Anyone see "Wife Swap" on C4 last night? Was that the saddest excuse for a family you ever did see? For those who didn't see it, it was another one of those silly shows (although this was quite good) where they took the wife from two families and swapped places for 10 days.

Family #1 had 8 kids, lived on a council estate and lived on benefits of £37k (net) per year since the Dad lost his job 2 years ago. Family #2 were supposedly "well to do", lived in a detached house, had two cars, two kids, a job each and a net income of £27k.

Sorry but family 1 were scum. The Dad spent every evening (at least while the cameras were there) sipping his lager and smoking or down the pub. His missus (in the other house) was also getting ****** and chain-smoking. This brought on an asthma attack so (surprise, surprise) she could only attend work (she had to do the other womans office job) once during the swap.

Low-life like this make me sick. The welfare system is supposed to be a safety net to support people during "difficult" times - and is something I support (not just through the taxes I pay!). But things have gone mad! This family of ponces take £37k a year from the tax payer and have done so for 2 years. Is it any wonder he doesn't want a job when their income is so high?

The other family both worked and paid taxes. Their taxes go towards things like welfare benefits and for what? To support people like this?!?!?! So people contributing nothing to society can have more disposable income than those contributing? What a shameful example of the benefit culture in this country.

Unfortunalty I was busy chatting to my neighbours last night and I missed the show. I hope it's repeated as it looked really good.

I heard that the woman from the scum family was on GMTV saying how they weren't scum because they were going to buy their own house!!!!!!!! Must be nice sitting on your backside all day getting paid more than us mugs who go out to work and being able to buy your house whilst people like me who work two jobs can't afford to buy one.

I'd love to know the blokes excuse for not having a job in 2 years. I'm sorry but I could find a job in a week. It might not be agreat job but it's better than being a dole scrounging scummer.

Zamo I saw the programme and couldn't believe my eyes and ears. You are saying just what I said in a thread recently and I was shouted down for it ie you can be better off on the dole than working.

The guy on the programme ought to be given a choice;

a) get off your idle a**e and get a job to support all these kids you are breeding or

b) get sterilised or your benefit will be stopped

Why on earth should good people be contributing to keep scum like this? I will now take cover.

Don't worry Mo, I'm not afraid of the PC Brigade! :evil: :evil:

Originally posted by Zamo

Sorry but family 1 were scum. The Dad spent every evening (at least while the cameras were there) sipping his lager and smoking or down the pub. [/B]

I don't like that statement. I didnt see the show, but this suggests that anyone sipping lager or going to the pub is scum. There are some very decent people who drink lager and go to the pub. I'd rephrase that and elaborate on his demeanour when drinking and smoking and going to the pub, explain why that is so bad please?

Similar thread a few days ago...

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3375

Nomme

It is true that there is an insidious benefit culture in Britain. Someone close to me has worked with people who live that way, and it's frightening. He has had people talking to him who are afraid to get a job because in their family/area, it simply isn't done, and they would be practically exiled from their community for 'thinking they're better than everyone else'.
I have personally worked with young people in similar situations, who could not be convinced that there was anything more worth doing in life than getting pregnant at 15 or 16, getting a house or flat from the Council, and continuing to have more children 'like Mum did'. Some felt that the oportunity to do anything else wasn't there for them. Others were simply totally immersed in a culture where it was expected that you would do this. It's frightening, and depressing. We tried to make a difference, but you're working against two or three generations of this, and it's heartbreaking. And extremely aggravating.
There was also very little emphasis on schooling in these communities. Many parents felt that the young people should be at home looking after the younger brothers and sisters so the parent/s could go off and do their own thing. Mad.

Originally posted by Classic Rock
I don't like that statement. I didnt see the show, but this suggests that anyone sipping lager or going to the pub is scum. There are some very decent people who drink lager and go to the pub. I'd rephrase that and elaborate on his demeanour when drinking and smoking and going to the pub, explain why that is so bad please?
I sip plent of lager and go to the pub. It wasn't the drinking or smoking that made them scum. I mentioned these activities because I don't think people on benefits should be able to afford to drink every night and smoke like chimneys.

They were scum because:

- There is no excuse for an able bodied man not to find some work in 2 years
- They don't care that it is hard working families that are paying for everything they have
- They must have smoked 80 fags a day between them, which is not only a "luxury" I think they shouldn't be able to afford, it is also very unhealthy for their asthmatic kids and no doubt another source of expenditure for the tax-payer through NHS care
- They set a terrible example to their children who will only learn from them how to swear every other word, be devoid of any self-respect or ambition and to expect everything in life to be provide by others as a "right"

SCUM!

I went on the live chat afterwards and there were plenty calling them "fat scum", "scrubbers" and "northern scum". It ended up causing big arguments in a north - south divide and people got kicked off the chat.

Originally posted by alchresearch
I went on the live chat afterwards and there were plenty calling them "fat scum", "scrubbers" and "northern scum". It ended up causing big arguments in a north - south divide and people got kicked off the chat.
There's no north - south divide when it comes to scum bags. There are just as many scumbags where I came from in London as up north. I detest them all equally.

zammo your comments are 100% correct and justified.
The trouble is you cannot dictate to couples having to limit the amount of kids they have as that is a breech of human rights, having said that the husband should be made to earn his benefits by doing some sort of community work.
I,m not against the amount of benefits he is getting as 37k sounds a lot but he will need it to feed 8 children.
If he worked full time then other benefits he is entitled to as a working parent would probably amount to the same and then his benefits would be justified.
Rather than get into a debate about wether he should be able to claim low pay benefits to feed his large family which is another story, all working familys with children on low incomes can claim benefits to make there wages to a decent stanard and that applys to you and me.
Regarding his missus, well if she had talked to my missus in the tone she did last night i would have flattened her.
Her asthma is a joke, i to am asthmatic, keep very fit and don't smoke but she ought to choke with it and be refused any medication.

I agree with Cycleracer about the benefits thing. What I find difficult to believe is that the state calculates how much a person needs to live on but allows companies to pay wages far below this. Which, as CR points out, means the state then has to top this up to a living wage. Basically, we the tax payers, are not only paying for people to stay at home we are also subsidising companies who pay miserly wages to those who chose to work.

On the subject of people staying at home I'm quite happy to pay taxes to keep some people out of the work environment.

Well I don't agree that it's a "human right" to have kids. It's a privilige and one you have to earn.

There is a minimum wage in this country. Agreed, it's not much but it's enough to survive. If someone's too lazy to "work their way up" (now's there's a concept many people don't grasp nowadays) by learning new skills, becoming more experience etc., then why should I (as a tax-payer) be expected to "top-up" their income so they can afford a nicer house, more nights out or kids? If people want nice things, including kids (ahem), then they have to work for it.

Of course there will be lots of exceptions to this basic principle. For example, if someone is disabled and this effects their earning potential then fair enough - provide them with top-up income. If someone is in a temporary rut (e.g. just been made unemployed) then of course we should support them - just not indefinely.

I work and I pay taxes. I'd like a 3rd kid but the missus worries about whether we can afford it - she's right. So what do we do? Recklessly go ahead anyway? No, we wait until our circumstances improve, which may mean we don't ever have another kid. If our circumstances do improve be sure of this, it will be because I have worked my nuts off to improve it and not because I have gone cap in hand expecting handouts and claiming it as my "human right".

What people forget is that it's not just opportunity that some people need, it's also an incentive. Giving £37k a year to people who contribute nothing to society is only an incentive for them to keep doing the same - sweet FA.

Should the family on Wife Swap have been given benefits when the husband was made unemployed - yes, of course. Should he still be getting them 2 years later - no. Should any family receive a "top-up" to their income because they choose to have 8 kids - no, if you can't afford, don't have.

Originally posted by Zamo
Should the family on Wife Swap have been given benefits when the husband was made unemployed - yes, of course. Should he still be getting them 2 years later - no. Should any family receive a "top-up" to their income because they choose to have 8 kids - no, if you can't afford, don't have.

But having had the kids, we wouldnt them to starve would we?

I agree I suppose that people shouldnt go on having kids when they have no cash

But once they are born I want them supporting properly

I think you're agreeing with me Zamo, perhaps. Employers should be persuaded to pay a living wage so that the state can stop 'topping up' peoples income.

As to the state paying people to not work and have kids, that's a thorny issue. Do you suggest that we have means testing to determine whether people should have children or not? That's a slippery slope towards a totalatarian state where your every move is monitored by the state.

I still think that education is the key.

I think to most people it is basic common sense not to keep on having children when you can't afford it.

I think there should be a limit as to how long you can claim benefits for. 2 years really is taking the absolute ****.

Originally posted by LouiseB
But having had the kids, we wouldnt them to starve would we?

I agree I suppose that people shouldnt go on having kids when they have no cash

But once they are born I want them supporting properly
It's a tough cycle to break. Remove the benefits and you have kids living in poverty, don't remove the benefits and raise a new generation with no incentive or ambition to do anything other than follow in the family tradition of poncing.

I dare say there are ways in which benefit cuts could be phased in to reduce such hardships but at the end of the day somone needs to get the balls to make a tough decision and accept there will be consequences to deal with.

However, in 16 years time it'll all be over and people will wonder what the hell our generation were doing paying people to do nothing!?!?! It will appear on emails going around the world with other ludicrous ideas from history such as the one where suspected witches were thrown into a river and if they drowned they were innocent and if they lived they were guilty and burnt to death.

Originally posted by max
I think you're agreeing with me Zamo, perhaps. Employers should be persuaded to pay a living wage so that the state can stop 'topping up' peoples income.

As to the state paying people to not work and have kids, that's a thorny issue. Do you suggest that we have means testing to determine whether people should have children or not? That's a slippery slope towards a totalatarian state where your every move is monitored by the state.

I still think that education is the key.

Yes - some employers pay poor wages but that's perhaps a different argument/thread.

No - no means testing to see if people can afford kids. I don't want a big brother state any more than I want a nanny state. Grown-ups can make their own minds up as to whether they can afford kids.

Perhaps in 16 years it will be all over and people will wonder what we were all doing going out to work! Maybe computers will have taken all the jobs that humans currently do.

Alternatively, with the constant dribble of work going abroad people who have actual jobs will be in a minority.

Don't know where the 16 years came from. Zamo?

Originally posted by max
Don't know where the 16 years came from. Zamo?
I used a very complex calculation that took me many years to develop.

You seem to forget one thing that simply by having children you are contributing to this country.
Sooner or later they are going to be the hub of the country when we are no longer able to, also single people may be regarded as the ones that are not contributing as they spend there lives taking out of the country rather than providing children to make sure we still have an existance when were dead.
Not quite tied to the original topic but a point to be talked about.

Originally posted by The Cycleracer
You seem to forget one thing that simply by having children you are contributing to this country.
Sooner or later they are going to be the hub of the country when we are no longer able to, also single people may be regarded as the ones that are not contributing as they spend there lives taking out of the country rather than providing children to make sure we still have an existance when were dead.
Not quite tied to the original topic but a point to be talked about.
The sort of families being discussed (e.g. the one in "Wife Swap") are "headed" by one thick, lazy, uneducated, poncing father and one thick, lazy, uneducated, poncing mother (sometimes only one). And what sort of adults do the offspring of these people turn out to be? You got it - thick, lazy, uneducated, ponces.

I think this is a contribution to society the next generation could do without.

Originally posted by Zamo
[B]Well I don't agree that it's a "human right" to have kids. It's a privilige and one you have to earn ...


The sort of families being discussed (e.g. the one in "Wife Swap") are "headed" by one thick, lazy, uneducated, poncing father and one thick, lazy, uneducated, poncing mother (sometimes only one). And what sort of adults do the offspring of these people turn out to be? You got it - thick, lazy, uneducated, ponces.
(QUOTE Zamo).

It’s not just a human right – it’s the essential nature of being human – we copulate, and the human race keeps going.

As regards ‘The sort of families …’, then, who are you, or ANYONE else, for that matter, to say who should have, or who should not have, children – very reminiscent of the thinking in Nazi Germany.

Belle, obliquely, made reference to this topic in her ‘Two Tough Questions’ thread:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3186&highlight=two+tough+questions

You'll be very pleased to hear that the husband of that uncouth family on this week's Wife Swap has just been uncovered as a benefits cheat as he works as a freelance handyman.

Full story here (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/stories/Detail_LinkStory=69749.html)

Just because you don't like somebody else's way of life doesn't give you the right to call them scum. Just the same as if someone from London comes on this forum I wouldn't call them a Cockney W*nker! Live and let live, peace and goodwill to all men, one love, one nation under a groove thang............

Aaarrrgggh! :evil: :o

Just watched this particular episode on E4's "catch-up". I couldn't believe my eyes or ears, and by the end of the programme I was itching to come and read this thread (I had previously ignored it). That lady (the chain smoking asthmatic) was slagging off her new "husband" within hours of meeting him, even though he appeared to be very friendly and receptive. She seemed to have a natural hatred for anyone that had done better than herself. Why couldn't she have ignored her stupid prejudices and just enjoyed herself?

I'm sick of people hating others for succeeding in life :(

England seems to be such a jealous country. Why don't we support the people who do well, instead of automatically assuming they are gits?

Fume... fume :P

Your right that this country is full of people who resent others for succeeding, but the boot is also heavily on the other foot to that some successfull people look down there noses at people not as successfull as them.
Just holds ammo for a class war.

As obnoxious as that woman was I got the feeling that all that vitriol she came out with was a form of insecurity / inadequacy. Still that didn't make her any less revolting :?

PS thanks for the link Alchresearch :)

and heres (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/stories/Detail_LinkStory=69802.html) tonights thrilling installment. IVF treatment indeed!

Originally posted by HappyShopper
Just because you don't like somebody else's way of life doesn't give you the right to call them scum. Just the same as if someone from London comes on this forum I wouldn't call them a Cockney W*nker! Live and let live, peace and goodwill to all men, one love, one nation under a groove thang............

It does though and you're missing the point. People who fraudulently use the benefit system are stealing off every tax payer in the country, not to mention taking benefits that could be better spent on people that genuinely need them and not on wasters that cheat the system. We have every right to refer to such people as scum. It is completely different to coming from a certain place, and we should not "let live" when these people are cheating everybody.

Forgive him Lord, for he knows not what he says............

t020, if we are going to make general generalisations, what about students? You are/were a student? Who paid for that? Us the taxpayers! Whose going to benefit from that? I don't want to pay for you to toss about for 3 years.

;) :D :banana:

Originally posted by HappyShopper
Forgive him Lord, for he knows not what he says............

t020, if we are going to make general generalisations, what about students? You are/were a student? Who paid for that? Us the taxpayers! Whose going to benefit from that? I don't want to pay for you to toss about for 3 years.

;) :D :banana:

Thanks to Labour, I pay for it. Also, I never made any generalisations - this has become a cliché 'buzz' word to instantly demote any non-PC comments. What I said was that people who cheat the benefits system are scroungers, stealing off the tax payer. This is neither a generalisation, nor, in most peoples eyes, an unfair comment. I never said all benefit claimers are cheats, just those who cheat the system.

Thats a bit of a silly thing to say as whilst students are at uni they are gaining qualifications which will mean higher paid work and therefore more tax contributions when they qualify.

If more people went to uni then perhaps there would be less on benefits.

The student contributes to their fees now also and if you are older then you will have had ALL your fees paid for.

PS: I am a student and i can assure you it is very hard work. I assume you werent bright enough to get into uni as if you had you would realise this. It is difficult stuff and is a lot of pressure and i have a lot of reading to do everynight just to not get behind, not to mention the written work and work experience which is 9-5 every day just like a full time job is but with assignments on top - but its just something you have to do to be qualified for a job which will contribute to society rather than sponge off it.

Originally posted by kittykat
Thats a bit of a silly thing to say as whilst students are at uni they are gaining qualifications which will mean higher paid work and therefore more tax contributions when they qualify.
They won't if they spend all their time on here arguing the toss!
I assume you werent bright enough to get into uni as if you had you would realise this.
You may assume that, but then we may assume that you spend all your time wasting our taxes, whilst watching daytime telly and getting drunk.

This is not my viewpoint at all, but maybe now you can see how misinformed intolerance can be detrimental, insulting and just plain naughty........don't do it!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by HappyShopper

You may assume that, but then we may assume that you spend all your time wasting our taxes, whilst watching daytime telly and getting drunk.



What part of the words "students pay their own fees" don't you understand? Yes, some may use student loans, but these are paid back along with small amounts of interest, so the taxpayer doesn't need to worry anymore. When we get higher paid jobs as a result, and pay more tax, we will then be the ones funding benefit cheats and I'm not happy about it - you might enjoy working to support strangers who can't be arsed to work themselves, most people however aren't.

:cool: Nah Den Ace.........

Originally posted by t020
What part of the words "students pay their own fees" don't you understand? Yes, some may use student loans, but these are paid back along with small amounts of interest, so the taxpayer doesn't need to worry anymore. When we get higher paid jobs as a result, and pay more tax, we will then be the ones funding benefit cheats and I'm not happy about it - you might enjoy working to support strangers who can't be arsed to work themselves, most people however aren't.

Calm down, calm down............everything's going to be alright! It matters to me not one wit.........

Come with me, t020, come with me on the Damascus Road (which isn't actually in Damascus, rather it LEADS to Damascus). Come with me and you too can burst into my bubble of happiness!!!!!!

Regards,

HappyShopper.

:D We had joy, we had fun, we had seasons in the sun...........

Originally posted by Carlwarker
As regards ‘The sort of families …’, then, who are you, or ANYONE else, for that matter, to say who should have, or who should not have, children – very reminiscent of the thinking in Nazi Germany.
Anyone can have kids as far as I'm concerned as long as I don't have to pay to raise them. Fair enough aint it?

Originally posted by HappyShopper
Just because you don't like somebody else's way of life doesn't give you the right to call them scum. Just the same as if someone from London comes on this forum I wouldn't call them a Cockney W*nker! Live and let live, peace and goodwill to all men, one love, one nation under a groove thang.............
Scum is a good discription IMHO, which I believe I have the right to express.

Cockney W*nker? :o We'll I've got a cockney accent and I have been known to have the occasional Thomas the Tank :blush:, so yes... I'm a Cockney W*nker!:bigsmile:

Hmm, lots of talk about "being the tax payer" etc and supporting benefits seeking scum (those who do it just to avoid work).

Fact is thats never going to change, ever. This government and many before it rely on the slob vote as much as any other so feeding the dog a bone so to speak keeps it happy.

They are screwing a system that allows it to be screwed. Not right in my opinion, but much of it set by those we vote into power.

1Man&HisBMW

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Hmm, lots of talk about "being the tax payer" etc and supporting benefits seeking scum (those who do it just to avoid work).

Fact is thats never going to change, ever. This government and many before it rely on the slob vote as much as any other so feeding the dog a bone so to speak keeps it happy.

They are screwing a system that allows it to be screwed. Not right in my opinion, but much of it set by those we vote into power.

1Man&HisBMW

You don't actually think they go out and vote, do you? What planet do you live on?

Originally posted by max
You don't actually think they go out and vote, do you? What planet do you live on?

Exactly. That would mean missing Trisha for a start.

Originally posted by Zamo
It's a tough cycle to break. Remove the benefits and you have kids living in poverty, don't remove the benefits and raise a new generation with no incentive or ambition to do anything other than follow in the family tradition of poncing.


You're right Zamo - that's the crux of the whole thing. Basically: do we want to turn the clock back 80 years and more and live in a society where people are literally allowed to die of starvation, where the poor live in disease-causing, crumbling slums? In short - for the poor - a third world country?

If the answer is no, then we have to accept that a system of benefits is by it's nature going to be open to abuse by a minority of individuals. Those people should be caught and penalised whenever possible.

If the the answer is yes, then you are, in my opinion, more befitting the label "scum" than any dole cheat.

Originally posted by MichaelTravis
You're right Zamo - that's the crux of the whole thing. Basically: do we want to turn the clock back 80 years and more and live in a society where people are literally allowed to die of starvation, where the poor live in disease-causing, crumbling slums? In short - for the poor - a third world country?

If the answer is no, then we have to accept that a system of benefits is by it's nature going to be open to abuse by a minority of individuals. Those people should be caught and penalised whenever possible.

If the the answer is yes, then you are, in my opinion, more befitting the label "scum" than any dole cheat.
If you read my postings correctly you will see that I believe in having a welfare system but that it should be a safety net and not a "way of life".

IMHO the welfare system needs shaking up to discourage dependency on it and I've been putting forward my views. It's ridiculous to imply that we have to live with the system as it is or revert back to the days when the unfortunates were sent off to the workhouse.

Originally posted by Zamo
If you read my postings correctly you will see that I believe in having a welfare system but that it should be a safety net and not a "way of life".


I don't disagree, but it's weeding out the scroungers that's the hard bit - successive governments and oppositions have been promising to do it for decades and failed.

The trouble is that a lot of people seem to be in favour of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.