Strapped For Cash

[Alec]

Edit to my edit - I tried to keep what I said in, but with the line through it. Computer siad no, so I just deleted the passage. I could have doen it better perhaps, but there you go.

 

[Anonymous]

?

Maybe your time would be better spent getting help with your reading and attention problems.

Ah. There was no insult, and that comment would have passed easily at one time, though more easily when written by some than others. Speaking of which, nice to see you back on the Mod team.

Edited to reflect that I think what I said is actually untrue.

No change there then.

Sad to see you plumbing the depths once more by decending into personal insults, rather than putting forward a rational argument to support your beliefs. Again. I would be more than happy to address any areas of fact or even opinion that you would care to advance, but so far I have seen none.

 

[GSB]

- I don't approve of people who take benefits without any intention of working but the evidence suggests that these are such a small number.

Well all i can say is that that evidance is wrong.I work in social housing,and work in those properties on a daily basis.The vast majority of the tenents are not working,are fit to work,but not wanting too.Time and again i hear complaints from mrs smith(example)about the guy down the road,living on DLA who's supposed to have a bad back but regulary takes his dog on long walks...and mows his grass!

Just my experiance.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't approve of people who take benefits without any intention of working but the evidence suggests that these are such a small number.

Well all i can say is that that evidance is wrong.I work in social housing,and work in those properties on a daily basis.The vast majority of the tenents are not working,are fit to work,but not wanting too.Time and again i hear complaints from mrs smith(example)about the guy down the road,living on DLA who's supposed to have a bad back but regulary takes his dog on long walks...and mows his grass!

Just my experiance.

Yes but you are not allowed to say things like that; you will be found guilty of demonising these vulnerable members of society.........

 

[GSB]

The trouble is,as i have said before,certain members of this society need to take responsability for themselves and their own lives.You would not believe the amount of assistance these'vulnerable' people recieve when different agencies get involved.It realy is like the parent spoiling the child by throwing presents at them every time they play-up. It doesnt get at the root of the problem...a lack of personal direction,focus and responsability for their own family.For me this is were the big spend should be,help these people basicaly 'get a life',a sense of self-worth etc....they are not victims of this upperclass divide i keep reading,they are victims of lack of motivation,education and the liily livered do-gooders |(

 

[marou]

- I don't approve of people who take benefits without any intention of working but the evidence suggests that these are such a small number.

Well all i can say is that that evidance is wrong.I work in social housing,and work in those properties on a daily basis.The vast majority of the tenents are not working,are fit to work,but not wanting too.Time and again i hear complaints from mrs smith(example)about the guy down the road,living on DLA who's supposed to have a bad back but regulary takes his dog on long walks...and mows his grass!

Just my experiance.

I'm not sure what point you're making. There are people who abuse the system and in your work you no doubt come across them. But the vast majority in receipt of benefits are in work (getting tax credits and/or housing benefit) or are pensioners (47% of the welfare budget). JSA accounts for around 5% of the welfare budget and many are unemployed and cannot find work. Paid employment involving dog-walking and grass mowing is scarce and in any case, you don't have to be confined to bed to unfit for work. Reducing welfare across the board will of course hit benefit cheats but at the cost of penalising legitimate claimants. Pursuing the cheats would require more spending and I've yet to see an analysis which shows that this would be cost effective. If it were I would support it. But I suspect the government is more concerned about diverting attention from their current economic failings

 

[CnoEvil]

You can argue Black is Black; and you can argue White is White.........but reality is usually Grey!

 

[GSB]

- I don't approve of people who take benefits without any intention of working but the evidence suggests that these are such a small number.

Well all i can say is that that evidance is wrong.I work in social housing,and work in those properties on a daily basis.The vast majority of the tenents are not working,are fit to work,but not wanting too.Time and again i hear complaints from mrs smith(example)about the guy down the road,living on DLA who's supposed to have a bad back but regulary takes his dog on long walks...and mows his grass!

Just my experiance.

I'm not sure what point you're making. There are people who abuse the system and in your work you no doubt come across them. But the vast majority in receipt of benefits are in work (getting tax credits and/or housing benefit) or are pensioners (47% of the welfare budget). JSA accounts for around 5% of the welfare budget and many are unemployed and cannot find work. Paid employment involving dog-walking and grass mowing is scarce and in any case, you don't have to be confined to bed to unfit for work. Reducing welfare across the board will of course hit benefit cheats but at the cost of penalising legitimate claimants. Pursuing the cheats would require more spending and I've yet to see an analysis which shows that this would be cost effective. If it were I would support it. But I suspect the government is more concerned about diverting attention from their current economic failings

The coalition are trying to encourage people to work for their living!

If the system wasn't abused dont you think that more funds would be available to support working families...aswell as pensioners...?

It is so easy for people to right long posts and letters about how shamefull the benefit cuts are...the morality of it all :roll:

The people who deal with benefits know who are abusing it..their hands are tied.the trick is to get them to stop claiming it in the first place.

What is shamefull,in my opinion,is that people expect to be given,they expect to live on benefits without contributing nothing to society.Ever watched things like motorway cops...?You see the young lads joyriding...growng weed and dealing from home(social housing)these will be you job seekers.

I spoke to a 22yrd old single guy last week who said he couldn't find work...i suggested that he could,in order for his cv to stand out,do some voluntree work...even an hour a day....would show a new employeer that he was not just one of the 'hoody brigade'.the look on his face said everything,as he cracked his third can of beer...while i was grafting in his kitchen :roll:

 

[marou]

I don't approve of people who take benefits without any intention of working but the evidence suggests that these are such a small number.

Well all i can say is that that evidance is wrong.I work in social housing,and work in those properties on a daily basis.The vast majority of the tenents are not working,are fit to work,but not wanting too.Time and again i hear complaints from mrs smith(example)about the guy down the road,living on DLA who's supposed to have a bad back but regulary takes his dog on long walks...and mows his grass!

Just my experiance.

Yes but you are not allowed to say things like that; you will be found guilty of demonising these vulnerable members of society.........

No one seems to be stopping you - who are these judges whose wrath you fear? And when evidence however anecdotal is produced which contradicts my views, I re-examine and sometimes modify them - what do you do?

 

[Anonymous]

when evidence however anecdotal is produced which contradicts my views, I re-examine and sometimes modify them - what do you do?

I wouldn't know, it's never happened.

 

[marou]

- I don't approve of people who take benefits without any intention of working but the evidence suggests that these are such a small number.

Well all i can say is that that evidance is wrong.I work in social housing,and work in those properties on a daily basis.The vast majority of the tenents are not working,are fit to work,but not wanting too.Time and again i hear complaints from mrs smith(example)about the guy down the road,living on DLA who's supposed to have a bad back but regulary takes his dog on long walks...and mows his grass!

Just my experiance.

I'm not sure what point you're making. There are people who abuse the system and in your work you no doubt come across them. But the vast majority in receipt of benefits are in work (getting tax credits and/or housing benefit) or are pensioners (47% of the welfare budget). JSA accounts for around 5% of the welfare budget and many are unemployed and cannot find work. Paid employment involving dog-walking and grass mowing is scarce and in any case, you don't have to be confined to bed to unfit for work. Reducing welfare across the board will of course hit benefit cheats but at the cost of penalising legitimate claimants. Pursuing the cheats would require more spending and I've yet to see an analysis which shows that this would be cost effective. If it were I would support it. But I suspect the government is more concerned about diverting attention from their current economic failings

The coalition are trying to encourage people to work for their living!

If the system wasn't abused dont you think that more funds would be available to support working families...aswell as pensioners...?

It is so easy for people to right long posts and letters about how shamefull the benefit cuts are...the morality of it all :roll:

The people who deal with benefits know who are abusing it..their hands are tied.the trick is to get them to stop claiming it in the first place.

What is shamefull,in my opinion,is that people expect to be given,they expect to live on benefits without contributing nothing to society.Ever watched things like motorway cops...?You see the young lads joyriding...growng weed and dealing from home(social housing)these will be you job seekers.

I spoke to a 22yrd old single guy last week who said he couldn't find work...i suggested that he could,in order for his cv to stand out,do some voluntree work...even an hour a day....would show a new employeer that he was not just one of the 'hoody brigade'.the look on his face said everything,as he cracked his third can of beer...while i was grafting in his kitchen :roll:

I don't disagree with a great deal of what you write and having worked in Social Services know that getting people off benefits can be a thankless task. But keeping a sense of proportion was always the most difficult part of my job - coming up against the worst on a daily basis tended to obscure the fact most recipients of welfare are ordinary people who are as enraged by failings in the system as any one else. However the cost of dealing with it and the policing involved would be high, a price worth paying if it allayed fears about widespread cheating. Dealing with the issues you describe though and on the scale that requires wouid demand a new thread, perhaps not in WHF.

 

[GSB]

I think everyone would agree there is a faililing of the system...it alows people to ''choose'' to live their lives dependant on benefits.Working families should have their income topped up to help with essential bills and childcare(although they chose to have the bloody kids)i don't mind even paying a little extra towards this.

But for those that abuse a great system( and those that just need guidance in living a worthwhile life),the cost of policing is nothing compared to what the state is already paying interms of the benefits they recieve...the intervening agencies,the cost of sending police to their address to deal with anti-social behavour etc etc.You find out what percentage of crime is commited by people out of regular employment.How much does it cost to deal with them...?

 

[GSB]

If i may i'd like to give a liitle example.

Last friday i spoke to one of our housing estate officers.

The association i work for has set-up a small fencing business,employing those tenents that are long term unemployed.

She told me that a father of three,who was basically a sudo alchaholic was a complete changed man...after just one month of regular work.

To my mind i would say that guy had found some self-worth.

This too me this is were our welfare state is heading.It is not just about how much money and who is entitled to it,it is about helping people to help themselves.

What do they say''give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day,teach him how to catch fish and he'll eat everyday''

 

[chebby]

when evidence however anecdotal is produced which contradicts my views, I re-examine and sometimes modify them - what do you do?

I wouldn't know, it's never happened.

What has 'never happened'?

There has never been any evidence to contradict your views?

Or... you've never re-examined or modified your views, despite contradictory evidence?

 

[Anonymous]

when evidence however anecdotal is produced which contradicts my views, I re-examine and sometimes modify them - what do you do?

I wouldn't know, it's never happened.

What has 'never happened'?

There has never been any evidence to contradict your views?

Or you've never re-examined or modified your views, despite contradictory evidence?

I haven't seen any evidence to contradict my views.

 

[chebby]

when evidence however anecdotal is produced which contradicts my views, I re-examine and sometimes modify them - what do you do?

I wouldn't know, it's never happened.

What has 'never happened'?

There has never been any evidence to contradict your views?

Or you've never re-examined or modified your views, despite contradictory evidence?

I haven't seen any evidence to contradict my views.

Thanks. I thought it was that one.

 

[marou]

when evidence however anecdotal is produced which contradicts my views, I re-examine and sometimes modify them - what do you do?

I wouldn't know, it's never happened.

What has 'never happened'?

There has never been any evidence to contradict your views?

Or you've never re-examined or modified your views, despite contradictory evidence?

I haven't seen any evidence to contradict my views.

Blimey

 

[professorhat]

 

[Anonymous]

when evidence however anecdotal is produced which contradicts my views, I re-examine and sometimes modify them - what do you do?

I wouldn't know, it's never happened.

What has 'never happened'?

There has never been any evidence to contradict your views?

Or you've never re-examined or modified your views, despite contradictory evidence?

I haven't seen any evidence to contradict my views.

Thanks. I thought it was that one.

Always glad to oblige.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Ah. Nice to see you back on the Mod team.

Not sure I was ever entirely off – just taking more of a back seat as I have other things to occupy my time these days, but thanks for the sentiment anyway!

 

[relocated]

if I thought mine was a minority viewpoint, I'd probably leave too.

Do you mean that you would exclude yourself from ever making a contribution on the whole forum because other people didn't agree with you on one thing in the miriad of things we [try to] discuss on WHF?

If you felt that that topic in particular was more important than the others (and lets face it hi-fi doesn't really fall under the banner of "important") and that your viewpoint was not only not being listened to but was being actively disparaged in a less than polite manner then I can see why someone might feel that this wasn't somewhere they wanted to hangout anymore.

I mean, this is supposed to be "fun" right?

Now you see I just DO NOT understand this. If one has a valid point or ethos that is worthy of that validity, is it not worth standing up and being counted for? How are you ever going to know if, in pure fact, you have a valid point/argument if you run away as soon as someone challenges you robustly.

I never seek to be rude to people [on here] but if I stray a little, is anyone going to die? Of course we should be civil to one another but YOU CAN CALL ME ANYTHING YOU WANT TO, it will not stop me arguing my point. 'Sticks and stones' is the expression and it is true[outside of a concerted bullying campaign], some people really need to grow up AND grow a pair.

And yes T, this is supposed to be fun, but it is good that people can debate, on a Frippery Forum, some of the more important or topical issues. It is good to see how some people deal with the things in life that are more important than the frippery of a new phone/hifi/av blah blah.

Oh and does anyone really believe that they/government/anyone has any idea of the true cost of fiddled welfare. They don't have the first idea.

Hope everyone enjoyed the beautiful sunshine in Blighty today, maybe our first day of Spring??????????

:cheers:

 

[professorhat]

I think the point is, just because you're happy for someone to insult you in a forum (or even in real life), not everyone feels that way and would rather just spend their time doing something else more pleasant (and why the hell not - life on this world is pretty short). And (in my view), people should be able to put their point across without someone either actively calling them stupid, or insinuating as such through belittling and patronising language. I'm realistic in that I know we don't live in that world, but that doesn't excuse it when it happens.

The idea of a debate is both sides should actually listen and respect each other's viewpoints, even if they disagree. Most of the time, that doesn't happen and debates generally just seem to descend into who can shout the loudest or who can look the smuggest (especially amongst politicians) whilst not even pretending to actually listen to the counter argument.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the point is, just because you're happy for someone to insult you in a forum (or even in real life), not everyone feels that way and would rather just spend their time doing something else more pleasant (and why the hell not - life on this world is pretty short). And (in my view), people should be able to put their point across without someone either actively calling them stupid, or insinuating as such through belittling and patronising language. I'm realistic in that I know we don't live in that world, but that doesn't excuse it when it happens.

The idea of a debate is both sides should actually listen and respect each other's viewpoints, even if they disagree. Most of the time, that doesn't happen and debates generally just seem to descend into who can shout the loudest or who can look the smuggest (especially amongst politicians) whilst not even pretending to actually listen to the counter argument.

That's a fair point Prof, but the problem is that some people seem to believe that their world view is sacrosanct, and that anyone else with a counter view is beyond the pale.

I find that naive and immature at best.

Personally, I'm happy to debate and defend my views with anyone, I don't consider myself so morally superior that those who disagree with me need to be kept at arms length.

 

[professorhat]

I'd imagine many are astounded at that response

 

[Alantiggger]

I'd imagine many are astounded at that response

Eh ?