Jump to content

daggersedge

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

40 Excellent
  1. That's not the tune the site team sing when other posters have attacked me for where I live even though people have posted on this forum asking about how to get UK benefits when they live in Spain and no-one has said a word about that. Not to mention the post that the moderators let sit for months in which a poster called an employer a nasty name in French (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?245901-Dismissal-with-no-prior-warnings-(Constructive-Unfair-Dismissal-)&p=3864306#post3864306 - I point to my post for the date but the post in question was made in March). Apparently, it is 'not judgemental' to call people libellous names if they are employers or other unfavoured groups. Ask yourself, will you, whether you would be saying what you said if the poster had wrote several posts agreeing with everything the poster in question was saying. I think the moderation on this forum is biased against anyone who isn't politically-correct. 'Not being judgemental' is just a code for 'not ever criticising someone who claims to be a victim'. So, in other words, everyone is supposed to offer tea and sympathy - and ways to get more money from taxpayers - but no-one is allowed to say that there are other ways of doing things and that maybe, just maybe, if people stopped concentrating on their so-called victimhood, they could find a way to do things. Oh, and for the record, at one time, I walked 2 and half miles a day each way to get to work because I didn't have a car, I don't like bikes, and the bus service was insufficient. I had to cross a rather tricky road at at roundabout, as well. It can be done. It just takes determination and planning. It also takes a sense of responsibility.
  2. First of all, the OP is not the woman who is having the problems; she is the woman's cousin. Second of all, and I hate to say it, but it sounds as if she isn't being very helpful here. She may be focussing too much on her perception of how the system should work and therefore, may be unintentionally making her cousin's problems worse. They are not out to get her cousin, that's what I am saying. They are following the rules. Her cousin might not like it and the OP might not like it, but that is the case. To say anything else just makes the situation worse.
  3. The woman may be worked up, but that doesn't change the facts in this case. The fact is that these are the rules and there are there because she is receiving other people's money. That is it. People have to understand that being upset doesn't mean that the world revolves around them. The rules simply aren't going to change because she is upset about them and if you think about it, that's a good thing. What's the point of having rules if every time someone said he was upset about them, the rules were just tossed out? If you want a rule of law, then it has to be this way. The sooner this woman realises that, the better, because then she can start really dealing with it. Frankly, though, it isn't as if she has to do anything much more than show bank statements, and she will have to do that no matter how upset she gets, so she had better get on with it. Getting worked up about these things will not do her any good. To say anything else in this situation will simply make matters worse for her. As to where I live, what does it matter? The truth is the truth. Stop trying to flame me and start dealing with the truth.
  4. It's not all her money, though, is it? She is getting money from the taxpayer so it is reasonable, therefore, for her to have to be accountable for what she is doing with that money and whether she is eligible to even be receiving it. Her age has nothing to do with it. That she is not asking for more money has nothing to do with it. She has taken money from the taxpayer and therefore she has to comply with the rules.
  5. What's so atrocious about it? The son is sometimes earning more money and he lives at home with his parents. It is reasonable that the government assumes that he is helping out with costs at home. As that is the case, the family doesn't need to take as much money as it does from the taxpayer. That's all. Look, people on these forums often accuse the government of intefering too much in their lives, and so it does. To prevent this, people have to hang together and that means families and friends supporting each other and not looking to the government to do it for them. In this case, the family members are assumed to be supporting each other. The government is doing them a favour because they should be supporting each other. They shouldn't be happy about taking money from taxpayers. This is what people used to do in the past, you know: support each other. The human race survived a long time without income support and other benefits and the world was definitely not a worse place because of it.
  6. You know, elpulpo, what you called the ex-employer is very insulting. Some of us speak French, you know. Why is is ok to use language like that to describe someone you don't even know? Why do you, and all the others, by the way, assume that you have all the facts and that it is perfectly fine for you to try and then hang the ex-employer in this way. There seems to be an assumption on this forum that employer = bad and employee = good, without any facts, without anything at all. The facts we have in this case are that someone posted that a family member had been dismissed and that the OP believes and says that the family members also believes that the dismissal was unfair. That's it: a second-hand telling of what someone believes happened. And for that, and just on that, the ex-employer has been villified. This is just lynch mob behaviour, pure and simple. There are people, you know, who don't post here but who do read this forum to glean advice from it. If all they see is the 'hang the employer' attitude, it might encourage them to see themselves as victims and to go after their employers when they really don't have a case at all. Someone said on this thread that it was very telling that employers rarely posted on this forum to ask how to treat their employees. Given the anti-employer slant of this forum, can you really blame them?
  7. Um, you're the one who seems to have the problem with emmigration; after all, if you don't have a problem with immigrants, then you shouldn't have a problem with emmigrants. You have insulted me and you have, in my opinion, insulted both the French and France. This is not civil of you and it is not called for at all. I don't know all the rules of the French system, as I have said, but no-one here starves in the streets, that is for certain. No-one is taken out and shot. If you are so interested, why don't you do some research yourself? There is information in English and French is easy enough to learn at any rate. This is my last reply on this subject as I have been repeatedly insulted by various posters here. Not only that, but an entire country and its people have been insulted. If you cannot carry out a civil conversation, then really, I don't think you should be posting here.
  8. Why do you wish so much to insult the French? Why can't you hold a civilised conversation without being so very insulting? As for the sick/disabled/unemployed, generally, they are taken care of by their families. France is very strong on families. If one member of the family is working, then, provided the members are living together, they are all covered. I don't know all the rules, no, but no-one is being shot in the streets. What a dreadful accusation to make. Tell me, do you often insult other countries simply because they don't do things exactly the same way that they are done in England? Yes, I am entitled to my views, although it sounds as if you would rather that I not be. As I said, this site has no residence requirement for making comments. If you are as left-wing as you make yourself out to be, I should think that you would feel enriched by having an emmigrant inform you of diverse cultural differences outside of Britain.
  9. Because I could hear their conversations. They didn't bother to disguise the fact that there wasn't anything wrong with them and that they just liked meeting at the surgery to have a chat with their friends. The fee doesn't put off anyone; remember that 70% of it is reimbursed by l'Assurance Maladie, and the rest by private insurance. Believe me, if people felt it was putting them off, they would say so and it would be in the newspapers. This is France and if people don't like something, they will protest. They will make themselves known.
  10. There is no requirement to live in the UK to post on this forum, I might remind you. I still take an interest in what is going on in the UK, as anyone might. I plan indeed to stay in France where the system is very fair to those who work and pay taxes. The reason the surgeries are not full is that the fee puts off those who would be there to merely waste the doctor's time. Doctor's surgeries are not social clubs, you know, or, at least, they shouldn't be. Too often in the UK, I found that they were, however. When you are working and have to take time off to see the doctor, there is nothing more annoying than finding that people who do not have any reason to be there are clogging up the system. I find your insinuations about France and the French medical system to be more than a bit insulting. There is no need for that. I was asked how I would like having to pay to see the doctor and I made a reply based on my own experience.
  11. I live in France, therefore, I do pay when I visit the doctor, some of which is reimbursed by l'Assurance Maladie, the state insurance cover, and some of which is reimbursed by private insurance. Each visit costs 22 euros and then there's any medicine I might need, as well as any treatment. The state insurance cover, as far as I am aware, is only available to people who work and to the retired. I like the system very much, thank you. For one thing, the surgery waiting room of my doctor isn't filled with old people and young mothers using it as a social meeting place. For another, the treatment is excellent. Oh, and the doctor keeps hours that fit with the lifestyle of working people: early morning, evening and Saturdays. It really is a great system.
  12. If they managed to lower taxes when they dismantle the welfare state, then people will have more of their own money to spend on their own needs.
  13. Many working people have to live with family and friends. Many working people have to live in bedsits. I never said that people claiming benefits have never paid taxes. I am saying, though, that they are being supported by current taxpayers. That's how the system works. Current taxpayers cannot really afford to pay what they are paying now, let alone pay for people on benefits to have infinite choices. Anyway, taxpayers don't have infinite choices. They have to make compromises. They have to put up with things not being as they would like them to be. Why should it be any different for people on benefits? You make the assumption, by the way, that I am calling for a tax cut in the UK. I haven't said a thing about it. Indeed, it doesn't affect me as I moved to France a few years back. I don't pay for the original poster. As for age discrimination, ha! I don't have to justify anything. I don't have to justify, for instance, your stance that people on benefits should have more choices than the people who are paying those benefits. I don't have to justify the fact that you appear to believe that taxpayers are an endless source of money and that it can be spent any way that pleases someone who holds out his hand and says 'need'. I don't have to justify anything because I'm not asking for anything from the UK taxpayer. You are: you are asking for people who do not have infinite choices to pay with their own money for others to have them.
  14. I didn't say a word about benefit scroungers or benefit cheats. I just said that taxpayers can't afford to provide people on benefits with inifinite choices. I also pointed out that taxpayers don't have infinite choices. I might add, as well, that taxpayers don't benefit normally benefit from any form of protected work. Why should those live off the money of taxpayers get more than the taxpayers themselves get?
  15. It's easy to be free with other people's money, isn't it? Taxpayers, that is, people in work, are footing the bill and there's only so much that they can afford. The fact is that people who are living off of other people's money shouldn't have infinite choices. Given the high price of housing, people in work often have to house share. No-one takes up any campaign on their behalf, no, they are just told to get on with it. People who don't live on benefits have to make compromises all the time so that they can live within their circumstances, so why shouldn't it be the same for people on benefits?
×
×
  • Create New...