady45 (Jan 5, 2010)

Skye666 said:


> Oh u aswell....anything else??


My comment was to Blue, don't bombard me...  I joke I joke

But you did bite his head off for replying to a public comment, debating a topic, in which you involve other people by saying about sheep lol


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Skye666 said:


> So they shouldn't speak to them then really. :confused1:


Don't worry about it Hun he's having a go in another thread lol


----------



## Classic one (Sep 26, 2013)

I hate been out of work it stinks,I have done a months mandatory work and loved it I want work I need work but there are a lot of people who don't ...A couple of blokes who where on the mandatory work where 35 and 39 and they have never worked since school....


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

Shady45 said:


> My comment was to Blue, don't bombard me...  I joke I joke
> 
> But you did bite his head off for replying to a public comment, debating a topic, in which you involve other people by saying about sheep lol


But he didn't mention sheep at all..he mentioned rules and it's a fact of life that there are leaders and followers I didn't name anyone in particular. I commented to another person I then went on to say he's entitled to his opinion and left it at that...but no. So...ur wrong I didn't bite anyone's head off.


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

mrssalvatore said:


> Don't worry about it Hun he's having a go in another thread lol


Grumpy old man!!


----------



## mrssalvatore (Apr 13, 2013)

Skye666 said:


> Grumpy old man!!


Yup yup yup


----------



## Shady45 (Jan 5, 2010)

Skye666 said:


> But he didn't mention sheep at all..he mentioned rules and it's a fact of life that there are leaders and followers I didn't name anyone in particular. I commented to another person I then went on to say he's entitled to his opinion and left it at that...but no. So...ur wrong I didn't bite anyone's head off.


I think his comment regarding government and not following rules was a reference to the sheep comment, maybe wrong...

You did it with a roll eyes smiley which is patronising. Then commented being cocky saying it's not a smiley. Then going on about him bombarding you and he can't respond to your comment because you made it to someone else... Head bite lol

His comment was polite and an opinion. Imo no need for a hostile reply...

On a more important note, white knighting for a man is quite liberating


----------



## Skye666 (Apr 13, 2013)

Shady45 said:


> I think his comment regarding government and not following rules was a reference to the sheep comment, maybe wrong...
> 
> You did it with a roll eyes smiley which is patronising. Then commented being cocky saying it's not a smiley. Then going on about him bombarding you and he can't respond to your comment because you made it to someone else... Head bite lol
> 
> ...


Mountain mole hill...have a nice evening.


----------



## casebian (Sep 12, 2012)

they do something similar over here in ireland i do a week on week off for the council get 800 a month and on your weeks off if you can get work you can do it with no hassle best thing thats happend to me in a while i was out of work for a few years and not from a lack of trying gives you a bit of self respect back being out of work is a nightmare


----------



## Shady45 (Jan 5, 2010)

Skye666 said:


> Mountain mole hill...have a nice evening.


The irony hurts


----------



## King_koop (Nov 20, 2008)

BLUE(UK) said:


> If you wasn't happy doing that then either don't get caught or refuse to go and ask for a sentence instead?


Were did i say i wasn't happy. it was the easiest 300 hours of my life....


----------



## King_koop (Nov 20, 2008)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Because sometimes I am in a rush whilst at WORK.


Dont worry, you might not have a job because someone on benefits will be doing it for free soon.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

King_koop said:


> Were did i say i wasn't happy. it was the easiest 300 hours of my life....


That's great although a mate of mine who got caught doing what he did didn't enjoy his hours, he had to make bird boxes. :lol: (smiley)


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

i dont get the arguements tbh,i live in one of worst unemployment places in the country and have never been long term unemployed even if it has meant pairing factory work with night club / delivering pizzas.

iv found jobs very easily with no qualifications, iv worked **** jobs and landed myself in a nice one now. fk me i had a job in factory where i had to pass fish from one conveyor belt to another for 8hours.

delivering pizzas- THERES ALWAYS A DEMAND FOR THIS, any time iv been unemployed or close to being unemployed iv literally spent a day driving round giving my number out making it known i work hard and will turn up every day, every time i have had 2-3-4 phone calls that week offering me "a couple of nights".

if you cant find a job in a year you clearly need help with some direction in your life. if you have turned down ANY job / not gone for every job you could get you dont deserve a penny of benefits imo.

could even run some fun community events with "benefits volunteers" helping imo.

i have free of charged joined in in "park cleans" in the community which is just a group of people who clean parks for a couple of hours on the weekend, would be so much better if someone was paid to do this / someone on benefits was made to do it for there benefits.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

King_koop said:


> Dont worry, you might not have a job because someone on benefits will be doing it for free soon.


Poor soul.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

" Everytime a man makes a comment, I'll disagree with it..because I'm always right"

Gentlemen, I rest my case for the "prosecution" *Rolls eyes*

:lol:


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

BLUE(UK) said:


> You could do what I have done in the past, just put down relevant qualifications/skills on your application for that said job.
> 
> It's hardly rocket science.
> 
> Do you think that my job is safe? No, but I still think that what they're doing makes it a fairer system to all.


Just put down the relevant qualifications for said job. Right..... again - that's one of those statements that sounds like it makes perfect sense - but doesn't work in practice.

I'm 47 - i've been working in academic research in one for or another for about 15 years. I've also worked as a labourer, a roofer, a chef, a driver and a variety of retail and other minor jobs. So - let's say I get made redundant in February. I...like *MOST* (I would argue) of the country...do not want to live on benefits. I've been on the dole twice - many years ago. It was sh1t. It's not a comfortable life and anyone who believes that people just living on benefits can happily afford a sunshine lifestyle with plasma tv's, expensive cars and frequent holidays is an utter halfwit. Yes there are people like that on the dole...but i'm guessing most of their income obviously doesn't come from benefits. Yes they are probably defrauding the state. Are they even remotely approaching a majority? No. A significant proportion? No. A miniscule minority? Yes.

So - I don;t want to be on the dole. But nearly half my life has been spent in, or in pursuit of, a specific type of career. Let's say...I can't find a job in any field that I am qualified for. There aren't many of them and even if i'm prepared to relocate to anywhere at all (which is tricky with a partner based here) there still aren't many i'm right for...or that are right for me.

But i'm prepared to do other stuff. I'll just dig holes all day if I have to...that's fine.

But when it comes to filling in an application form and they ask me to account for my time over the past 20 years.......what do I say? If i'm sticking to just putting down the qualifications relevant to the job....what do I do with the section that's on every application form i've ever filled in - "please tell us your last three jobs" or "please give us your employment history for the last 5 years" etc etc.

You're right. It's not rocket science. It's a complete non-starter.


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

The bottom line is this.......... the reasons why people end up on benefits are many and varied and complex.

Anyone who has that "them on benefits" "they're all scroungers" attitude....... just imagine your company folds tomorrow. You're suddenly out of work. You literally...through no fault of your own...can't find anything else in time to meet the bills that are going to keep coming.

If you choose to end up on benefits as a stop gap then either you've just become a benefit scrounger or you see a qualitative difference between you and "them". In which case you have to accept that there will be others like you. In which case you have to ask how many people on benefits are like you......

A blanket rule doesn't work. Most people are not on benefits for more than 18 months....and most benefits paid are not unemployment benefits. The "benefit scrounger" demon is entirely a construct of papers like the Daily mail. They are nowhere near the public and financial menace that they are made out to be. But in times of austerity it ia *always* the poor, the disadvantaged, the fringe groups - those are the people attacked and villified and ousted. It's nature isn't it.....cut out the weakest when times are tough? Survivial of the fittest etc.

Except we're better than that aren't we?

DOn't get me wrong...I am *ALL* for targeted measures to stop people sponging off the state. But for me those measure should start with a decent education system, proper support for children as they head towards leaving school and entering the job market and a healthy job market to welcome them. None of which is properly in place. Yes there will be people who fit teh bill of benefit scrounger and yes there are things that should be done abotu that.......but on a case basis.

If I end up on benefits i'm not going to appreciate being treated like I fit that stereotype.

I actually got asked to leave a workshop I was forced to go on by the Jobcentre once.....it was an IT workshop..teaching me how to use computers. I had juist finished a job where I used advanced ststa packages with 3d modelling on mainframe computers and they were trying to teach me how to make a fvcking word document. I got asked to leave because I pointed out the typos on every page of the training document, the fact that some of teh information was wrong, the fact that document referred to a different version of windows and ..as I left...the fact that the "trainer" didn;t know how to use Office properly. No one else in that room noticed any of it. How was that supposed to help any of us? They were being poorly educated and I was bored to tears instantly.

It is nothing more than politicial grandstanding. "Don't get something for nothing" says the minister who has got something for nothing all his life.

Sounds great doesn't it? Sounds "right"..... morally...ethically....

But the actual practical reality is...it doesn't and won't work and will just make things worse. Go ahead - pull people's benefits for a month at a time. They still have to eat. They will get hungry, they will get desperate - and what do hungry, desperate people do?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

@kuju

Excellent post. :thumb:


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Ive said it before and I will say it again..

Its not gunna happen, stop getting mankinis in a twist


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

kuju said:


> The bottom line is this.......... the reasons why people end up on benefits are many and varied and complex.
> 
> Anyone who has that "them on benefits" "they're all scroungers" attitude....... just imagine your company folds tomorrow. You're suddenly out of work. You literally...through no fault of your own...can't find anything else in time to meet the bills that are going to keep coming.
> 
> ...


I may have come into this too late and therefore missed the point, but making people working for benefits is not the same as pulling their benefits.

And the benefit systme has been abused by so many for so long, i'm glad its getting a shake up. it should be there as an emergency like you say, not as a means to live off.

Doesnt help places like Brighthouse offer some nice 42 inch screens for £1.20 a week for 70 years.

Also the job markt was helthy pre 2008- there were still benefit abusers


----------



## flapjack (Mar 1, 2008)

1. Build a strong economy with good job prospects for those who want it.

2. Provide education for those who are suitable for it.

3. Shoot the lazy [email protected] who still think it is ok to sit on their ****s doing nothing all day.


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

MunchieBites said:


> I may have come into this too late and therefore missed the point, but making people working for benefits is not the same as pulling their benefits.
> 
> And the benefit systme has been abused by so many for so long, i'm glad its getting a shake up. it should be there as an emergency like you say, not as a means to live off.
> 
> ...


The deal they're suggesting means pulling people's benefits for up to a month if certain conditions aren't met......some people won't be able to meet them bu th there is no provision for case by case decision making PRIOR to pulling benefits. There are already people getting benefits automatically stopped because of such rul;es and THEN being put forward for individual case assessment. Which can take months. So what do people do in teh meantime? Starve? Get a job they are already struggling to find? Steal to survive?

Your second line is exactly what's wrong with this debate....there has NOT been a huge raft of people abusing the system for so long. There just hasn't. It's media fiction to suggest that this is a massive problem. Both benefit fraud and people being on benefits for over a year are a MINISCULE part of the problem.It happens and I'm all for some sensible approach to stop it.

But this legislation is about tarring EVERYONE on benefits with the "benefit scrounger" brush. And that is beyond BS. It's a lie. It's political grandstanding...it's "Look at those scrounging people living a wonderful life for nothing while you work hard! Them!! They're the problem!! Burn them!! (meanwhile...we the government will continue to claim benefits ourselves...fiddle taxes....expenses and live exactly the high life we decry...off YOUR taxes....but ignore that....)"It treats everyone on benefits according to the lowest common denominator and it is a facile and vacuous lie put forward to appease simpletons who believe media scare stories and simply cannot be ****d finding out the truth.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

kuju said:


> The deal they're suggesting means pulling people's benefits for up to a month if certain conditions aren't met......some people won't be able to meet them bu th there is no provision for case by case decision making PRIOR to pulling benefits. There are already people getting benefits automatically stopped because of such rul;es and THEN being put forward for individual case assessment. Which can take months. So what do people do in teh meantime? Starve? Get a job they are already struggling to find? Steal to survive?
> 
> Your second line is exactly what's wrong with this debate....there has NOT been a huge raft of people abusing the system for so long. There just hasn't. It's media fiction to suggest that this is a massive problem. Both benefit fraud and people being on benefits for over a year are a MINISCULE part of the problem.It happens and I'm all for some sensible approach to stop it.
> 
> But this legislation is about tarring EVERYONE on benefits with the "benefit scrounger" brush. And that is beyond BS. It's a lie. It's political grandstanding...it's "Look at those scrounging people living a wonderful life for nothing while you work hard! Them!! They're the problem!! Burn them!! (meanwhile...we the government will continue to claim benefits ourselves...fiddle taxes....expenses and live exactly the high life we decry...off YOUR taxes....but ignore that....)"It treats everyone on benefits according to the lowest common denominator and it is a facile and vacuous lie put forward to appease simpletons who believe media scare stories and simply cannot be ****d finding out the truth.


theres no reason ANYONE can not find some sort of work in a year none at all.

have you actually been on a benefits estate before, **** houses with audi a3s in the drive,

ordering pizzas every night, no wall paper on the walls. gangs of kids walking round that arent properly cared for.

chavvy women pushing 2-3 kids round who have no intention of ever working, which is hardly going to inspire the kids is it. theres generations that have never worked. theres people selling weed/coke while claiming unemployment and getting there house paid for / 60-70 quid a week on top of there drug dealing money.

we had a sign up at our pizza place on one of these estates, in the end my brother took the job as no one else even applied


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

kuju said:


> The deal they're suggesting means pulling people's benefits for up to a month if certain conditions aren't met......some people won't be able to meet them bu th there is no provision for case by case decision making PRIOR to pulling benefits. There are already people getting benefits automatically stopped because of such rul;es and THEN being put forward for individual case assessment. Which can take months. So what do people do in teh meantime? Starve? Get a job they are already struggling to find? Steal to survive?
> 
> Your second line is exactly what's wrong with this debate....there has NOT been a huge raft of people abusing the system for so long. There just hasn't. It's media fiction to suggest that this is a massive problem. Both benefit fraud and people being on benefits for over a year are a MINISCULE part of the problem.It happens and I'm all for some sensible approach to stop it.
> 
> But this legislation is about tarring EVERYONE on benefits with the "benefit scrounger" brush. And that is beyond BS. It's a lie. It's political grandstanding...it's "Look at those scrounging people living a wonderful life for nothing while you work hard! Them!! They're the problem!! Burn them!! (meanwhile...we the government will continue to claim benefits ourselves...fiddle taxes....expenses and live exactly the high life we decry...off YOUR taxes....but ignore that....)"It treats everyone on benefits according to the lowest common denominator and it is a facile and vacuous lie put forward to appease simpletons who believe media scare stories and simply cannot be ****d finding out the truth.


Its very difficult to get infor on this from an unbiased website (either liberal or conservative)

BUT to try and answer your points

"The deal they're suggesting means pulling people's benefits for up to a month if certain conditions aren't met"

long term claimants. and why couldnt they meet them?

"There are already people getting benefits automatically stopped because of such rul;es"

please give an example

"there has NOT been a huge raft of people abusing the system for so long"

Sure its 'only 0.8%..... or £1.2 Billion. Who cares, its not that much, completely miniscule you're right

"But this legislation is about tarring EVERYONE on benefits with the "benefit scrounger" brush"

if you are on it for a certain period of time, i dont see the problem with that, its not tarring everyone. (unless you read the mail or the express)

"And that is beyond BS. It's a lie"

I agree

"Look at those scrounging people living a wonderful life for nothing while you work hard! Them!! They're the problem!! Burn them!!"

seems only you saying this so far

"It treats everyone on benefits according to the lowest common denominator and it is a facile and vacuous lie put forward to appease simpletons who believe media scare stories and simply cannot be ****d finding out the truth."

i do hope you aren't referring to me as a simpleton. bit of a low argument there.


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

MunchieBites said:


> Its very difficult to get infor on this from an unbiased website (either liberal or conservative)
> 
> BUT to try and answer your points
> 
> ...


Right...first things first...sorry  I wasn't referring to you as a simpleton..but I can see how it comes across like that.My apologies.

However sarcasm isn't a great response to it..... Of course £1.2 billion pounds is a lot of money. I'm not dismissing it entirely. The point i'm making is that that the "benefit scrounger" is once again held up against "the great british taxpayer" in some sort of adversarial battle where teh taxpayer is right and true and the benefit scrounger is some sort of low life. And yes that's media led....but it's not me saying it. It's in this thread. It's in most media reports of the issue.It is very much in government rhetoric. We are ALL taxpayers in some way.

The point i'm making is that the whole thing is empty rhetoric. I'm not denying there are issues with the welfare state. All I'm saying is....what jobs are we going to find these people to do? Where are they? George Osborne suggested "cooking for the elderly". Really??The practical implentation of this legislation has yet to be explained and the fine detail is completely lacking. Because it's garbage....it is an unworkable plan in practice. And I don't want to see £300 million wasted doing it when that money could perhaps be spent on providing better resources for unemployed people to help them back to work. Or you know...maybe actually creating some jobs for them to go to.

A mate of mine has just got a job after being unemployed for over a year. He is highly qualified in three different fields. He applied for over 500 jobs and had several interviews every month. He didn;t get teh jobs because...they went to one of the 100+ other people who appplied for them. Or he was "over qualified". If someone like that is struggling to find work....how is this scheme going to help people with less qualifications and motivation?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

kuju said:


> Right...first things first...sorry  I wasn't referring to you as a simpleton..but I can see how it comes across like that.My apologies.
> 
> However sarcasm isn't a great response to it..... Of course £1.2 billion pounds is a lot of money. I'm not dismissing it entirely. The point i'm making is that that the "benefit scrounger" is once again held up against "the great british taxpayer" in some sort of adversarial battle where teh taxpayer is right and true and the benefit scrounger is some sort of low life. And yes that's media led....but it's not me saying it. It's in this thread. It's in most media reports of the issue.It is very much in government rhetoric. We are ALL taxpayers in some way.
> 
> ...


See i find this ridiculous as well. I recently advertised an admin role here on reed. on reed it said we had over 100 applicants (when actually thats how many people click through)

In reality we had 13 applicants, 11 of which we invited for interview and out of those 11, 1 turned up.

I'm not going to read an article written by the guardian in the same way you wouldnt read one from the mail, this is what i mean, its difficult to find an unbiased source.

This scheme is common in the US, i dont see the problem. you dont want to see £300M wasted but you pass off £1.2Billion as not a big deal. I dont understand the logic

PS- thanks for not calling me a simpleton, i in turn apologise for my sarcasm


----------



## Ad200 (Sep 17, 2013)

Deffinetly a great idea that should of been introduced years ago!

There was a programme on tv about a family on benifits on channel 4 can't remember what it was called. But they were bitching about how benifits isn't enough to live off though they made no attempt to find work.

Gave their kids **** food when the parents are using brand new iPhones on their huge tv with sky and xbox etc. not to mention drugs.

But there are a lot of good people losing their jobs and having to turn to benifits, there should be a difference in how these two groups are treated


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

The thing I find about all these schemes, is that there's a group - for want of a better description, call them hardcore abusers who aren't about to be easily discouraged, aren't about to work, are all about getting their benefits for the rest of the life if they can swing it.

Then there are other groups, people who've struggled, people who've fallen on hard times, people who've lost their job, largely due to the way the political climate has been predicated over the last few decades, the way in which the economy has been driven, and the way in which the banking system was allowed to do it's thang.

There are probably some that have found it difficult and feel in a trap, and would like to work and better themselves, but aren't finding any easy way.

I don't know what sort of percentages or proportions the various types of these groups that I've labelled, make up the numbers in terms of people on benefits. So far, I've been lucky (there's always some degree of luck involved) in that I've always been in full time employment since leaving 6th form (and part time employment whilst I was there), so I've never been on benefits, or had to understand much of what's really involved. The only real notion I have about it all, and jobs centres, is for a brief period, my dad was unemployed in the late 80s (a month or two after being made redundant, before he found another job), and going back to around the mid 90s, my then girlfriend worked in a job centre for a couple of years, so I have physically been in one a few times, but never doing business, so to speak.

What I find with lots of these initiatives, is that it's the people in the middle - those that tend to be reasonable people, who are most at threat, or most marginalised. The hardcore of those on benefits, who have no intention of working, and for whom it's a lifestyle choice, will likely be unaffected or manage to hard-nose their way through it - by sufficiently managing to know the system enough, savvy / morally flexible or morally bankrupt enough to be able to get around it, and by being as passive-aggressive as possible.

It's always that reasonable group in the middle that suffer, whilst the true abusers and focus of most peoples' ire that are likely to be largely unaffected. It's that reality that politicians, often in their ivory towers, seem either oblivious or unconcerned with.

But like somebody else has already mentioned, I do wonder whether this policy will ever see the true light of day. I suspect it's just pre-election posturing in an attempt to encourage some targetted, demographic votes.


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

MunchieBites said:


> See i find this ridiculous as well. I recently advertised an admin role here on reed. on reed it said we had over 100 applicants (when actually thats how many people click through)
> 
> In reality we had 13 applicants, 11 of which we invited for interview and out of those 11, 1 turned up.
> 
> ...


Ok - well we advertised an admin job here....and had 187 actual application forms. We trimmed it down to 40 people and all of them showed up. And that's about average for our place. A cleaning job however...that got over 200 applicants. We can both find individual examples to support our case...

As for the guardian article - I see your poin and it's fair... but the reason I posted it is because it's largely direct quotes from a study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It is unbiased research. You can take the guardian commentary away and still glean facts.

My point is just this...look at the post below yours by AD200 (not having a go at you directly by the way @Ad200!!) - the channel 4 programme. THAT is the reality of how the debate is handled. Biased. And that is the basis on which this legislation has come to be talked about and that is the way that all benefit claimants are seen.

A simple, blanket rule approach working to the lowest common denominator. It is facile political soundbites to appease people. If you can explain - in detail - where these community jobs will come from, who wil;l manage them, how people will be selected for them - will they be vetted to ensure they can work in people's homes for instance? The list of logistical challenges here is huge and it's facing a department that couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel....unless MP's are involved of course...and oranges.

It is a clusterfvck waiting to happen.

If the jobs are there...pay people minimum wage to do them. If they are able to go beyond that then they will.... if not..they have a job. Empowerment is surely a better way forward?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

The govt knows exactly what it's doing, despite giving the appearance of not doing so. Everything is stage managed, we are fed disinformation, lies, half truths & bs.

But then others who are 'informed' & 'think for themselves' believe all the rubbish we're fed. Then when someone uncovers some of the truth, it's then dismissed as a con theory.

Very many of them are Oxbridge educated...including the working mans party ie Labour.-who drink way too much decent Claret & eat at Langans etc.

But 'we are for the people' they espouse, & the people suck up every word & concentrate on the lotry, footie & cheap lager & Sky.

Brothers & Sisters unite, the revolution is at hand... :lol:


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

latblaster said:


> The govt knows exactly what it's doing, despite giving the appearance of not doing so. Everything is stage managed, we are fed disinformation, lies, half truths & bs.


Bollocks. Most of 'em are simply not that clever. And the ones that are are hardly prevalent, and the others who may be scheming and power-hungry aren't all steely-eyed-missile-men. If you think in the terms: never ascribe to malice what could be explained as incompetence, you'll largely be right most of the time.

Like most things that goes through loads of iteration, committee, consensus, arguing, more committee, more consnsus, kwangos, focus groups, any initially reasonable ideas are swamped and diluted by the process of getting from A through to D.


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

Just one question, the conservatives scheme to get you on the housing ladder, seems to remind me of PPI to get a mortgage you have to buy a insurance from the government, but all the soundings are coming back that the£140.000 house will be £165.000, the ceiling, if you don't like it you can lump it, pay more and get a useless insurance, the Mafia would be proud of this one, poor people giving to the rich land owners again, other option, pay over priced rents to the rich land owners.

Just one more question, a man went to prison for coming up with a product that didn't work and was useless, he was given seven years in prison last week, the banks brought out PPI fully knowing the product was udeless, destroying many small buisnesses it was in short a multi billion £ con, personally I have had no compensation, I didn't have PPi but have been harassed no end for the last 3 years and believe I am due some recompence, but no rich banker, not one ever has gone to prison, or has even ended up in a criminal court, but whats the difference, how much did they loose the NHS how much has it caused the tax payer, where could that money have gone, and they have kept the bonuses, really my point is just for once can somre of you biggots blame someone else just once maybe and have a go at the ones that rip off Britain for multi billions, and see it as their right.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Jaffo remains on my ignore list.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

latblaster said:


> Jaffo remains on my ignore list.


Yeah, sure - so how would you know I replied, then? Nobody has quoted it...

You keep making that announcement - maybe somebody gives a shit.


----------



## Glu (Mar 3, 2013)

The issue is value for money.

You have a subset of the population who either can't or won't support themselves and the system is obliged to care for them. It costs to give them benefits but it would also cost to train them, take them to a place of work and supervise them during which might turn out to be more expensive than keeping them on benefits in the first place.

It's difficult to know the genuine proportion of benefit claimants who's situation would make them viable for whatever scheme might be introduced. More than likely those that already "work the system" in their favour will continue to do so and the "overqualified / applies for 20 jobs a week" set will tow the line and turn up.

One thing is for certain the scheme would cost a fortune. The current system isn't going to be any less strained, it will require more staff, more training, more vehicles and more hours. The tax payer might be pleased to hear that "scroungers" are now being put to work for their money. But if it turns out it cost 40 grand a year per claimant to force him/her to pick up litter 4 days a week and your still paying them benefits on top then what have we gained?

Probably a rise in taxes or a reduction in spending where you really want it.


----------

