Civil unrest

[Dave225]

Up here in the north, they have started examining the claimants for Disability Payments and have found that over 100000 of them have been claiming in excess of 10 years and some for more than 15 years. Now if someone is permanently disabled, then that is accepted but in the examination so far, over 70% of the claimants have been found to be perfectly capable of work but evidently ‘forgot to advise the Social of their recovery’. As we are also paying people for being disabled due to alcohol abuse, drugs and ‘indeterminate back pains’ without even having to produce a medical certificate, then one has to wonder what is going on.

 

Is permanent laziness classified as a disability???

 

Now some of them may claim that there is no work, however as we have managed to accommodate tens of thousands of Polish workers who seemingly were able to find work very quickly, that one does not hold water too well. However, I do accept that having to get up every morning to go to work, is really a chore that should not be tolerated, and of course one may possibly be expected to actually do something when you finally get there, so it is tough out there. Far better to watch morning TV and let someone else pay the taxes to support you.

 

[CliveH]

Thank you Dave.

 

You have just outlined the reality of "benefit Britain" very well.

 

Well said.

 

[nightrider]

BGD - 2011-03-28 11:41 AM

 

Peter James - 2011-03-27 9:59 PM

 

peter - 2011-03-27 9:33 PM

Unless I'm wrong 0845 is a local call rate number.

It might be from your phone. But we are talking about poor people trying to claim benefits - BT coinbox.

I rang an 0845 number from one. It said UK calls 20 minutes for 40p (that was the minimum charge before the recent 50% increase). I put in my 40p which lasted less than a minute! 'The BT call box price list is as clear as mud – the usual obfuscation on the part of BT.' http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1108328278

 

 

 

 

 

I know this is a radical idea but.........maybe - just maybe, they could actually get off their arse and go and visit the local Social Security Office in their own town to resolve their taxpayer-funded handout question/claim?

 

Bruce,

Shows what you know about social security offices these days, its all done by phone.

[nightrider]

Dave225 - 2011-03-28 2:22 PM

 

Up here in the north, they have started examining the claimants for Disability Payments and have found that over 100000 of them have been claiming in excess of 10 years and some for more than 15 years. Now if someone is permanently disabled, then that is accepted but in the examination so far, over 70% of the claimants have been found to be perfectly capable of work but evidently ‘forgot to advise the Social of their recovery’. As we are also paying people for being disabled due to alcohol abuse, drugs and ‘indeterminate back pains’ without even having to produce a medical certificate, then one has to wonder what is going on.

 

Is permanent laziness classified as a disability???

 

Now some of them may claim that there is no work, however as we have managed to accommodate tens of thousands of Polish workers who seemingly were able to find work very quickly, that one does not hold water too well. However, I do accept that having to get up every morning to go to work, is really a chore that should not be tolerated, and of course one may possibly be expected to actually do something when you finally get there, so it is tough out there. Far better to watch morning TV and let someone else pay the taxes to support you.

Dave,

I dont know what age of a man you or are what trade or profession you follow but try this as an experiment, phone your local benefits office or even go down, make as if you want to claim unemployment benefit and see what happens? The Polish workers will take on any kind of job because the money offered is far in excess of what they would get back in Poland

[nightrider]

I am one of the first people to admit that there are some people who are workshy and claim benefits that they are not entitled to.

But the vast majority of claimants are entitled to what they get, what sickens me on this forum are the self satisfied smug members who are either fortunate to be in a job or are retired and have never experienced unemployment who are constantly slagging off the unemployed.

So I would say to you people get off YOUR arses and fill out a CV using a false name if you want and send your CV's to companies involved in your kind of work and see how many replies if any that might lead to an interview.

[BGD]

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 6:18 PM

 

BGD - 2011-03-28 11:41 AM

 

Peter James - 2011-03-27 9:59 PM

 

peter - 2011-03-27 9:33 PM

Unless I'm wrong 0845 is a local call rate number.

It might be from your phone. But we are talking about poor people trying to claim benefits - BT coinbox.

I rang an 0845 number from one. It said UK calls 20 minutes for 40p (that was the minimum charge before the recent 50% increase). I put in my 40p which lasted less than a minute! 'The BT call box price list is as clear as mud – the usual obfuscation on the part of BT.' http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1108328278

 

 

 

 

 

I know this is a radical idea but.........maybe - just maybe, they could actually get off their arse and go and visit the local Social Security Office in their own town to resolve their taxpayer-funded handout question/claim?

 

Bruce,

Shows what you know about social security offices these days, its all done by phone.

 

 

No. It is not.

 

 

[Big Momma]

Not so long ago, only a few weeks, one of the numerous documentary programmes covering the 'Benefits Cuts' issues spoke to several unemployed people. All of them admitted to having been offered a job but they 'refused' it because it was not much more than they were claiming on Benefits. Had they have taken the job some claimed they would be worse off as they would have had to pay their own 'Childcare' costs. Surely, Benefits should be less than the 'minimum wage' otherwise where is the incentive for these people to go out and work. It always amazes me that whilst being interviewed they are in houses with wide screen TV's, and all the other mod cons, smoking cigarettes and some even interviewed in the pub drinking beer *-)

 

This country has certainly got it Arse about face >:-(

[Big Momma]

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 7:09 PM

 

I am one of the first people to admit that there are some people who are workshy and claim benefits that they are not entitled to.

But the vast majority of claimants are entitled to what they get, what sickens me on this forum are the self satisfied smug members who are either fortunate to be in a job or are retired and have never experienced unemployment who are constantly slagging off the unemployed.

So I would say to you people get off YOUR arses and fill out a CV using a false name if you want and send your CV's to companies involved in your kind of work and see how many replies if any that might lead to an interview.

 

It doesn't help there cause when they allow themselves to be interviewed and admit to being 'offered a job' but turning it down because if they lose their Benefits they would have to pay their own childcare costs *-).

[nightrider]

Big Momma - 2011-03-28 7:17 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 7:09 PM

 

I am one of the first people to admit that there are some people who are workshy and claim benefits that they are not entitled to.

But the vast majority of claimants are entitled to what they get, what sickens me on this forum are the self satisfied smug members who are either fortunate to be in a job or are retired and have never experienced unemployment who are constantly slagging off the unemployed.

So I would say to you people get off YOUR arses and fill out a CV using a false name if you want and send your CV's to companies involved in your kind of work and see how many replies if any that might lead to an interview.

 

It doesn't help there cause when they allow themselves to be interviewed and admit to being 'offered a job' but turning it down because if they lose their Benefits they would have to pay their own childcare costs *-).

 

Momma,

If you were on benefits recieving X amount and you were offered a job at less than what you were getting on benefits would you yourself take that job? Or put another way, if your boss said to you in order to keep you on the books we want you to take a reduction in wages, would you take that reduction to keep yourself in work?

[nightrider]

Big Momma - 2011-03-28 7:17 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 7:09 PM

 

I am one of the first people to admit that there are some people who are workshy and claim benefits that they are not entitled to.

But the vast majority of claimants are entitled to what they get, what sickens me on this forum are the self satisfied smug members who are either fortunate to be in a job or are retired and have never experienced unemployment who are constantly slagging off the unemployed.

So I would say to you people get off YOUR arses and fill out a CV using a false name if you want and send your CV's to companies involved in your kind of work and see how many replies if any that might lead to an interview.

 

It doesn't help there cause when they allow themselves to be interviewed and admit to being 'offered a job' but turning it down because if they lose their Benefits they would have to pay their own childcare costs *-).

It is a fact that instead of keeping their mouths shut as to what benefits they get they blow the gaff, no doubt they have been offered an inducement to appear before the TV camera, thats how stupid they are.

[CliveH]

Hardly Malcolm

 

We have a real situation here were a hardworking young woman is a qualified beautician and hairdresser who came round and did my MiL's hair before she died and also does SWMBO and even mine if I am about (just a cut - I no longer have a perm 8-) ) - this girl works hard and is a real grafter.

 

But her sister is into drugs and has a kid and has never worked in her life but is better off than her hard working sister such that she can afford to pay her sister to have her hair done regularly and her nails done whilst buying designer clothes whilst on benefits.

 

Her rent is paid and she has more disposable income than her hard working sister such that her sister has acted as baby sitter to earn more money! - and the person going out and enjoying herself at the taxpayers expense such that she needs a babysitter is the unemployed on benefits sibling :-S :-S >:-( >:-(

 

And the attitude of the hard working sister? "I just could not do it - and my Mum and Dad are ashamed of my sister".

 

But apparently - the sister sees nothing wrong in what she gets given for free.

 

My view is that because she got given it for free - she sees it as a right and of no value. She fails to see that taxes are high to sponsor here freebie lifestyle.

 

I am glad the scroungers are being found - I want the true needy to be looked after - there but for the grace of God etc. - but some welfare scroungers are beyond reason and need to be sorted.

 

Long overdue.

 

The cuts are necessary and totally required unless we want to go the way of the PIGS economies (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain)?

 

 

For the record - I have been made redundant once - it is not funny and I would not wish it on anyone. I worked nights at a film development factory (Colourcare) until a "proper" job came up and I never claimed benefit.

 

[Big Momma]

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 7:26 PM

 

Big Momma - 2011-03-28 7:17 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 7:09 PM

 

I am one of the first people to admit that there are some people who are workshy and claim benefits that they are not entitled to.

But the vast majority of claimants are entitled to what they get, what sickens me on this forum are the self satisfied smug members who are either fortunate to be in a job or are retired and have never experienced unemployment who are constantly slagging off the unemployed.

So I would say to you people get off YOUR arses and fill out a CV using a false name if you want and send your CV's to companies involved in your kind of work and see how many replies if any that might lead to an interview.

 

It doesn't help there cause when they allow themselves to be interviewed and admit to being 'offered a job' but turning it down because if they lose their Benefits they would have to pay their own childcare costs *-).

It is a fact that instead of keeping their mouths shut as to what benefits they get they blow the gaff, no doubt they have been offered an inducement to appear before the TV camera, thats how stupid they are.

 

So one minute there is an outcry about people who pay tax to maintain a public service system and in the next breath it is seen to be okay for people who 'Can' work but 'opt' not to, to take tax payers money rather than contribute to the system they have been taking from. You condone this by stating that they should have kept their mouth shut *-)

 

Their are some people out there who are genuinely unable to work and therefore are in receipt of benefits, that's what the system was intended for, not to line the pockets of those that choose not to work when they are offered a job.

 

As for your attack on those of us that in your words 'are fortunate to have a job', fortune has nothing to do with it, when I left the military I sent out over 60 CV's, attended lots of interviews and had to face either no-responses to my letter of applications, or letters advising me that I had been unsuccessful. Did I give up, NO, I persevered until i got a job and am proud to say that since leaving school at 16 years old, with no qualifications, I have never been unemployed. Fortunate my arse, there is work out there but the lazy gits that have been on benefits for so long see it as easy money, and by the sound of it you are in agreement with that principle.

[BGD]

"As for your attack on those of us that in your words 'are fortunate to have a job', fortune has nothing to do with it, when I left the military I sent out over 60 CV's, attended lots of interviews and had to face either no-responses to my letter of applications, or letters advising me that I had been unsuccessful. Did I give up, NO, I persevered until i got a job and am proud to say that since leaving school at 16 years old, with no qualifications, I have never been unemployed. Fortunate my arse, there is work out there but the lazy gits that have been on benefits for so long see it as easy money."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amen to that.

 

[nightrider]

Big Momma - 2011-03-28 9:38 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 7:26 PM

 

Big Momma - 2011-03-28 7:17 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 7:09 PM

 

I am one of the first people to admit that there are some people who are workshy and claim benefits that they are not entitled to.

But the vast majority of claimants are entitled to what they get, what sickens me on this forum are the self satisfied smug members who are either fortunate to be in a job or are retired and have never experienced unemployment who are constantly slagging off the unemployed.

So I would say to you people get off YOUR arses and fill out a CV using a false name if you want and send your CV's to companies involved in your kind of work and see how many replies if any that might lead to an interview.

 

It doesn't help there cause when they allow themselves to be interviewed and admit to being 'offered a job' but turning it down because if they lose their Benefits they would have to pay their own childcare costs *-).

It is a fact that instead of keeping their mouths shut as to what benefits they get they blow the gaff, no doubt they have been offered an inducement to appear before the TV camera, thats how stupid they are.

 

So one minute there is an outcry about people who pay tax to maintain a public service system and in the next breath it is seen to be okay for people who 'Can' work but 'opt' not to, to take tax payers money rather than contribute to the system they have been taking from. You condone this by stating that they should have kept their mouth shut *-)

 

Their are some people out there who are genuinely unable to work and therefore are in receipt of benefits, that's what the system was intended for, not to line the pockets of those that choose not to work when they are offered a job.

 

As for your attack on those of us that in your words 'are fortunate to have a job', fortune has nothing to do with it, when I left the military I sent out over 60 CV's, attended lots of interviews and had to face either no-responses to my letter of applications, or letters advising me that I had been unsuccessful. Did I give up, NO, I persevered until i got a job and am proud to say that since leaving school at 16 years old, with no qualifications, I have never been unemployed. Fortunate my arse, there is work out there but the lazy gits that have been on benefits for so long see it as easy money, and by the sound of it you are in agreement with that principle.

Momma,

how long ago was it that you left the military? and where and what are these jobs that you speak of?

[nightrider]

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 7:22 PM

 

Big Momma - 2011-03-28 7:17 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-03-28 7:09 PM

 

I am one of the first people to admit that there are some people who are workshy and claim benefits that they are not entitled to.

But the vast majority of claimants are entitled to what they get, what sickens me on this forum are the self satisfied smug members who are either fortunate to be in a job or are retired and have never experienced unemployment who are constantly slagging off the unemployed.

So I would say to you people get off YOUR arses and fill out a CV using a false name if you want and send your CV's to companies involved in your kind of work and see how many replies if any that might lead to an interview.

 

It doesn't help there cause when they allow themselves to be interviewed and admit to being 'offered a job' but turning it down because if they lose their Benefits they would have to pay their own childcare costs *-).

 

Momma,

If you were on benefits recieving X amount and you were offered a job at less than what you were getting on benefits would you yourself take that job? Or put another way, if your boss said to you in order to keep you on the books we want you to take a reduction in wages, would you take that reduction to keep yourself in work?

 

Momma,

Why dont you answer the question that I asked of you? dont evade a legit question.

[donna miller]

Who on earth gets up at 4.30 am to continue an argument about lazy, freeloading benefit scroungers. 8-)

[LordThornber]

donna miller - 2011-03-29 10: Who on earth gets up at 4.30 am to continue an argument about lazy, freeloading benefit scroungers. 8-)

 

The very same thought had crossed my mind Donna 8-)

 

Martyn

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

LordThornber - 2011-03-29 10:17 AM

 

donna miller - 2011-03-29 10: Who on earth gets up at 4.30 am to continue an argument about lazy, freeloading benefit scroungers. 8-)

 

The very same thought had crossed my mind Donna 8-)

 

Martyn

 

Possibly people who don't have work the next day?!? :D

[pepe63xnotuse]

Big Momma - 2011-03-28 7:13 PM

 

It always amazes me that whilst being interviewed they are in houses with wide screen TV's, and all the other mod cons, smoking cigarettes and some even interviewed in the pub drinking beer *-)

 

This country has certainly got it Arse about face >:-(

 

Yeah,I know what you mean..houses,TVs AND they drink beer!

I even saw a bloke coming out of our local Jobcentre wearing shoes!..the bloody cheek of it!! *-)

(..I can only assume he worked there.. ;-) )

[Bulletguy]

Big Momma - 2011-03-28 7:13 PM

 

Surely, Benefits should be less than the 'minimum wage' otherwise where is the incentive for these people to go out and work.

I disagree.

 

The minimum wage needs scrapping and lets see sensible and decent wage levels set. At present we have millions of people being paid very low incomes, so poor it entitles them to apply for certain supplementary benefits.

 

The differential between low pay and benefits needs to be much wider to get people out of this rut.

 

Currently the minimum wage ranges from £2.50 - £5.93 per hr.

 

 

[nightrider]

donna miller - 2011-03-29 10:11 AM

 

Who on earth gets up at 4.30 am to continue an argument about lazy, freeloading benefit scroungers. 8-)

 

Insomniacs usually (lol)

 

Ps, people who are woken by the dawn chorus and can't get back to sleep again and come down to make a brew, thats who

[Dave225]

To answer 'Knight of the Road's' questions.

 

I have been to the 'Dole Office' 2 times in my life. The first was when I had just graduated as a geologist way back in the 70's. At that time 98% of graduates were unemployed. Having a wife and new born child I wanted any work I could get so saw an advert in the 'Dole Office' for a bread delivery driver. I was told I could not get it as 'I was too qualified' I told them to skip my degree and just give me the flaming job as I could drive and needed the work. 'No can do' said jobsworthy. The next advert I saw and was asked my qualifications I stated '2 O levels' and got the job. After some time I 'wangled' my way into another job again where I did not have the right qualifications and eventually moved on and achieved my chosen 'trade'. It all took a lot of effort, persuasion, and a desire to achieve something for myself and the family. If you wish, long before Norman Tebbit came up with the phrase ' I got on my bike'. etc etc

 

The many Polish up here are all working shops, restaurants etc and so get at least the minimum wage, or what ever is on offer to anyone else. I accept that many do indeed send money back home, as do British expats abroad, but many others have chosen to settle permanently and have families and all the local costs we all pay, and still manage to survive, so if they can do it, why the Hell cannot the workshy? Without being racist in any way, I would much rather see our own kith and kin do the work, than outsiders.

 

There used to be a saying in both Scotland and Ireland, and even England that the biggest exports of both countries were people. Usually due to a desire to get work and better themselves, or just to leave the misery behind. That is as true today as it was at the turn of the last century but it means those of us still here numerically have a greater concentration of the citizens inclined not to support the country, which is not doing us any favours as a nation. Somewhere along the line that has to change.

[Guest Tracker]

Tracker - 2011-03-27 1:53 PM

If one's political persuasions are so inclined it is easy to blame the banks and corporate tax avoidance for the national debt debacle but if that is one's belief then perhaps one should offer to start a queue in order to pay more in taxation to fund the services that we cannot afford under current taxation levels?

I have a feeling that it would be a very short queue!

Everybody has a solution but nobody wants to pay for it?

 

 

It looks like being a very short queue - no volunteers to pay more tax to keep the public sector in their jobs - well I am surprised?

 

Much easier to moan and whinge about what 'they' are doing than to offer up any viable solution?

[nightrider]

donna miller - 2011-03-29 10:11 AM

 

Who on earth gets up at 4.30 am to continue an argument about lazy, freeloading benefit scroungers. 8-)

 

Donna, when does a normal fine upstanding man who has lost his job through no fault of his own and is forced to sign on for JSA become in your words a lazy freeloading benefit scrounger?? Has the curse of unemployment not hit any member of your family or friends?

[nightrider]

Tracker - 2011-03-29 8:51 PM

 

Tracker - 2011-03-27 1:53 PM

If one's political persuasions are so inclined it is easy to blame the banks and corporate tax avoidance for the national debt debacle but if that is one's belief then perhaps one should offer to start a queue in order to pay more in taxation to fund the services that we cannot afford under current taxation levels?

I have a feeling that it would be a very short queue!

Everybody has a solution but nobody wants to pay for it?

 

 

It looks like being a very short queue - no volunteers to pay more tax to keep the public sector in their jobs - well I am surprised?

 

Much easier to moan and whinge about what 'they' are doing than to offer up any viable solution?

 

Richard,

Well in your mind who is actually responsible for the financial mess that we are in, it certainly wasn't Joe public was it? You seem to know everything.