Slavery "Work for Your Benefit"

[Bookworm]

P1, my comments weren't specifically addressed at you, only the sentence I had actually quoted, which is th epart which yu chose to ignore.

 

Yes, my figures are "plucked out of thin air", or rather a generalisation, but they are also based on doing that self-survey I mentioned.

 

Whilst you help children and come to the conclusions you have, I spend a good deal of my time assisting people from the most disadvantaged parts of society getting what they are entitled to, and I don't think my numbers are that far from the actual ones.

 

Geographically, I live in the second largest housing estate in Europe, where traditionally, you will not find a lot of bankers and fat cats. . Even in this severely under-privileged environment, I can tell you that the proportion of people in benefits is lower than the one of people in work. Furthermore, of those on benefits, most of the ones in the area are genuine claimants. Oh sure, I am aware of the scroungers too, but by and large they are the minority, which is the point I was making all along. Funnily enough, these are the ones who usually have social workers helping them along the way, whilst the ones in genuine need of assistance usually rely on people like me to assist them, and if that's not saying something about the system I don't know what is...

[PriorityOne]

 

Whilst you help children and come to the conclusions you have, I spend a good deal of my time assisting people from the most disadvantaged parts of society getting what they are entitled to, and I don't think my numbers are that far from the actual ones. I can see your point.... and can also appreciate how large numbers of people miss out because of the intrusive nature of certain forms and how they need to be worded in order to qualify for help. DLA is a good example of this...

Having said that, I know of entire families on DLA.... Mum and "Dad" and several children, plus having rent and council tax paid.... yet they keep on churning out more children. Some deliberately live apart because they get more that way.... Sad times...

 

Geographically, I live in the second largest housing estate in Europe, where traditionally, you will not find a lot of bankers and fat cats. . Even in this severely under-privileged environment, I can tell you that the proportion of people in benefits is lower than the one of people in work. Furthermore, of those on benefits, most of the ones in the area are genuine claimants. Oh sure, I am aware of the scroungers too, but by and large they are the minority, which is the point I was making all along. Funnily enough, these are the ones who usually have social workers helping them along the way, whilst the ones in genuine need of assistance usually rely on people like me to assist them, and if that's not saying something about the system I don't know what is...

 

I live in an affluent area... but go 15 minutes down the road and you'll find the cast of "Shameless". These are the kids that I deal with.... the ones no-one else can handle or wants.... and because no-one wants them or knows how to deal with them, you have genuine SEN kids, such as autistic, Aspergers, dyslexic kids, etc. in the same class as violent and aggressive kids with a range of social disorders learned from their parent(s); half of which I don't believe in anyway.

 

Going back to Benefits.... it's become a nightmare for genuine claimants.... and our Benefits bill is heaving... yet our stupid Gov. has effectively "invited" European migrants across to take the lower paid jobs rather than provide a living wage for its own and some of them now don't work either.

 

The result is a mess on all kinds of levels.... and as it gets worse, the future is very frightening for everyone.

[Surfer01]

 

Going back to Benefits.... it's become a nightmare for genuine claimants.... and our Benefits bill is heaving... yet our stupid Gov. has effectively "invited" European migrants across to take the lower paid jobs rather than provide a living wage for its own and some of them now don't work either.

 

The result is a mess on all kinds of levels.... and as it gets worse, the future is very frightening for everyone.

 

Agree 100% as I am battling to get a job, even a low paid job although I have very good qualifications as Kowalski seems to get them before we do as Kowalski and other EU migrants like him will work for the minimum wage. Also although difficult to prove employers discriminate against those who are 50 and over and will do even bother to interview them even if their credentials are impeccable so we have to struggle on benefits. I still cannot fathom out how people can live permanently on benefits and not work a single day.

[Fuzzgin]

I agre with bookworm, it's the classic divide and rule tactic beloved of governements and the press.

[furnitman2003]

I still cannot fathom out how people can live permanently on benefits and not work a single day.

 

Thats because some, who live permanantly on benefits, work on the 'side', and know how to work the system.

[Conniff]

Yes, my figures are "plucked out of thin air", or rather a generalisation,

 

Nothing wrong with that, Gordon Brown did it all the time especially with unemployed when the actual figure is nearer 7million.

 

I fear that any scheme to get people into work or training is just a way of fiddling the figures as not one of them are in a real lifetime job, just something that will massage the jobless total as they aren't on benefits.

[Bookworm]

Well, what really bothers me about this is that one of the ideas is to force people to earn their benefits by doing some kind of community work.

 

Now call me simplistic if you will, but it seems to me that if there is enough community work to go round, call it "jobs", and plenty of unemployed people being forced to do those "jobs" for, hell, let's call it "money", it pretty much fulfills the definition of what paid work should be.

 

Yes, I know, someone on benefits costs a lot less to do that work, because there are no taxes or employer's NI to be paid, and thus, any notion of minimum wage is neatly bypassed... And of course, the pleb doesn't have a choice to say no to the most demeaning of tasks since that would mean loss of his benefits.

 

Am I the only to smell a gigantic rat here?

[PriorityOne]

Nothing wrong with that, Gordon Brown did it all the time especially with unemployed when the actual figure is nearer 7million.

 

I fear that any scheme to get people into work or training is just a way of fiddling the figures as not one of them are in a real lifetime job, just something that will massage the jobless total as they aren't on benefits.

 

Figures have been massaged for years.... they started it with young people years ago; YTS and the like... Those on the IS (previously Supplemenatry Benefit) are not included and neither are those on the sick.

 

Now call me simplistic if you will, but it seems to me that if there is enough community work to go round, call it "jobs", and plenty of unemployed people being forced to do those "jobs" for, hell, let's call it "money", it pretty much fulfills the definition of what paid work should be.

 

Yes, I know, someone on benefits costs a lot less to do that work, because there are no taxes or employer's NI to be paid, and thus, any notion of minimum wage is neatly bypassed... And of course, the pleb doesn't have a choice to say no to the most demeaning of tasks since that would mean loss of his benefits.

 

Am I the only to smell a gigantic rat here?

 

Totally agree..... but it'll cut into the activities of those working on the side as they won't be able to do both (in theory anyway)..... which could be one of the reasons the Gov. like the idea.

 

The "work" will also be demeaning and time-wasting.... much the same as the YTS was a time-waste in the 1980s and work "experience" nowadays is cheap labour for employers and in most cases, a time-waste for the young.... before they move forward onto other pointless "training", which keeps them off official stats.

 

Training for what anyway? Years ago, all you needed was a dose of common sense.

[Conniff]

Deleted as it means nothing without the accompanying picture. If anyone wants to see what it was then pm me.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Conniff
Unsuitable picture removed

[Conniff]

I thought being a prude went out with the Victorians. There was absolutely nothing being shown that you can't see on any beach. There was no flesh being shown.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Conniff

[Bookworm]

There may be work (which is very arguable around here), but not everyone can do it.

 

My work is full-time carer, for which I get the princely sum of £53 a week. For this, I must care for at least 35 hours a week.

 

Even if I left that plum of a job to go back into employment, which employer would take me on, knowing that I might phone any morning saying "I can't come in" because my son has kicked off and I have to be there to look after him, OR have to drop everything to go to his school because he's a risk to others and himself, at any time during the day? Even if they did take me on, how long of this unreliability foisted upon them before they said "sorry, it ain't working out"?

 

There is also the small matter of my own disability, meaning that there are days where I am zonked out on pain relief, and unable to do more than shuffle a couple of feet.

 

I am very qualified and very experienced in quite a few fields. The last time I was able to apply for a job, I applied on a Wednesday, they hired me by Friday, even though they didn't actually need me for a couple of months, because their HR officer told them: "if you don't snap her up now, the next company to interview her will" (my trainer told me that because it was unheard of before, that's how I know).

I work hard, am loyal to my employers, can think on my feet, learn fast, and have years of experience.

 

Yet as things stand now, I am completely and utterly unemployable.

 

So please don't presume to tell me that it's "up to me", because I can assure you it bloody well isn't.

[RaeUK]

I presume you were asked to remove the image Conniff or cagbotted. I did see the pic and thought it more amusing than offensive and not in the slightest obscene.

That said, we all have to bear in mind that this is an open site available for anyone to visit / view and it could be posible to get the wrong message if a plethora of similar images were commonly found here...

Best wishes

Rae

[Conniff]

Thanks Rae. I have seen a darn sight more on 99% of the beaches I have visited.

 

So please don't presume to tell me that it's "up to me", because I can assure you it bloody well isn't.

 

Was that directed at me Bookworm?

[Bookworm]

Of course.

[Conniff]

Well I am truly sorry for your misfortune, but you are not the only one with these problems, so don't take it out on others.

You also need to lighten up as what I said was in conjuction with a picture you deleted so means nothing without it.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Conniff

[honeybee13]

Conniff, I really respect your opinions and love your avatar, but I think in this instance you might try to lighten up a smidge.

 

HB x

[Conniff]

I posted a picture and a caption honeybee but the picture was removed leaving only the caption. That caption on its own had a totally different and unintended meaning without the picture and was used as if the words were posted on their own.

 

The whole post should have been deleted and not just the picture if it was ajudged to have been inappropriate. It was selective editing and poor moderation.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Conniff

[Allwood]

Figures have been massaged for years.... they started it with young people years ago; YTS and the like... Those on the IS (previously Supplemenatry Benefit) are not included and neither are those on the sick.

 

 

 

Totally agree..... but it'll cut into the activities of those working on the side as they won't be able to do both (in theory anyway)..... which could be one of the reasons the Gov. like the idea.

 

The "work" will also be demeaning and time-wasting.... much the same as the YTS was a time-waste in the 1980s and work "experience" nowadays is cheap labour for employers and in most cases, a time-waste for the young.... before they move forward onto other pointless "training", which keeps them off official stats.

 

Training for what anyway? Years ago, all you needed was a dose of common sense.

 

Hi PO

 

My son went on a YTS scheme and he got a very good job as result if it. He have never been out of work since he was 18. I think it had something to do with me working and brining him up on my own. It was a total different kettle of fish during the 70's and 80's being a single parent. I remember when my son was born child benefit was only 10 shillings and and there was a promised of a rise to £1.50 and we though would be wonderful. Unlike today when a child is born they get a large sum to put into a saving bond for them plus a very good child allowance.

 

You could not get a flat in them days without a partner signature on the rent book, no council housing whatsoever for single parents. It was very much like that TV programm Cathy come home.

[Bookworm]

Well I am truly sorry for your misfortune, but you are not the only one with these problems, so don't take it out on others.

You also need to lighten up as what I said was in conjuction with a picture you deleted so means nothing without it.

I am not taking anything out on others, I am pointing out the absurdity of your "get off your backsides, there's plenty of work" stance, by giving my own example, but I can give you plenty more if you want.

 

And *I* deleted no picture, I didn't actually see it, and since all I have are your sweeping comments, I responded in kind.

 

If you didn't mean what you said, or it was a tongue in cheek comment, I would suggest you edit your post because from where I am reading, there is nothing tongue in cheek in it, and it seems incredibly patronising to people like myself, and I wouldn't be surprised if others also take it the wrong way.

[RaeUK]

Conniff / Bookworm,

I did see the picture and without it the text gives completely the wrong message!

Usually, if a post is edited by the Site Team then a message is put in the 'reason for edit' box. Did you spot anything before your final edit Conniff? If not, perhaps it's just one of those things and wasn't deleted by the Site Team ...

Who knows!

Best wishes

Rae

[Conniff]

Bookie I apologise. We have always gotten on well over the years and I wouldn't like to see that change.

 

Of course you didn't remove it, the orange writing under your name made me jump to that conclusion. I would never say a thing like that without some qualification. It was cagbotted, but despite what the cagbot says, it is not an automatic operation, it was done by a person, so I address post #85 to whoever was hiding behind the cagbot title.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Conniff

[Conniff]

'ere, why did that post twice.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Conniff
Post appeared twice.

[loopinlouie]

Gremlins:)

[Bookworm]

Bookie I apologise. We have always gotten on well over the years and I wouldn't like to see that change.

 

Of course you didn't remove it, the orange writing under your name made me jump to that conclusion. I would never say a thing like that without some qualification. It was cagbotted, but despite what the cagbot says, it is not an automatic operation, it was done by a person, so I address post #85 to whoever was hiding behind the cagbot title.

Not to worry, sorry for biting your head off, you hit a sore spot as you may have noticed.

 

It does say who CAGbotted you at the bottom of your post, where it says "edited by", but since you have re-edited since, your name went on instead. The "automatic" part refers to the PM notif, your post gets edited, you automatically get a PM.

 

***GROUP HUG!!!***

[Conniff]

"***GROUP HUG!!!*** :grin:" Oh yes please.