Cameron gets tough on benefit cheats !!!!

[Big Tone]

However unlike BigTone ( who does seem to dance from one side to the other on this point ) neither do i think a claimant should be allowed to turn down a job on the basis that it's no more than benefit.

Probably my fault because I try to keeps posts short. IME the longer the post the more people switch off.

I know there are scumbags who are taking the tax payer for a mug. I stick by what I said that I don’t think people should be forced into work from which someone else can profiteer. I agree with someone, sorry I can’t remember who now, that a benefit is something you should work for, if you can, and not see it as paid time to doss!

I think Skitzee’s signature is an insult to genuine cases. If he feels so passionately about this form of "vermin" I don’t see why he shouldn’t replace his signature to 'jailbirds' instead who sit pretty watching TV and playing pool after committing far worse crimes all at the tax payers expense.

Make them work to produce goods to feed and help themselves and learn how to engage with others without resorting to crime. (Probably a separate thread again).

So then, out of interest. Do you think all jailbirds are vermin too skitzee; more so than someone claiming benefits and more deserving to be in your sig?

This could be interesting…

 

[Deluks]

I know there are scumbags who are taking the tax payer for a mug.

No, they're taking the government for a mug. The money no longer belongs to the taxpayer as the gov have 'Robbing Hood-ed' it from them, and are free to spend it as they wish.
Remember, there's all those wars and foreign aid to pay for.

It's the biggest lie in politics. They take the money from you and still insist that it's your money.

 

[Big Tone]

I know there are scumbags who are taking the tax payer for a mug.

No, they're taking the government for a mug. The money no longer belongs to the taxpayer as the gov have 'Robbing Hood-ed' it from them, and are free to spend it as they wish.
Remember, there's all those wars and foreign aid to pay for.

It's the biggest lie in politics. They take the money from you and still insist that it's your money.

Yes, you're quite right. I stand corrected thanks.

 

[skitzee2k]

So Skitzee could be classed as one of the nouveau riche, he probably grew up in a slum and acquired a certain amount of wealth and chose to hide his background.
Up until you own the company 100% you are only a hired hand, Evian water chilling in the fridge what a posuer whats wrong with ordinary tap water, can you tell the difference

Lol, i don't actually have Evian.
..and I have never hidden where I come from. It is because I come from a place where i had brunch because i couldn't afford breakfast AND lunch, and beans on toast was a feast, that I feel perfectly qualified to speak about those poor souls who are 'trapped' in poverty.

 

[skitzee2k]

...and I have already spoken about my signature and the reason for it in this very thread.

 

[mointainwalker]

malcolmx

I fear you are making too many assumptions.

One of these assumptions being that advancing years automatically bring insight and wisdom : they don't.

Other false assumptions concern my employment status and whether I have ever claimed the dole.

I no longer work but am not of retirement age. I support myself on my savings and pay a small amount of tax on other income.

I spent my working life as a salesman , selling to car-manufacturers and was make redundant 6 times i.e. every time there was a slump.

I have therefore signed on and been unemployed up to six or seven months at a time. I always was searching for jobs and could show the Job Centre copies of all applications I had made and interviews attended if ever asked.

Once because I got tired on the boom and slump of the car industry I made a deliberate attempt to move to sales to the financial industry in the City of London" that was just in time for the massive bank slump in 1990 and another redundancy

I mention this to show that I was prepared to do things to improve my employment prospects, including moving house.

Some of you obviously don't like the word force when applied to claimants. OK I would stop their benefit if they were not plainly making a real effort to get and keep employment.

This is supposed to happen anyway, but it seems there are multiple layers of warnings to go through.

I get the impression from news articles that for whatever reason JobCentres practically never apply these sanctions.

Why is that ? Is it something like, if it is shown that there are sanctioned claimants ( i,e,proven lazy buggers) that this shows your JC in a bad light and can affect bonuses ?

This could of course be something local managers are responsible for.

 

[malcolmX]

mointainwalker,
let the government do the job they are paid to do and you do what you are paid to do and stop slagging people off.
Or instead of slagging them off through the anonymity of this site why dont you go down to a job centre and slag off benefit claimants in person

 

[malcolmX]

Sorry to butt in again, those of you on here who are having a go at welfare benefit claimants would you not be better attacking drug dealers who are killing our young people surely that is a more worthwhile cause

 

[mointainwalker]

malcolmx

It seems you don't really understand what a discussion forum is for, nor the benefit of sticking to the topic being discussed.

 

[malcolmX]

malcolmx

It seems you don't really understand what a discussion forum is for, nor the benefit of sticking to the topic being discussed.

As far as I am aware the topic is about Cameron getting tough with benefit claimants, its some of you who have veered off topic by slagging off benefit claimants.
Anyway, you live in France let us sort our probs out and you sort out the French ones

 

[mointainwalker]

some of you who have veered off topic by slagging off benefit claimants.

You are right : it has become the major part of the discussion because that's want people wanted. You, ,malcolmx, can put forward your point of view but no more . You are not the forum policeman dictating what can be discussed or not and by whom.

 

[malcolmX]

some of you who have veered off topic by slagging off benefit claimants.

You are right : it has become the major part of the discussion because that's want people wanted. You, ,malcolmx, can put forward your point of view but no more . You are not the forum policeman dictating what can be discussed or not and by whom.

I am not dictating what can or can't be discussed or by whom, that is the mods job, it is not you who says 'no more' its the mods.
No doubt you will rant and rave until you have vented your spleen but in all your posts you have not come up with a solution to the welfare benefits problems have you

 

[malcolmX]

mointainwalker,
You got a bit of a stuffing when you accused me of being an income tax evader check this out and you will get an idea of what i can earn as a pensioner.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
This thread has run its course for me, i'm back to the plumbing and heating forum now.

 

[mointainwalker]

malcolmx

You apparently don't take the trouble to read posts very thoroughly

But i have to say I don't have a clear solution how it can be solved.

If benefits are enough to survive at an acceptable level,. then lots of people ( in numbers if not in %) will say s** this for a lark and never try for a job.

The only similar situation I am aware of . and know in detail concerns Germany

.

Long way round, I can't see a solution that suits nearly everyone when trying to square the "living-wage/decent benefits/incentivising claimants"
triangle

Posted yesterday.

That apart I have suggested several things that I think would help

OK I would stop their benefit if they were not plainly making a real effort to get and keep employment.

they might not want to work for same money but should be forced to by JobCentre

At the very least they ought to be required to provide some pay-back by cleaning litter/derelict land whatever

You may not like them but they are there. You don't spend much time considering things before hammering the keyboard, do you ?

 

[Johnmelad502]

I get the impression from news articles that for whatever reason JobCentres practically never apply these sanctions.

Why is that ? Is it something like, if it is shown that there are sanctioned claimants ( i,e,proven lazy b*****r) that this shows your JC in a bad light and can affect bonuses ?

This could of course be something local managers are responsible for.

When I worked for JCP they had targets for applying sanctions, that of course might have changed by now, though I would doubt it.

As a former Benefit Fraud Investigator who worked in London most of my career, I can state with hand-on-heart, those that deliberately committed benefit fraud were and still are, a very small minority.

There are three ways that people receive overpayments of Benefit:

1. Fraud,
2. Customer error,
3. Paying Agency error.