To clarify, by "social security" I mean items such as income support, job seekers allowance.

I believe it should.

The vouchers should take the form of food, clothing, heating / utilities and travel vouchers, which, to my knowledge, is what the money is supposed to be for in the first place.

What I do not see the point in is giving someone £55 a week so they can use it to spend on drink, cigarettes, nights out and a multitude of other vices including gambling and drugs.

I always remember when a couple of reprobates from the year below me at school came into the local job centre one day and shouted out

"Is this where you get the free money?"

My views on the matter were formed that day, and have never changed.

Why dont they pay it in euros and they would have to leave the country to spend it

Why dont they pay it in euros and they would have to leave the country to spend it

what a brilliant idea, or give it to them in their own currency!

The vouchers should take the form of food, clothing, heating / utilities and travel vouchers, which, to my knowledge, is what the money is supposed to be for in the first place.

What I do not see the point in is giving someone £55 a week so they can use it to spend on drink, cigarettes, nights out and a multitude of other vices including gambling and drugs.


Of course, because all people on the dole don't eat, wander around naked, have no gas, electricity or water pumped into their hovels, and walk barefoot everywhere.

What do you think the unemployed DO spend the money on? They wouldn't get very far if they didn't pay for all the things you mentioned, would they? :loopy:

just a thought if we could persuade 250000 people to donate £1 a week and then give each refugee £2500 to go back like they are doing with the prisoners in approx ten years they would be none left and in theory your taxes would go down and eventually you would get your money back the more people you could persuade to join the quicker it would be.

Not only that but register as a charity and somwhere along the line the goverment would help. then we could apply for a lottery grant and before you know where you are in four or five years they would be all gone .Problem solved

Yes - let them have vouchers they can spend on food and essentials only.

That'll get the lazy scroungers thinking about work.

Of course, because all people on the dole don't eat, wander around naked, have no gas, electricity or water pumped into their hovels, and walk barefoot everywhere.

What do you think the unemployed DO spend the money on? They wouldn't get very far if they didn't pay for all the things you mentioned, would they? :loopy:

Confrontational. Check.

Snide. Check.

Aloof. Check

Well done.

Dont they do something like this in the US? Food stamps?

They should have vouchers. I had a tenant in a property who received rent from the council, it was the decision of the tenant (who had a job when he moved in) that the money was paid direct to him not me. Course he did a runner without paying me. Had it been in vouchers or direct he would probably still be there and everything would be fine.

Of course, because all people on the dole don't eat, wander around naked, have no gas, electricity or water pumped into their hovels, and walk barefoot everywhere.

What do you think the unemployed DO spend the money on? They wouldn't get very far if they didn't pay for all the things you mentioned, would they? :loopy:

Well, perhaps I could furnish you with an example.

Mr X. lives at home with his partner or family and claims £55 a week in income support. Mr X has his clothes, food, bills etc paid for by his partner or family.

Mr X. then goes out and spends his £55 on beer, fags and William Hill betting slips. A fine redistribution of national resources.

I await your vitriolic reply.

Confrontational. Check.

Snide. Check.

Aloof. Check

Well done.

What do you think your original post was? Or have you got the exclusive rights on that?

Don't want people to comment? Don't post then.

They should have vouchers. I had a tenant in a property who received rent from the council, it was the decision of the tenant (who had a job when he moved in) that the money was paid direct to him not me. Course he did a runner without paying me. Had it been in vouchers or direct he would probably still be there and everything would be fine.

I have never understood why on earth housing beneift is paid to anyone but the landlord. Its asking for trouble.

Moreover, why do council tennants get housing benefit which is then paid back to the council? (correct me if I am wrong on this process)

What do you think your original post was? Or have you got the exclusive rights on that?

Don't want people to comment? Don't post then.Very clever.

Well, perhaps I could furnish you with an example.

Mr X. lives at home with his partner or family and claims £55 a week in income support. Mr X has his clothes, food, bills etc paid for by his partner or family.

Mr X. then goes out and spends his £55 on beer, fags and William Hill betting slips. A fine redistribution of national resources.

I await your vitriolic reply.

You're right, they should spend it all on state-approved activities, or perhaps give the money to decent, hard-working people.

I have seen people arrive at the benefit office in a taxi, go inside and demand the money to pay the fare.

I have never understood why on earth housing beneift is paid to anyone but the landlord. Its asking for trouble.

Moreover, why do council tennants get housing benefit which is then paid back to the council? (correct me if I am wrong on this process)In this instance he made lots of excuses for the rent being late and I believed him and so he ran up quite a big debt. The council wouldn't confirm or deny paying him to me under data protection legislation and yet he effectively stole their money. He also ran up big debts with all the utility companies by moving from one to the other which would have been difficult with vouchers.

To clarify, by "social security" I mean items such as income support, job seekers allowance.

I believe it should.

The vouchers should take the form of food, clothing, heating / utilities and travel vouchers, which, to my knowledge, is what the money is supposed to be for in the first place.

What I do not see the point in is giving someone £55 a week so they can use it to spend on drink, cigarettes, nights out and a multitude of other vices including gambling and drugs.

I always remember when a couple of reprobates from the year below me at school came into the local job centre one day and shouted out

"Is this where you get the free money?"

My views on the matter were formed that day, and have never changed.

Hi Mike,

I'm sorry to have to tell you but I think you have entered this website by mistake. I can see exactly how it happened. You were so busy reading the Daily Star that you accidently took a wrong turning in your white van out of Essex and in the confusion have totally forgotten the Talk Sport phone number.

As I'm sure a man of your intelect is only too aware this is an excelent radio station where cockney voiced van drivers can get on the radio and air your views on such matters as social security, traffic wardens, smoking bans and the nanny state in general.

In a spirt of helpfulness please allow me to provide you with a useful link

http://www1.talksport.net/index.asp

ps, enjoy your evening's grayhound racing tonight.:thumbsup:

I have seen people arrive at the benefit office in a taxi, go inside and demand the money to pay the fare.

My sister used to work at The Childrens Hospital and said people regularly asked her to order them a taxi home, they were quite upset when she pointed out they had to make their own way home, especially as no-one was actually ill.

Very clever.

what kind of a response would you have expected?

"Thanks for pointing out all my shortcomings. I only hope that one day I can be as great as you are"

Well, perhaps I could furnish you with an example.

Mr X. lives at home with his partner or family and claims £55 a week in income support. Mr X has his clothes, food, bills etc paid for by his partner or family.

Mr X. then goes out and spends his £55 on beer, fags and William Hill betting slips. A fine redistribution of national resources.

I await your vitriolic reply.

Hi Mike

I actually agree with some of your sentiments on this - although as Rich has pointed out - how do you differentiate between those genuinely looking for work and them who are happy to sit back, claim benefits and not work?

With regards the scenario above, it shouldn't be able to happen just as you have outlined. If the partner is not in work either then Mr X would recieve (more) benefit for both himself, his partner and any children and therefore the partner would not be able to buy the clothes, pay the bills etc. If the partner is in work then this would be taken into consideration when working out if Mr X can claim benefits (because Income Support and Jobseekers are on the whole means tested) and so he would (probably) not recieve any benefits himself. Just to let you know!;)

What do you think your original post was? Or have you got the exclusive rights on that?

Don't want people to comment? Don't post then.

By all means I want people to comment.

But as yet you havent commented with any form of constructive reply. You have merely been objectionable.

A vast difference.

You're right, they should spend it all on state-approved activities, or perhaps give the money to decent, hard-working people.

So, are you effectively saying that people should have the right to spend finanical aid like this as they see fit, even if it is to the detriment of themselves, their family and wider society?

Dont they do something like this in the US? Food stamps?

They do indeed, Jabber. It's called WIC. (Women, infants, and children) Each family (according to their income) receives vouchers for food items such as milk, juice, cereal, peanut butter, eggs, fruit, cheese, bread, butter etc. These vouchers can ONLY be exchanged for food, there is no cash involved. Also, the income limits are quite high. I have a friend who gets about $75/month in free food because she has four kids, even though both she and her husband have good jobs.

The old food stamp program was abolished some time ago due to fraud. Each welfare recepient now receives a pre-paid debit card as part of their benefits package. No more using a $20 food stamp to buy a fifty cent package of gum, then doing God knows what with the change.

:) Sierra

how about we follow the germans or dutch for once,

they have much more strict rules on how you can claim any benefits. one is that if you havent paid enough in you cant get owt out.

this is one of the reasons all these people travel half way around the world passing through the likes of germany france etc to get to the land of free money and houses.

Hi Mike,

I'm sorry to have to tell you but I think you have entered this website by mistake. I can see exactly how it happened. You were so busy reading the Daily Star that you accidently took a wrong turning in your white van out of Essex and in the confusion have totally forgotten the Talk Sport phone number.

As I'm sure a man of your intelect is only too aware this is an excelent radio station where cockney voiced van drivers can get on the radio and air your views on such matters as social security, traffic wardens, smoking bans and the nanny state in general.

In a spirt of helpfulness please allow me to provide you with a useful link

http://www1.talksport.net/index.asp

ps, enjoy your evening's grayhound racing tonight.:thumbsup:

Actually, I read the Sun not the Star.

A subtle, but important difference!

By all means I want people to comment.

But as yet you havent commented with any form of constructive reply. You have merely been objectionable.

A vast difference.

In your sanctimonious opinion, yes.

You original post was unrealistic, unpleasant and ill-founded. My response was based upon that.

You might think you can talk like a lawyer, and that might impress some people, but it holds no sway with me, whether that makes me objectionable, aloof, or whatever other epithets you care to throw my way. Similarly, your baseless arguments and right-wing rhetoric don't impress me one jot. If you don't like that, tough.

"Thanks for pointing out all my shortcomings. I only hope that one day I can be as great as you are"Keep hoping mister.

Actually, I read the Sun not the Star.

A subtle, but important difference!

Oh my darling, please accept my profound appologies. You really must not be offended by someone who is slightly above your intelectual level. It may very well be that you really do believe the views you have expressed and that toiling away at your menial task has indeed so cruely turned you into a marginally more bitter and unhumorous person than would otherwise have been the case.

I really would advise you to consider telephoning Jon Gaunt on Talk Sport and (while adopting the obligitory Essex accent) complain bitterly about speed cameras. I fell that this is very much your spiritual home and that having done so you would be a much more relaxed and happy individual.

Please keep up the good work.:)

The idea is unworkable anyway. What's to stop someone selling the voucher and then using the cash?

Confrontational. Check.

Snide. Check.

Aloof. Check

Well done.

He's spot-on right though, Mike....

StarSparkle

Hi Mike

I actually agree with some of your sentiments on this - although as Rich has pointed out - how do you differentiate between those genuinely looking for work and them who are happy to sit back, claim benefits and not work?

I am not so sure as Rich did point that out, but I take your point at least. Frankly, I dont see as it matters whether you are looking for work or not. The money is desinged for life essentials, it is not supposed to be a form of reward system for apathy or otherwise.

With regards the scenario above, it shouldn't be able to happen just as you have outlined. If the partner is not in work either then Mr X would recieve (more) benefit for both himself, his partner and any children and therefore the partner would not be able to buy the clothes, pay the bills etc. If the partner is in work then this would be taken into consideration when working out if Mr X can claim benefits (because Income Support and Jobseekers are on the whole means tested) and so he would (probably) not recieve any benefits himself. Just to let you know!;)

It does happen though. I know people who have been happily sailing along for years on income support, and blow the lot on going out. Quite why their partners or families endorse this apathetic lifestlye I dont know, but they do.

The idea is unworkable anyway. What's to stop someone selling the voucher and then using the cash?If the voucher were payable to specific person or company in the case of rent and only the payee could cash it like a crossed cheque (supposedly) it may work with rent.

The idea is unworkable anyway. What's to stop someone selling the voucher and then using the cash?

This was exactly the problem with the old food stamp program. People were selling them for 10 cents on the dollar. The father of one of my son's friends is a police officer, and he said you wouldn't believe how many people they arrested who had food stamps in their pockets.

The WIC vouchers come in the form of a check, with the recepients name and address on them. To redeem them, they must provide the proper ID.

:) Sierra

If the voucher were payable to specific person or company in the case of rent and only the payee could cash it like a crossed cheque (supposedly) it may work with rent.

Sorry Cyclone, Darbees beat me to it. :thumbsup:

:) Sierra

In your sanctimonious opinion, yes.

You original post was unrealistic, unpleasant and ill-founded. My response was based upon that.

You might think you can talk like a lawyer, and that might impress some people, but it holds no sway with me, whether that makes me objectionable, aloof, or whatever other epithets you care to throw my way. Similarly, your baseless arguments and right-wing rhetoric don't impress me one jot. If you don't like that, tough.

But, if we could have an adult conversation on this and dismiss with the petty insults - in what way were my suggestions on this post "unpleasant" and "ill-founded". I am especially interested in how you came to conclude on the former.

As someone who has had immediate friends and family on benefits for some time, I actually speak with more empathy on this situation than perhaps you realise.

Incidentally, I am not aiming to impress you.

The following is a transcript of a radio conversation between Mikebayly and Jon Gaunt on Talk Sport:

Jon: (for it is he) Right next up is Mike from Sheffield a first time caller.

Mike: (In obligitory Essex accent) Yeah, morning Gaunty, first time caller so I'm a bit nervous.

Jon: You're very welcome Mike. What do you want to say.

Mike: Well basically it's about these social security scrongers, they're doin' my bleedin' head in.

Jon: I'm with you all the way on that one my friend.

Mike: I mean, the thing is Gaunty, I get up at 5 O clock each morning, go to work, work 17 hours non-stop and then I get taxed at 90% just to pay for these idle sods who sit at home all day masterbating over Natasha Kaplinsky and listening to the radio. (Oh except your show Gaunty which is excellent as always)

Jon: Thank you my friend you're not wrong there. You know what I can't understand is why we don't just shoot them all and sell their bodies for cat food.

Mike: Too right Gaunty. Y'know I'm sick of this country. If it's not bloody scroungers it's speed cameras and bloody yogart knitting do gooders trying to stop you driving when you've had a drink. I've had it with this country Gaunty. I'm emigrating to North Korea.

Jon: Good talking to you Mike. That's Mike from Sheffield. I'll be right back after this short break.

Sorry Cyclone, Darbees beat me to it. :thumbsup:

:) SierraActually I think we've
reinvented the cheque!

The idea is unworkable anyway. What's to stop someone selling the voucher and then using the cash?



People sell milk token to shops now or exchange for food Cigaretts and drink, and i belive them milk tokens are not worth that much, so i agree if people are desprest to sell a milk token that sopose to be for your child for under £3 or something like that, then im sure these shops will also do the same if they was vouchers for food ect.

Unpleasant and ill-founded in that you suggested by the tone and content of your post that everyone who is in reciept of benefits is wont to waste the money which they are so kindly given on gambling and drugs. There are people who do this, yes, but I am sure that there are a great many more who are grateful for the assistance offered to them and use the money wisely. It seems to me that you, armed with the 'knowledge' vouchsafed to you by the press, are finding a problem where there isn't one.

Perhaps you could now point out my petty insults?

The following is a transcript of a radio conversation between Mikebayly and Jon Gaunt on Talk Sport:

Jon: (for it is he) Right next up is Mike from Sheffield a first time caller.

Mike: (In obligitory Essex accent) Yeah, morning Gaunty, first time caller so I'm a bit nervous.

Jon: You're very welcome Mike. What do you want to say.

Mike: Well basically it's about these social security scrongers, they're doin' my bleedin' head in.

Jon: I'm with you all the way on that one my friend.

Mike: I mean, the thing is Gaunty, I get up at 5 O clock each morning, go to work, work 17 non-stop and then I get taxed at 90% just to pay for these idle sod's who sit at home all day masterbating over Natasha Kaplinsky and listening to the radio. (Oh except your show Gaunty which is excellent as always)

Jon: Thank you my friend you're not wrong there. You know what I can't understand is why we don't just shoot them all and sell their bodies for cat food.

Mike: Too right Gaunty. Y'know I'm sick of this country. If it's not bloody scroungers it's speed cameras and bloody yogart knitting do gooders trying to stop you driving when you've had a drink. I've had it with this country Gaunty. I9'm emigrating to North Korea.

Jon: Good talking to you Mike. That's Mike from Sheffield. I'll be right back after this short break.
Think you're on the wrong thread here, this one is "Should Social Security money be replaced with vouchers?" You need to be on "Smart**** pointless abuse under the cover of internet anonymity" thread.

People sell milk token to shops now or exchange for food Cigaretts and drink, and i belive them milk tokens are not worth that much, so i agree if people are desprest to sell a milk token that sopose to be for your child for under £3 or something like that, then im sure these shops will also do the same if they was vouchers for food ect.

I'd really love to see proof of people selling milk tokens to shops, or swapping them for fags and booze. It's not feasible anyway, as by your very admission, milk tokens aren't worth a great deal. So what do these people do? Save them up all year for 20 Benson and a four-pack of Spesh?

The following is a transcript of a radio conversation between Mikebayly and Jon Gaunt on Talk Sport:

Jon: (for it is he) Right next up is Mike from Sheffield a first time caller.

Mike: (In obligitory Essex accent) Yeah, morning Gaunty, first time caller so I'm a bit nervous.

Jon: You're very welcome Mike. What do you want to say.

Mike: Well basically it's about these social security scrongers, they're doin' my bleedin' head in.

Jon: I'm with you all the way on that one my friend.

Mike: I mean, the thing is Gaunty, I get up at 5 O clock each morning, go to work, work 17 non-stop and then I get taxed at 90% just to pay for these idle sod's who sit at home all day masterbating over Natasha Kaplinsky and listening to the radio. (Oh except your show Gaunty which is excellent as always)

Jon: Thank you my friend you're not wrong there. You know what I can't understand is why we don't just shoot them all and sell their bodies for cat food.

Mike: Too right Gaunty. Y'know I'm sick of this country. If it's not bloody scroungers it's speed cameras and bloody yogart knitting do gooders trying to stop you driving when you've had a drink. I've had it with this country Gaunty. I9'm emigrating to North Korea.

Jon: Good talking to you Mike. That's Mike from Sheffield. I'll be right back after this short break.

**cracks rib laughing**

Funny and original. Blimey! May I offer my most esteemed contrifibularities

I look forward to the 4th installment with baited breath.

Bated, unless you've got a maggot in your mouth.

There are various currencies around other than those recognised by the banks. One currency is where people nick things from high street shops and then take them back to another branch and get credit vouchers because there's no receipt then use them to buy something else that's been nicked So a new nicked 8 foot screen HD television might cost a few Matalan vouchers with Argos voucher and milk coupons in change. All these vouchers change hands for fraction of their face value.

I'd really love to see proof of people selling milk tokens to shops, or swapping them for fags and booze. It's not feasible anyway, as by your very admission, milk tokens aren't worth a great deal. So what do these people do? Save them up all year for 20 Benson and a four-pack of Spesh?


Well i do and i know people and also 3 shop that does this. and yes i also claim DLA due to illness, and yes im not one of thoes who spend my money on drink and cigaretts as i gave them up a year ago as i got a child to support so i know i can not afford these. I did work from leaveing school up untill last year when i became ill. I know not everyone goes out drinking or smoke and i know plenty of people that do claim that also spend money on the thing this money is for, so im not putting eveyone in the same boat, i know for a fact this happens still with the milk tokens, and i know some not all people use the money on other things and not spend it on food and bills but for drink and other stuff.

t does happen though. I know people who have been happily sailing along for years on income support, and blow the lot on going out. Quite why their partners or families endorse this apathetic lifestlye I dont know, but they do.

That's why i put shouldn't happen rather than can't happen. ;)

I think the families endorse it because they either don't have any say in the matter, or because they are happy with the livestyle themselves, possibly because they have never known any different. It becomes a way of live in some families that claiming benefits is what they do and it gets passed down from generation to generation (in my opinion of course.....)!

I am not so sure as Rich did point that out, but I take your point at least. Frankly, I dont see as it matters whether you are looking for work or not. The money is desinged for life essentials, it is not supposed to be a form of reward system for apathy or otherwise.



It does happen though. I know people who have been happily sailing along for years on income support, and blow the lot on going out. Quite why their partners or families endorse this apathetic lifestlye I dont know, but they do.

If that were the case, why do you think things would be different if they had vouchers.
they'd simply use those for the family shopping and then get £55 of their partner/family to go out with. Overall cost to the family is exactly the same.

i agree all housing benefits should be paid straight to the landlord but if a guy is a drug addict and he gets these "tokens" for food etc surely hes going to turn to other methods(robbery) that he would not have had to use before when he got cash to get his fix? also why does everyone assume that everyone on the dole is lazy,drunk and drugged up? sure some are but im sure most are looking for work?

Right, so ignoring the impracticalities of putting an 8 foot screen HD television under your coat and walking out with it, how does this fit in with your idea that vouchers would be a good idea? Surely it would just be perpetuating the black market exchange of goods and vouchers?

I have never understood why on earth housing beneift is paid to anyone but the landlord. Its asking for trouble.

Moreover, why do council tennants get housing benefit which is then paid back to the council? (correct me if I am wrong on this process)

Not everyone is looking to "do a runner". That said, the council is obliged to pay a private landlord direct if the tennant is more than 8 weeks in arrears.

It IS slightly different for Council tenants. They are awarded a Rent Rebate which is credited directly to their rent account, the same way as Council Tax Benefit goes straight to the CTAX account.

Unpleasant and ill-founded in that you suggested by the tone and content of your post that everyone who is in reciept of benefits is wont to waste the money which they are so kindly given on gambling and drugs. There are people who do this, yes, but I am sure that there are a great many more who are grateful for the assistance offered to them and use the money wisely. It seems to me that you, armed with the 'knowledge' vouchsafed to you by the press, are finding a problem where there isn't one.

Perhaps you could now point out my petty insults?

Whoops, there I go again. I thought everything in the red tops was true. Are you saying it's not? If ever a man was decieved...

For the record, my post did NOT intend to put across anything like the inference you suggested. I know plenty of people who are in genuine receipt of benefits - and who invariably wouldnt be any worse off under a voucher scheme as they use the money for its correct intention in the first place.

I also know a lot of complete wasters who see benefit money as beer tokens.

Maybe a compromise of vouchers and money? Who knows. The current system is rife with abuse. If pointing that out and suggesting an alternate makes me right wing, then frankly I am happy to be labelled so.

Oh, and petty insults.

Other posters have offered reason argument and opinion (e.g. Cyclone). You simply launched into a haughty diatribe which culminated in accusations of me being right wing.

But hey ho. It would be dull if we all agreed all of the time.

Right, so ignoring the impracticalities of putting an 8 foot screen HD television under your coat and walking out with it, how does this fit in with your idea that vouchers would be a good idea? Surely it would just be perpetuating the black market exchange of goods and vouchers?It fits in with the idea of using vouchers as currency which has been mentioned here, it was an anecdotal part of the conversation.

That's why i put shouldn't happen rather than can't happen. ;)

I think the families endorse it because they either don't have any say in the matter, or because they are happy with the livestyle themselves, possibly because they have never known any different. It becomes a way of live in some families that claiming benefits is what they do and it gets passed down from generation to generation (in my opinion of course.....)!

Cheerfully noted!

;)

Not everyone is looking to "do a runner". That said, the council is obliged to pay a private landlord direct if the tennant is more than 8 weeks in arrears.

It IS slightly different for Council tenants. They are awarded a Rent Rebate which is credited directly to their rent account, the same way as Council Tax Benefit goes straight to the CTAX account.The problem this tenant had was that he couldn't manage money so when the council gave him several hundred pounds to give me he spent it and then had no chance of recouping it so he did a runner. The council are irresponsible in giving it to the tenant and since I didn't get it they should demand it back from him.

But hey ho. It would be dull if we all agreed all of the time.

Yes, it would.

I'll stop condescending to you now and leave your thread in peace. Ta-ra.

i agree that the current systems is a mess, but im not sure that vouchers would work, although they may be better than present system. It would be very hard to regulate and with supermarkets stocking so much variety now, unless the voucher actually said "bread" on it for example, it would probably just go on a six pack the saem as before.

I had the displeasure of working in a supermarket whilst i was at college and we used to regularly get foreign people with gift vouchers coming in (i was told they were given gift vouchers as they were asylum seekers and this was so they definitely bought food as they couldn't work, true or not i don't know) I don't think i saw them buy food once, all they ever bought was mobile phone vouchers!! I also agree with a previous post that they would just buy the item with the voucher and return it for store credit, i have seen this a thousand times when i worked in a well known pharmacutical store, they would buy things on offer, 3 for 2 example and return it when the offer had ended. some people will always find a way to steal by one means or another. whether the vouchers would be worth introducing for the ones that aren't this low-life, i don't know. would it change the majority??

my problem is with the people that benefits as a lifestyle, i think unless you are ill obviously or a carer, benefits should stop if you don't find work in 6 months, thats long enough for anyone.

Actually, I read the Sun not the Star.

A subtle, but important difference!
That's even worse.:hihi:

After reading some of the remarks on this thread ive come to think that there is a lot of stuck up gits on this forum..... " lets pick on those on social security cos me and myself are perfect"...... :gag:
I admit the system maybe a mess but dont paint everyone by the same brush its so unfair! Many people are on the social for no fault of their own.

my problem is with the people that benefits as a lifestyle, i think unless you are ill obviously or a carer, benefits should stop if you don't find work in 6 months, thats long enough for anyone.

I agree Becca - the major problem is those who view benefits as a lifestyle. It would be wonderful if it were as straightforward as "if you are ill or a carer" but unfortunatly it has become all too easy for people to go to their doctors and claim they are suffering from "depression" and get a sick note. This is a slap in the face for people who are genuinly suffering from this dreadful illness, but it is easy for people to pass off suffering from it, as long as they know all the right "noises" to make when they go to the doctors.

There are always going to be people who can find a way round any benefit system as far as i can see. There doesn't seem to be any easy ways to solve the problem.

After reading some of the remarks on this thread ive come to think that there is a lot of stuck up gits on this forum..... " lets pick on those on social security cos me and myself are perfect"...... :gag:
I admit the system maybe a mess but dont paint everyone by the same brush its so unfair! Many people are on the social for no fault of their own.i don't think anyone has painted everyone with same brush but it's like a lot of things whereby the lowest common denominator i.e. the scroungers, who affects it for everyone else and everyone else is probably the majority but we don't hear much about them

I'd really love to see proof of people selling milk tokens to shops, or swapping them for fags and booze. It's not feasible anyway, as by your very admission, milk tokens aren't worth a great deal. So what do these people do? Save them up all year for 20 Benson and a four-pack of Spesh?


I've seent hem for sale on E-bay...

Why not send them all to Rotherham,,,job done

IMO there should be a similar system as previously posted to Germany or the Netherlands where contribution is mandatory before the benefits can be reaped. I see no reason why I should have to pay for an 20 yr old who is fit and able to work but content to sponge from the collective pot - There should be a claim from point (say after 5 yrs continual employment) where for the first 12 months you recieve your benefit in your bank account and anyone after that is classified as long term unemployed and recieves their funding in the form of a social security credit card which is topped up on giro day with their free money where only essential foodstuffs and household items are able to be purchased through the major supermarkets ie no fags or booze.

And they should have to wear orange dayglo jackets with the words 'I am a parasite on society, claiming benefits since .....' front and back.

After reading some of the remarks on this thread ive come to think that there is a lot of stuck up gits on this forum..... " lets pick on those on social security cos me and myself are perfect"...... :gag:
I admit the system maybe a mess but dont paint everyone by the same brush its so unfair! Many people are on the social for no fault of their own.

I know, sometimes the milk of human kindness doesn't overflow on the Sheffield Forum....

God forbid that any of the moaners on this thread should ever find themselves struck down and unable to work through illness, or find themselves suffering an unlucky streak in life....

Of course, they're all so perfect it'll never happen to them.... :rolleyes:

StarSparkle

Hi well it looks like iv entered the battle ground here.
I have been on benefits,income support before.
I paid me gas,electric,food,debts,school money out for my son and any other extras he needed out.
And then i would have a night out if i had enough left,and why shouldnt i.
Just because people go out when they are on benefits dont mean they dont pay bills.
I know familys that dont use there income support for what they should and maybe they should give out vouchers.
But they would have to give them everyone one on benefits and that wouldn't be exactly fair on thos who actually do spend there benefits right.
It's a catch 22,thats all charlie

I have also seen milk tokens being exchanged for cigarettes booze and scratch cards at my local corner shop. and i dont mean just one scratch card its four and five ar a time.I know most of these people and they have never done a days work in their lives .

I know, sometimes the milk of human kindness doesn't overflow on the Sheffield Forum....

God forbid that any of the moaners on this thread should ever find themselves struck down and unable to work through illness, or find themselves suffering an unlucky streak in life....

Of course, they're all so perfect it'll never happen to them.... :rolleyes:

StarSparkle

they are moaning because they are being taken advatage of by many (not all)

im not perfect, i did suffer an unclucky streak actually and found myself unemployed at 19, but because of what my husband earned (over £10k threashold i think it was at the time) i wasn't entitled to anything, not a penny, which was frustrating as i'd had to borrow my tram fare to get there, so i wasn't overjoyed when numerous loosers waltzed in from their taxi. So we struggled for a few months whilst i was off my backside getting a job. But an old friend of mine claimed all she could as she declared herself a single parent, even though her boyfriend lived with her and she actually quit her part time job as she was better off on benefits. who had an incentive to get a job?

6 months is long enough to recover from any "unlucky streak" and find a job, after that, i have no sympathy, its just laziness and taking advantage of a soft touch system.

most of you that are working think there are jobs out there for everyone but there is not thats why there is so much unemployment. a big majority of bosses want cheap labour. they want young ones on youth employment schemes or older ones on new deal. i know there are ones out there that dont want to work most of them are alcoholics and drug users and they wont be given a job anyway.when you are on job seeekers allowance every time you go to sign on every 2 weeks usually they ask you to look at jobs they want to know what you have done to find a job. you cant make someone give you a job and the longer you are out of work the more difficult it is to get a job.my oldest son is 33 since leaving school he as been on that many goverment schemes. usually in work for 6 months to a year then off work for 6 months to a year. they never keep him on always find some excuse to get rid even when they have said hes a good worker and been left in charge of the shop they change their minds about them when they think they can get someone else for cheep wages. in may he thought he had got a job for good this time it wasnt full time 3 days one week and 4 another but then he as not got a family to keep so it was ok with him now hes been told the shop cant stay open he cant afford to keep it open.he feels really pi**ed off.he hates this on and off working.my other son cant work at the moment he as a disabled wife and a son to look after. my other son hes been lucky been in work this last 5 years and 3 years before that on schemes. my late hubby was out of work a long time. he changed his outlook for a job several times. got qualification as a computer engineer but he still couldnt get a job. even told them at job centre he would work for free and would like to help youngsters with computers just to have something to do. they said there was nothing they could find him like that.well it costs the government money to give people things to do for their dole money. they cant afford it. when he is taken ill he is given the chance of a job with computers and he cant take it as he was too ill.
i dont think unemployed should have vouchers why should they go without things. if they could only have food and clothes the essentials. so they shouldnt watch tv or watch a video or have a computer and go on the net or if they like a smoke or drink oh no you are out of work now you cant have a drink or a cigerette, you cant watch any tv or go on the internet. heres a gun just shoot yourself now. i dont blame a lot of people not working . why should they go out to work and sometimes can be worse off than being on dole. i did that once i went out to work while my hubby stayed at home to see to kids. i was told i would be better off than on dole. i was worse off a week by £16, this is in 1996 but i thought its better than being on dole until i was mugged and attack one night coming from work so i said no way. to that

I doubt that my home-help, whose wages I pay out of my DLA, would appreciate me dragging her down to Netto, and handing over a voucher for her purchases, rather than giving her the money.

Unworkable, absolutely unworkable.

I doubt that my home-help, whose wages I pay out of my DLA, would appreciate me dragging her down to Netto, and handing over a voucher for her purchases, rather than giving her the money.

Unworkable, absolutely unworkable.


Post removed by me .

if they could only have food and clothes the essentials. so they shouldnt watch tv or watch a video or have a computer and go on the net or if they like a smoke or drink oh no you are out of work now you cant have a drink or a cigerette, you cant watch any tv or go on the internet. heres a gun just shoot yourself now. i dont blame a lot of people not working . why should they go out to work and sometimes can be worse off than being on dole. i did that once i went out to work while my hubby stayed at home to see to kids. i was told i would be better off than on dole. i was worse off a week by £16, this is in 1996 but i thought its better than being on dole until i was mugged and attack one night coming from work so i said no way. to thatI don't believe that there is no work for your family for so long, you must be doing something wrong. Employers don't make excuses to get rid of decent workers. If you are paid the minimum wage for a 40 hour week you would get around £200 less stoppages which aren't all that much.

The social money is for basic living and should not pay for luxuries especially drink and cigarettes, you should have to work for that kind of thing.

IMO i believe that 6 months is plenty of time to find a job, ive been out of work before and been able to find a job the next day.
After the 6 months of "Job Seeking" i believe they should be made to work for their benefit, doing a job not so pleasant, of course giving them days off to apply for jobs, and goto interviews etc.

Im sure the certain career scroungers would soon be able to find employment if they were faced with working for their £55 p/w.

Problem solved.

IMO i believe that 6 months is plenty of time to find a job, ive been out of work before and been able to find a job the next day.
After the 6 months of "Job Seeking" i believe they should be made to work for their benefit, doing a job not so pleasant, of course giving them days off to apply for jobs, and goto interviews etc.

Im sure the certain career scroungers would soon be able to find employment if they were faced with working for their £55 p/w.

Problem solved.

They are (in certain age ranges). It's called New Deal at that point.

I am a little confused as to what you can do for 6 months and still not find a job, unless your very particular over what you do..and are partial to the odd lie in! I think the point thats trying to be made is that whilst those on benefits are free to spend their money on what they like, its rather annoying when you work hard to get by and can't always afford luxuries and so when people on the dole have an endless stream of fags and booze it seems wrong - especially when your tax money pays for it! :rant:

people on the dole have an endless stream of fags and booze it seems wrong - especially when your tax money pays for it! :rant:

There it is again, the typically incorrect type of 'fact' trotted out when issues like this are raised.

How many people on the dole have an 'endless stream of fags and booze'? They must get paid quite a bit to be able to afford that.

Well when i walk around town on my lunch break all the pubs are full of people smoking and drinking who are certainly not at work, where does that money come from? - when i say endless stream i mean they don't seem to be going without thats all

Well when i walk around town on my lunch break all the pubs are full of people smoking and drinking who are certainly not at work, where does that money come from? - when i say endless stream i mean they don't seem to be going without thats all

Maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions so quickly. Unless you think that £40 a week is enough for a endless supply + normal living costs... in which case, can you share where you buy booze so cheaply?

There it is again, the typically incorrect type of 'fact' trotted out when issues like this are raised.

How many people on the dole have an 'endless stream of fags and booze'? They must get paid quite a bit to be able to afford that.

if they could only have food and clothes the essentials. so they shouldnt watch tv or watch a video or have a computer and go on the net or if they like a smoke or drink oh no you are out of work now you cant have a drink or a cigerette.

I think that was in response to the earlier post where summer1955 had said in her long paragraph, that it wasn't fair that they shouldn't be able to have these things just because they were unemployed.

Whatever it was in response to, it was inaccurate, reactionary, and clearly nonsense. The sentiments behind it don't change that fact. The unemployed do not have an endless stream of fags and booze; also, there are countless reasons why people would be in the pub at lunch time. They could be students, they could be retired, they could be on their day off, they could work nights, or they could even be on THEIR lunch breaks.

Jumping to conclusions - which are often wrong - is not a good way of winning an argument.

Well when i walk around town on my lunch break all the pubs are full of people smoking and drinking who are certainly not at work,

Er - perhaps they are on their lunch break too? Or maybe it's their day off (not everyone works mon-fri 9-5).

Well when i walk around town on my lunch break all the pubs are full of people smoking and drinking who are certainly not at work, where does that money come from? - when i say endless stream i mean they don't seem to be going without thats all

Neither are you if you are out on your lunch break.

[edit - purdyamos and RichC beat me to it!]

milk tokens are worth about £9 as you can get a tin of milk with them when i was on income support 15 years ago i could go in to the shop (at batemoor) i didnt need to get the tinned food they would just knock it off my bill
i am now back on income support (6 months) after my husband decided to leave me. some people dont want to be on this but have no other means of support and need to rely on benitfits i woodnt care if it was vouchers or money. i spend it on the things my kids need. at the moment i have to look after my mother and not able to look for a job (as i was doing this when married) we did look in to home help but it is £7 per hour that the state would have to pay a hell of a lot more then they pay me on income support

Trust me these people were not on their lunchbreaks nor were they students. In fact most of them i recognise from the post office queues claiming dole money, I am not trying to start an argument here simply saying how I feel

Trust me these people were not on their lunchbreaks nor were they students. In fact most of them i recognise from the post office queues claiming dole money, I am not trying to start an argument here simply saying how I feel

So how do you feel about these people?

Well I can't say i spend much time thinking about it, don't know enough about them to comment just get frustrated when there is a queue out the door and i have 5 mins till i am due back at work!

Trust me these people were not on their lunchbreaks nor were they students. In fact most of them i recognise from the post office queues claiming dole money, I am not trying to start an argument here simply saying how I feel

Do you mind if I don't trust you? I would say that if you're walking past a pub, the chances of you recognising people in there are slim, if you don't go inside. Even more so if there's a thick fug of tobacco smoke.

No, it sounds to me as though you're trying to back up your wild accusations with a thin tissue of lies.

Well I can't say i spend much time thinking about it, don't know enough about them to comment just get frustrated when there is a queue out the door and i have 5 mins till i am due back at work!

Take sandwhiches

well i am not going to argue with you, its hard enough explaining what you mean about a topic as vast as this one on the forum without people analysing and criticising each and every word!

well i am not going to argue with you, its hard enough explaining what you mean about a topic as vast as this one on the forum without people analysing and criticising each and every word!

Sorry, Just trying to help!

If social security was given in vouchers do you think their would be people working on the fiddle?

If social security was given in vouchers do you think their would be people working on the fiddle?

There are now, so on the balance of probability ........

Do you mind if I don't trust you? I would say that if you're walking past a pub, the chances of you recognising people in there are slim, if you don't go inside. Even more so if there's a thick fug of tobacco smoke.

No, it sounds to me as though you're trying to back up your wild accusations with a thin tissue of lies.

Much more politely put than I would have done.

If vouchers were issued instead of money this would also mean the benefit claimers you mentioned would be paying a lot less tax if their just spending it on Fags & Beer?

I don't believe that there is no work for your family for so long, you must be doing something wrong. Employers don't make excuses to get rid of decent workers. If you are paid the minimum wage for a 40 hour week you would get around £200 less stoppages which aren't all that much.

The social money is for basic living and should not pay for luxuries especially drink and cigarettes, you should have to work for that kind of thing.


employers do get rid of people for nothing just so they can get some other cheep worker.
oldest lad when he was on a youth employment scheme was working in a newsagent the man must have thought he was capable as on a saturday he used to leave him in charge of shop on his own while he went to football match. when he was coming up to his 18th birthday and the scheme was coming to an end so he would not have to keep him on he waited till he was ill with an infection in his stomach to get an excuse to sack him.he was ill he even went back to work before he was better and was ill again and doctor told him that he shouldnt have gone back into work, but his boss was mumbling as he wouldnt have got to football match. he did a government scheme in a charity shop. after that finished out of work. did another scheme in another kind of charity shop. after the scheme ends you are back on the dole. this last scheme he was on he thought great he is keeping me on as a proper worker that was in may now the man cant keep the shop open so he will be out of a job again. he cant have a heavy kind of job as he as trapped nerves in his spine and as to do certain physio excersises to relieve the pain.
other lad cant work at the moment he as a disabled wife she was born with cerebal palsy and they have a son that she cant care of properly on her own. but he was in work once started on a governement scheme then the man told him he would keep him on he got £60 to work a 40 hour week that was in 1999. he had a wife to keep and they were expecting their son. the social told him if he could not pack his job in as he would not get any dole money. the man denied he worked 40 hours. he wouldnt fill in the forms for him to claim any help to top up his wage and he had to pay full rent.which made him in arears as he could not pay it. my son broke down in my house he didnt know what to do.i told him to go to work tell his boss were to get off and we were going to see to it further if he didnt either pay him properly or said that he couldnt keep him on so he could get dole money. he finally let him go and said he had to cut staff down. he did this to a lot of staff as he was paying them in hand and they stood for it as some were there fiddling.
the other lad he as had no problems in work.


and the social money. if you have paid for your main things like heating electricity food and clothes its not up to anyone what they do with the rest of the money.

The unemployed really shouldn't receive any money.

Food from soup kitchens, and a dry bed in a hostel. Once they agree to work - however base the work might be - they should receive money.

christ the most you get on jobseekers is about £50 a week after food,electric,clothes,toiletries etc i dont think there is much left for fags and booze its hardly like being a member of the royal family which taxes also go towards so lets complain about the royal bums out there!

christ the most you get on jobseekers is about £50 a week after food,electric,clothes,toiletries etc i dont think there is much left for fags and booze its hardly like being a member of the royal family which taxes also go towards so lets complain about the royal bums out there!

i wish i had £50 a week to spend as i choose after paying my electric, mortgage, food etc as you mentioned. I probably could if we weren't paying so much tax for others to smoke/drink away!

at least the royal family work for their wage from tax! they might not be value for money but at least they don't just sit around.

i wish i had £50 a week to spend as i choose after paying my electric, mortgage, food etc as you mentioned. I probably could if we weren't paying so much tax for others to smoke/drink away!

at least the royal family work for their wage from tax! they might not be value for money but at least they don't just sit around.

That's not what the poster was saying - they were saying that the basics had to be paid for out of the £50, which then didn't leave very much money to spend on cigarettes and alcohol.

I'd disagree with your point about the monarchy, too. They do nothing for me personally, so why should they get my money? They've no more right to it than someone on the dole.

BTW, happyhippy - I'm trying to be nicer in my posts ;)

yeh i was trying to say £50(im guessing here it mught be more or less) for all the basics then have whatevers left for booze and cigs, if there is any left from that, im trying to say its hardly the glamourous,carefree life some people have mentioned in fact its a very bleek,horrible exsistence on the dole, no purpose or pride is how i felt when i was on it, no money also!

That's not what the poster was saying - they were saying that the basics had to be paid for out of the £50, which then didn't leave very much money to spend on cigarettes and alcohol.

I'd disagree with your point about the monarchy, too. They do nothing for me personally, so why should they get my money? They've no more right to it than someone on the dole.

BTW, happyhippy - I'm trying to be nicer in my posts ;)

EVEN nicer you mean, surely ;)

thought id throw something in that makes my blood boil

Social fund crisis loans

the streets of sheffield must be running with urine from all the incontinent bed wetting children of the benefit classes
and you should be able to pick up any amount of loose cash or purses that are lost every day on the bus or just before they pay for the food shooping

do you thing that there is a civil servant available to check that every loan is used for its intended purpose?
i think you will find it is not.

thought id throw something in that makes my blood boil

Social fund crisis loans

the streets of sheffield must be running with urine from all the incontinent bed wetting children of the benefit classes
and you should be able to pick up any amount of loose cash or purses that are lost every day on the bus or just before they pay for the food shooping

do you thing that there is a civil servant available to check that every loan is used for its intended purpose?
i think you will find it is not.

Crisis Loans have to be payed back, i have just had a look on the social fund web site and they take it back by taking a small amount from income support each week.
It even says you don't have to be on benefits to claim for one.

true,
but i know that the vast majority are given to people claiming benefits

other outgoings are taken into account when the repayments are worked out, and the number of folk who pay out large sums to the catalogue or the 'provi' or brighthouse etc and then complain about not getting enough money?

and that there are thousands given out every month, and not a great deal are for genuine emergencies

yes there are some who find this a life line, but many who abuse this intrest free loan,

thought id throw something in that makes my blood boil

Social fund crisis loans

the streets of sheffield must be running with urine from all the incontinent bed wetting children of the benefit classes
and you should be able to pick up any amount of loose cash or purses that are lost every day on the bus or just before they pay for the food shooping

do you thing that there is a civil servant available to check that every loan is used for its intended purpose?
i think you will find it is not.

A mate of mine spent his "crisis" loan on three pints, a kebab and a go on the fruity.

ive heard people on the bus discussing holidays and then working out what they would need to ask for in order to pay for it, 1 week in skeg vegas = washing machine, mattress and new bedding.

they were being serious aswell

other lad cant work at the moment he as a disabled wife she was born with cerebal palsy and they have a son that she cant care of properly on her own. but he was in work once started on a governement scheme then the man told him he would keep him on he got £60 to work a 40 hour week that was in 1999. he had a wife to keep and they were expecting their son. the social told him if he could not pack his job in as he would not get any dole money. the man denied he worked 40 hours. he wouldnt fill in the forms for him to claim any help to top up his wage and he had to pay full rent.which made him in arears as he could not pay it.

the other lad he as had no problems in work.


and the social money. if you have paid for your main things like heating electricity food and clothes its not up to anyone what they do with the rest of the money.Everyone has he right to have children but they should have the means to support them and not rely on handouts, any father who cannot support their offsping for long periods is not worthy of the title unless he he has a damn good reason. Your sons experience of the workplace is not representative of employers in general. They need to get proper jobs with proper conditions of work and there are plenty available if they want to work. These are not all physical jobs. You are saying that the employers make excuses to get rid of them, I think it's you who is making excuses for them to not work. Maybe your third son should have a word with his siblings.

The amount paid by the social should be the absolute minimum in order to give people the incentive to work, if you have money left over for fags and booze it's because they are paying you too much. No luxuries.

The amount paid by the social should be the absolute minimum in order to give people the incentive to work, if you have money left over for fags and booze it's because they are paying you too much. No luxuries.
EXACTLY!! People claiming benefits should get nothing more than the absolute essentials - anything else is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket, and I for one don't like the idea of paying for some scrote's next pint.

Everyone has he right to have children but they should have the means to support them and not rely on handouts, any father who cannot support their offsping for long periods is not worthy of the title unless he he has a damn good reason. Your sons experience of the workplace is not representative of employers in general. They need to get proper jobs with proper conditions of work and there are plenty available if they want to work. These are not all physical jobs. You are saying that the employers make excuses to get rid of them, I think it's you who is making excuses for them to not work. Maybe your third son should have a word with his siblings.

The amount paid by the social should be the absolute minimum in order to give people the incentive to work, if you have money left over for fags and booze it's because they are paying you too much. No luxuries.

darbees
have you read my post are did you just read the bits you wanted to read
i have 4 sons
number one son is working not married single will be losing his job at the end of the month due to his employer not able to keep open the shop he works at he as other shops but cant find him work even his employers son cant have a job.he is p**sed off about it as it will be a case of signing on again and then another job as thats all its been for him in and out of work and he as never left a job himself
number 2 son as a disabled wife with cerebal palsy [read up on it] to look after and a young son. when his son was a baby he was working he couldnt cope with working looking after his son and wife and a house and if he didnt stop working he would have had his son taken off them.when is son gets a bit older he will be able to return to work he is a chef
number 3 son is working and buying his own house he as only ever signed on for a few months he started on a government training scheme when he first left school but been in work since he was 19 he is now 24
number 4 son is still at school
how can i be making excuses for them being out of work when at the moment there is only one not working and social services told him to leave work.

do you read up on unemployment and how many people are out of work. not all by choice. there are not enough jobs. i hope one day you are in the same boat as some of them and you are told not to have a life. i suppose you would want anyone to be shot or put to sleep if they didnt get a job after 6 months.your taxes pay for not just people being out of work.the government cant afford to pay everybody to work for their dole money unless you want to pay even more taxes to pay for people to get work for their dole money.
dont say they can because my late hubby had that out with them when he wanted to work for his dole money to give him something to do. and im not a liar and i dont make up excuses.

EXACTLY!! People claiming benefits should get nothing more than the absolute essentials - anything else is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket, and I for one don't like the idea of paying for some scrote's next pint.

Sorry to hear you dont like the idea but its not just plenty of pints! them taxes you have paid have also bought me many years of kebabs,designer clothes,latest mobile etc

Thanks for paying them taxes I am having a great time!

ive heard people on the bus discussing holidays and then working out what they would need to ask for in order to pay for it, 1 week in skeg vegas = washing machine, mattress and new bedding.

they were being serious aswell

Are you sure its on the bus?

We usually discuss our grants in Taxi's,much better than buses and its free to us, not skeggy though, more tropical islands or world cruisers.

darbees
have you read my post are did you just read the bits you wanted to read
i have 4 sons
and im not a liar and i dont make up excuses.Yes I have read your posts which would be easier with paragraphs and capital letters every now and then.

I am aware of what cerebral palsy is and I have employed a person with it in the past. If your daughter in law is capable of making a decision and capable of having a child she is capable of work. You are playing on her disability.

As an employer I am well aware of employment legislation and I am well aware that much of it is to protect employees and virtually nothing protects employers from unscrupulous employees as it is presumed, wrongly, that we can look after ourselves.

I have worked continuously since 1974, despite having virtually no qualifications, when I was sweeping a factory floor. I have had 3 jobs and I have never been on the dole or any other benefits and despite your wish I never will be. If some misfortune befalls me I have insured myself against it. Unlike you I don't smoke thus saving myself a considerable amount of money.

I have not said you are a liar but you are making excuses. I'm glad son 3 is doing ok and I hope son 4 follows in his footsteps.

Yes I have read your posts which would be easier with paragraphs and capital letters every now and then.

I am aware of what cerebral palsy is and I have employed a person with it in the past. If your daughter in law is capable of making a decision and capable of having a child she is capable of work. You are playing on her disability.

As an employer I am well aware of employment legislation and I am well aware that much of it is to protect employees and virtually nothing protects employers from unscrupulous employees as it is presumed, wrongly, that we can look after ourselves.

I have worked continuously since 1974, despite having virtually no qualifications, when I was sweeping a factory floor. I have had 3 jobs and I have never been on the dole or any other benefits and despite your wish I never will be. If some misfortune befalls me I have insured myself against it. Unlike you I don't smoke thus saving myself a considerable amount of money.

I have not said you are a liar but you are making excuses. I'm glad son 3 is doing ok and I hope son 4 follows in his footsteps.


sorry about the way i write left school 36 years ago, didnt know we were all back there.
i never said i smoked. i dont smoke i dont drink alcohol only occasionally, had 4 halfs in the last 2 years.cant afford to.
i know you didnt call me a liar just implied it.
i am not making excuses up for my daughter in law or playing on her disabilities.i was talking about my sons.and any woman can have a child if she is able to, its not got anything to do with physical or mental aptitude.

i also was not on about employment legislations. i was on about the number of unemployed.not enough jobs. just stated a fact that some employers want cheap labour.
employment was also better in the 70s there were more jobs.
good for you to be insured if you are out of work didnt know you could do that. so you are never going to be in that situation, lucky you
im only insured if i die.
why should people work with a disability if it makes them worse to do so. theres not enough jobs for able bodied people without disabled people working unless they really want to.

why should people work with a disability if it makes them worse to do so. theres not enough jobs for able bodied people without disabled people working unless they really want to.Never heard that one before, I know the word disabled covers a multitude of things but that is brilliant.

There are people fighting hard for disabilty rights, equal opportunities etc and you say they shouldn't work if they don't want to because there aren't enough jobs, that really is an excuse if ever there was one. I don't think people should have children and expect the state to support them.

I'm not in my situation through luck, it's through working.

I think your story answers the OP question, you should have vouchers and get some work done like the rest of us and stop moaning about what a bad deal you have.

Never heard that one before, I know the word disabled covers a multitude of things but that is brilliant.

There are people fighting hard for disabilty rights, equal opportunities etc and you say they shouldn't work if they don't want to because there aren't enough jobs, that really is an excuse if ever there was one. I don't think people should have children and expect the state to support them.

I'm not in my situation through luck, it's through working.

I think your story answers the OP question, you should have vouchers and get some work done like the rest of us and stop moaning about what a bad deal you have.

i am not moaning about having a bad deal.i dont think the unemployed get a bad deal.
i was stating the fact that there is not enough jobs out there for people, and that some employers want cheap labour and people in work say there is jobs.just read the statistics. not everyone out of work wants to be like that.my oldest son does not want to be out of work, he really enjoyed the job he was doing. its a known fact that the longer you have been out of work and the older you get its harder to get a job.you take 3 people going for a job all three have the same sort of qualifications ect. one is in work but would like a change or better job, one as been out of work a few weeks or months one may have been out of work a couple of years. who is the one that will not get the job for definate.if you say you would give the one who as been out of work the longest the job then good on you.

at the moment i am on widows benefit as i just burried my hubby 6 months ago, i dont feel up to working yet. i cant remember the last time i had a decent night sleep.to be honest which i am i dont want to work. i have a trapped nerve in my spine. even reading a newspaper i get cramp and tingling in my fingers. all i can do is excercises for it which have not helped.i cant stand for very long or walk very far as i have bad back pain. to the extinct that i feel dizzy and sick. i have problems with my waterworks and need to go a lot. i have not been out in dark on my own in 10 years since i got mugged or worked since then. i wont go out in ice and snow i have panic attacks.due to the fact that it was in snow when i was mugged.i wouldnt beable to cope with working. i easily get paranoid.i wouldnt beable to cope with looking after a house and work, i would finnish up on sick within a few weeks of working.i am not making excuses i am being honest.

i have worked in the past right up to 10 years ago, sometimes part time sometimes full time and had a family a home and kids to see to as well.
im not moaning i dont mind being on benefits. i was sticking up for people that do want to work and its not always there fault they are out of work.having qualification gcse ect, does not guarantee you a job my oldest son as them my 3rd son does not, yet he as been more lucky at being in work than his eldest brother.

Ah, good to see the usual misinformed SF benefits rant is back. At least the world isn't changing as fast as I thought.

They have toyed many times with the idea of vouchers, from way back in the 30s up until recently, but there is the basic fact that it would have astronomical costs in terms of admin and staff to run such a scheme, possibly it would double the benefits bill, and thats not taking into account the increased numbers of fraud officers that would be needed to police it. The cost of vouchers would also need to be higher as e.g. if clothes could only be bought at restricted shops, it may increase their costs whereas now people have the option of sourcing dirt cheap goods from markets, charity shops etc. So rather than £50 a week JSA may have to be £75 a week to account for higher prices.

Today we also have the human rights act which would simply not allow this to happen anyway.

Oh, and partners of people working cannot claim JSA. If someone is indeed spending their £50 a week in the pub while their partner works, its time to grass them up.

Sorry to say, but if we want to police the system better and make sure more and more people get back into work then there need to be people to do it - face to face contact in jobcentres as of old, more jobclubs, more monitoring of crisis loans. Making sure the money is going to the right people also costs money.

Sorry to say, but if we want to police the system better and make sure more and more people get back into work then there need to be people to do it - face to face contact in jobcentres as of old, more jobclubs, more monitoring of crisis loans. Making sure the money is going to the right people also costs money.Agree with that, obviously vouchers can't work in reality, in my case I was saying earlier that rent should go direct to landlord because that is a large amount and easily abused . As you can see on other bits of the thread people like to spend it on booze and fags if they can and they don't all want to work, just sit at home feeling sorry for themselves. The system would benefit from more policing which would pay for itself, it is very slack at the moment and so inevitably a lot of people take it for granted and abuse it.

Agree with that, obviously vouchers can't work in reality, in my case I was saying earlier that rent should go direct to landlord because that is a large amount and easily abused . As you can see on other bits of the thread people like to spend it on booze and fags if they can and they don't all want to work, just sit at home feeling sorry for themselves. The system would benefit from more policing which would pay for itself, it is very slack at the moment and so inevitably a lot of people take it for granted and abuse it.

I totally agree that rent should go direct to landlords and I can't work out why it doesn't. Its possibly as they had the problems with people like Rackman, the corrupt landlord, in the 50s/60s and they were committing far more fraud than claimants.

Booze. Fags. They probably eat utter rubbish though, and sit in an unheated flat, it balances out.

We have to accept though that there will be increasing levels of fraud the less staff that there are to oversee the system. So? Continue cutting civil servants or just accept more fraud?

So? Continue cutting civil servants or just accept more fraud?Tricky one. If the civil servants would deal with it in an efficient way it would be ok, unfortunately there's no hope of that so the system will continue to be abused and the authorities will continue to think of more imaginative ways of raising the money such as exaggerating the risk of environmental catastrophe and taxing it.

Like most government departments, the policies and practices that the over stretched jobcentre staff have to work by are set by those who dont actually have to deal with the public, the systems in place at the moment are simply shuffling the numbers around to please the voters,
e.g. joe voter-bloggs doesnt want large numbers of people on jobseekers, so people are encouraged to claim sickness benefits, and vice versa, its a numbers game.
(the number of fraud officers in jobcentres has been reduced dramatically recently.)
I work for Jobcentreplus and see this going on all the time, its quite scary sometimes.

the policies and practices that the over stretched jobcentre staff have to work by are set by those who dont actually have to deal with the public, the systems in place at the moment are simply shuffling the numbers around to please the voters,

(the number of fraud officers in jobcentres has been reduced dramatically recently.)
I work for Jobcentreplus and see this going on all the time, its quite scary sometimes.Nice piece of info there for the fraudsters. I have had people coming for jobs who have asked if I can pay them cash in hand, the fraudsters are not worried about getting caught at all as the chances are very low and if they are caught the penalties are so small it makes it worthwhile fiddling.

I'm not sure that anyone working in this organisation is over stretched, have you worked in private sector?

Nice piece of info there for the fraudsters. I have had people coming for jobs who have asked if I can pay them cash in hand, the fraudsters are not worried about getting caught at all as the chances are very low and if they are caught the penalties are so small it makes it worthwhile fiddling.

I'm not sure that anyone working in this organisation is over stretched, have you worked in private sector?


yes i have worked in the public sector, there are not many public sector jobs who are run like the Jobcentres or who provide the same service e.g. sorting out benefit payments,
not to worry though, it will probably be out sourced eventually to the private sector like everything else,

apologies to my colleagues for highlighting the reduced numbers of fraud officers, what i failed to mention is that the role may no longer exsist as it used to but the job is being done by the overstretched customer facing jobcentre staff as an extra responsibility to everything else they have to do.

Yes without a doubt !!! cut down on druggies and alcos then maybe some children wouldnt be walking round like tramps.Also children will be fed propeley as the parents will have to buy food not drugs and booze

Yes without a doubt !!! cut down on druggies and alcos then maybe some children wouldnt be walking round like tramps.Also children will be fed propeley as the parents will have to buy food not drugs and booze
Perhaps they could put extra money into education too, so that ill-written, ill-conceived posts like yours are less endemic on messageboards such as this.