Evil Twin of Tarquin

Lisa, thank you for your support And yes, I am male

Right, onwards and upwards....

Pete, how much does a 4 pack of Stella cost? Call it £5? 2 of them per week = £10. Or would you prefer a bottle of Vodka? Maybe £7.50? Pack of **** is £5.50 to £6. Packet a day? That would be between £38.5 and £42 per week. Add the 2 together and what do you have? Call it 50 notes as an average. This presupposes that they drink at home rather than going out and splashing the cash down the social.

Where have I said theat people should live in a square room, or left to rot? I have advocated government provided accomodation, government provided clothing and free food, again provided by the state. Therefore all the basic human "needs" are being met. Hell, I even threw in £10 pocket money per week All I ask in return for this is some form of contribution in terms of their labour. Is that really that unreasonable? Or are you one of those commie pinko subversive do-gooders who believes that everyone has the inate right to do sod all and get hand outs for doing so?

swampster

iTrader: (1)

To qualify my earlier statement.. to suggest that people were advocating a kull of disable people was perhaps a tad strong, but the general attitude observed wasn't aimed at any one person...

That said in answer to some of the comments made...

First off let me suggest to you that this is how IB is decided anyway, it's not based on 1 GP's say so. Essentially a patient declares them self sick, his/her GP agrees, and officially signs them off sick, this is constantly evaluated throughout the period of the illness (upto the 6 month point). Also in all likelihood, said patient will more often than not be required to visit a hospital for treatment of their condition (if it is this severe).

After 6 months, the patient then applies for IB. At which points several things happen. A self declaration is sought from the patient, information is gathered from a GP and any other medical authorities involved in the treatment of the illness/condition .. i.e the hospital medical staff, occupational therapists and the like. When all this information is collated the Social Security/DWP (or whatever they are calling themselves this week*) they can then request a medical examination by a doctor that they appoint, and then a decision is made.

Also for the duration of IB payments the Social can request a medical examination at anytime for cases they may think are borderline or fraudulent. They also have investigators doing random checks to combat cheats.

So how would your select panel differ in determining the wheat from the chaff? As opposed to the opinions of the GP, Hospital Consultants, Occupational Therapists, DWP appointed doctors.

How do you determine how much pain somebody is in if they are telling you they are in agony, and put on an act? Even pain consultants/anethetists rely on the self determination of the patient in that respect!
And if they're still disabled after years?

Oh and jacko's mate...
Hogwash... just because you see somebody driving for 5 minutes of your life you have a full and thorough understanding of their medical condition and disability!?

Oh and to assuage any misconceptions... people with disabilities don't just get given cars free gratis at the taxpayers expense.

The fact is that no matter what system is intoduced those who wish to cheat the system will cheat the system, and other than scrapping it wholly and letting those less fortunate rot there is next to sod all we can do about it.

GC8

Theres no point trying to reason Pete.

PeteBrant

Why are you working on the premise that everyone on benefits smoke like a trooper and drinks like a fish?

Yes, I think it is unreasonbable. People are on benefites for all sorts of reasons, and you are focusing on people on the take, which to me, is absolutely what you should not be focusing on when forumlating a welfare system.



No, like I said before, I beleive in the common good.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Actually, this isn't too far off the only real solution.

Then trouble is, this work for benefits thing stuill relies on the claimant takign part. If they refuse it is against their rights etc etc etc to make them homeless and pay them nothing so they will simply carry on as before.

This is why the only real solution is food at job centres and basic provisions handed out by the state not money. Don't like it? Shame, get a job then. There are plenty of people complaining about Polish workers etc but the fact is there are jobs and they are prepared to do them where our lot aren't. If the alternative was an itchy sofa and the loss of the widescreen TV then i think a lot more people would be 'incentivised' back to work.

For those that continue to refuse to do anything at all when they clearly could - even those with a 'disability' - how strenuous is it to sit in a call centre? The best option is to open up one of the unihabited islands off Scotland and dump the lot of the layabouts there. That way they'd have to work hard just keep their home going.

This poverty thing annoys the hell out of me. It is all about blaming someone "i never had the opportunity" etc. The way most charities look at Africa and how to get them out of poverty is education and unfortunately a lot of these people waste that opportunity in this country through their own choices.

While we are on it, it is the hugging lefties that are sending kids that misbehave out to Alton Towers and all sorts of other freebies. Essentially we are rewarding bad behaviour. I'd flip it on it's head and send the kids that get their heads down and do their homework out for the day instead of rewarding some git for keying cars all day because he's "misunderstood"

5t.

additional. much truth to be found in satire

CHILDREN ADMIT TO BEING LITTLE ****S - The Daily Mash

EDIT:

to support Evil Twin of Tarquin:

"over half of unemployed people smoke (55%) compared to just 34% of full-time workers,"

Smoking Survey: Attitudes of the Welsh public to smoking restrictions

Spoon

Oh dear. What correlation is there between being able to drive and being able to work?

Do you honestly think that because somebody is mobile that going to a workplace is a given?

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Ahh so your solution is to take possessions off people that they might have paid for with their own money that they earned before being made redundant!? And the purpose of that is???

Good grief... I know I suggest a simulation, I'll sit you down at a desk.. and every 30 minutes, I'll come and club your hands and feet with a baseball bat, and shove knife into your spine... ? I'll shave a few layers of skin off your lower legs with a cheese grater too to simulate necrotic ulcers.. I mean you'll be alright won't ya you're sat in a call centre! I don't suppose you'd mind sitting next to somebody who's legs appeared to be rotting away, that frequently bleed and smelt of infected tissue in your little call centre?

Yep I realise what I just typed is idiocy... but it's on equal measure with the quoted paragraph.

For somebody with a condition such as Arthritis sitting for any length of time can be agonising, it can also have spin off conditions... which require legs to be elevated regularly to prevent necrosis of the lower legs.

As for the island statement.. yeah great idea, the last time somebody implented such an idea, it became universally known as Auschwitz.

Evil Twin of Tarquin

The common good? How does that square with the number of people claiming "proper" benefits eg JSA, housing etc

What %age of the population are we talking about? 10%? 20%? 30%? That to me is not the common good, unless you are saying that the state has an obligation to provide. If that is the case there surely the individual has an obligation to support the system, otherwise we are back to my statement

Leslie

Thanks for the explanation Pete, It was largely that I wanted to make it clear that there can well be a lot more to a disability than meets the eye. You have also quite correctly covered the bit about being able to drive a car not necessarily meaning that driver can do other associated work such as carrying boxes etc.

I personally am seriously enough disabled(please don't bother to start all that bit again Spoon!) so that although I can drive as easily as before I was disabled, I cannot walk any significant distance or stand for any length of time without suffering muscular pain and have to continuously rest to be able to cope. That would certainly preclude me from most kinds of work. Incidentally, let me make it clear that I have never claimed incapacity benefit. Despite the fact that I get some mobility allowance, I bought and paid for my own car. People often seem only too quick to heap blame on the disabled. Put yourself in their position and ask yourself if you would like to swap places. It is also worth remembering. it could happen to you!

The point is, especially for J4CKO's Mate, his statement about being able to drive making you able to work just does not add up. As I said in an earlier post, you have to know all the facts before you start criticising the disabled in such a general manner.

Les

PeteBrant

Just out of interest, Les, are you entitled to more than you actually claim for?

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Never said that. Just said you'd be provided with one not given money to go out and spend on tabs and beer. Not your money if you haven't earned it.



Since laws were brought in on disabilities you have to admit that things have improved a lot. Lifts etc for access for a start and the other 'duty of care' messages we give to employers these days, ergonomic chairs etc all play a part. I think you'll find a very small percentage of disabled people are incapable of actually answering a phone.

You've taken what i said to get the scrounger element away and then gone to an extreme and applied it to everyone. IT isn't what i'm saying at all. The point is these people will not get off their **** and do anything unless the alternative is worse. We reward the idle and the badly behaved right now and in my opinion that is wrong.

Perhaps you missed the post earlier where i said my mrs is disables and she is a damn sight more disabled than many of these people signed off on incapcity benefit. Despite being better off on benefits and if we wanted to play the system we could split up and she'd instantly get her own house and a shed load more cash. We don't because frankly i wasn't brought up that way but many would and don't try to say otherwise.

5t.

EDIT a perfect example of rewarding the idle but punishing those that want to work

Teenage Orphan Advised to Get Pregnant and Claim Benefits

After losing her mother in the middle of last year and her father to a heart attack at the beginning of this year, 17-year-old school student Kirsty Oldfield was advised to have a baby so she could afford to remain in school.

Currently Kirsty survives on a £30-a-week education maintenance allowance along with another £70 she earns working outside of school hours. If she were to have a child she would be entitled to housing, tax credits, child benefit, and income support.

"They said the only way I can claim anything is by becoming pregnant and I don't want to do that because it is wasting my life... I have ambitions for university and a career as a psychologist - babies are the last thing on my mind," said Kirsty

Teenage Orphan Advised to Get Pregnant and Claim Benefits

PeteBrant

hang about, you are pulling the familiar tactic of stopping discussing various other point and picking and choosing what to debate

Nevertheless...

I beleive that there a plenty of genuine cases where peopl need help. I beleive that those earning a good wage have a moral obligation to help out those less fortunate than themselves. I also think that a percentage of your incoem is rightly put aside for health services and other things of public benefit.

Now, as with anything in life, there ar epeople on the take. I do not deny that for a second. But I do not beleive that it is the majority. And I am also willing to pay the price of supporting those people that take the ****, in order to get help to those people that genuinely need it.

scoobynutta555

Pathetic.

PeteBrant

FWIW nutta, I think you have amply shown in this thread that people are perfectly able to have quite different points of view and yet still conduct themselves in a considered, polite and reasoned manner

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Agreed but it was set up to be a catch in times of need. Now it is a lifestyle choice.

Agreed, wouldn't like people to have to pay for insurance like in the US. The NHS is one of the reasons it is still a great deal of luck to be born British.

At the current (estimated) level of £800m in fraud not to mention the amount paid out to those who simply can't be arsed. that is where we have to disagree.

5t.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I sort of struggle with this a bit. I am all for the greater good, and certainly I believe those who either can't work, or are at a point in which they are out of work, or thrown into a situation where they need help, they are given the help they need to get by. Everybody's situation will be different, and this is a topic which is very complex due to the various reasons people may need assistance, but I'm sorry, I don't think regardless of how many people are on the take that should be allowed, and I doubt it is a small price we're paying either (based on what I see at least).

As I've said earlier, I'm on a crap wage and there will be many out there even worse off than me, and I really have a problem with part of that going to keep people unwilling to work, however small that amount may be. I'm more than happy to support those less fortunate, but not those who take the ****. More needs to be done to prevent people taking the ****, not just a blanket solution which will only really hurt those really needing the help. Remember, that it is the people who have just been on the take who are at least in part responsible for action needing to take place such as what has been suggested. They have been allowed to get away with scrounging, and likely they will continue somehow, yet those who are genuinely in need will suffer in the long run.

PeteBrant

Like I said before, if someone could come up with a foolproof way f seperating the genuine cases from the not I would be all for it.

The problem is, with big clamp down etc is that genuine cases get turned away. I think it was Paul Habgood that was out of work for a while and had a terrible time getting some form of benefit.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Very true... the are some less than scrupulous employers however (usually to be found in the private sector) that effectively refuse and use every loophole they can to not provide this kind of support... see there ARE different ways of playing the game.

Quite true, but despite that many ARE NOT capable of sitting there all day to answer the phone, ergonomic chairs, sensible policy or no..

Like I said earlier..while ever there is a benefit in place there will ALWAYS be those willing to play the system the only way to stop this is to scrap the system and as always the genuine cases suffer.

Good for you or rather her, that is your or her chioce, but that doesn't make you any morally better then those who do claim it. Perhaps you're just fortunate to be in a position to fully support her, many others are not.

Many would...how many? more than those that wouldn't? is this a fact or an assumption? I've not heard of hordes of disabled people splitting up from their partners so they can get more cash!? However I agree.. that would be abusing the system. But if you and your wife DID split up, you cheated on her for example... I take it you agree she shouldn't be entitled to any further benefits then?


The presence of...
Source: www.dailymail.co.uk

... on that story is quite telling

Evil Twin of Tarquin

I was agreeing with what you had written, however there isn't an "I agree with you" smiley, I couldn't be bothered to create one and as I don't have enough posts I couldn't use the voting buttons

Hope that clarifies the use of the smiley.

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

maybe use your normal log-in then instead

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I think you may be right. It's situations like this that annoy me. I have had people I know, try and get help and be unable to, yet see so many around me abusing that same system and getting away with it. It makes you wonder how some can live this sort of life seemingly so easily, yet someone in a position of genuine need can't get a little help. Clearly the system isn't working as it is, if genuine people are already getting turned away.

Evil Twin of Tarquin

But the point I'm trying to make, and possibly I'm not as errudite as yourself, is that why should people be allowed to extract the urine? Why should we pay the price? The welfare system in this country is a joke. We laud it about but other countries have better systems that work more efficiently. Yes they may be more draconian in their application, but they provide good benefits to the right people. Yes, they cost more, but they work and they pay out more too. One of the key factors in them working well is the collective moral standing of the citizens. We have the "something for nothing culture" where we seem to have misplacxed the idea of being a member of a community, and ultimately a nation, in favour of the me, me, me approach.

Take a look at places like the Nordic nations if you want reasonable examples of how it could work.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Indeed, and unfortunately under these new proposals it will be almost only the genuine cases that suffer. Like I said before and as Pete has suggested there is no foolproof way to remove those that are abusing the system, if someone wants to they will.... simple as!

And unfortunately it a necessary evil that we have to pay some of these people who do abuse the system to ensure those that do need help get it.

Evil Twin of Tarquin

Leslie

Probably, but I will stick with what I get thanks.

Les

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

So perhaps this is where we should be putting money rather than into paying people to sit at home?


Vast majority are though. That's the point. Mrs actually works as a support worker and once of their 'customers' has never worked a day in her life. Claims incapacity benefit for depression and is actually on a childs dose of anti depressants. There are many things classed as disability that have no relation to what you are talking about and these people could pick up the phone for a living. Provide part time support for others etc etc. Essentially do something other than be paid to sit at home.


The independent panal would eb a good start but agreed it is difficult. As others have pointed out though the system seems to focus on those with the most need for fraud enquiries and not those occasionally putting on a limp.


Good for her. She supports herself always has done. She has a mobility issue, she isn't retarded and doesn't like being treated as though she is because she is 'disabled'. She'd just prefer to be at work. I'm sure you have seen in the news like i have the amount of people who say "i'd like to but i'd lose too much money/better off on benefit" it is a lifestyle choice now. Better off or not these people simply do not have the work ethic needed to make that step. And before you say not all of them, i know that.


[QUOTE]
Many would...how many? more than those that wouldn't? is this a fact or an assumption? I've not heard of hordes of disabled people splitting up from their partners so they can get more cash!? However I agree.. that would be abusing the system. But if you and your wife DID split up, you cheated on her for example... I take it you agree she shouldn't be entitled to any further benefits then? [/QUOTE}

Latest figures about £800m worth of fraud. I'm not just talking about disabled here.



Because of where it is doesn't make it any less true though does it. Poking fun at the source is not answering the fundamental point that i made.

5t.

Spoon

We are getting there.

Unfortunately with a PC direction as it is I'd imagine you can't just tell somebody they are lying to claim some benefits or even remotely suggest they are bending the truth without drastic consequences so therefore the 'false' claimants get it every time if they are prepared to chance it.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Indeed not, but it does increase the chances that a lot of factual stuff has been left out for the benefit of delivery and impact.

I'm guessing (and assuming) that what probably happened is she was moaning that she couldn't get anymore benefits to fund her alcohol and drugs while she goes to college/uni... and that somebody at the job centre explained to her that a particular benefit is only available to somebody with children.. and not actually advised her to go and get herself knocked up so she can then claim some more benefits as this story suggests.

She instead found another way of funding her 'education' by signing anything the DM editors stuck infront of her..