So we are all SCROUNGERS now

[dragonkeeper]

cameron and cleg cleverly diguised as responsible adults

and we're just jealous that the "voices" are talking to them :grin:

 

i had to post this on here as well as beer garden

dk

[Simon7685]

Bookworm, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. We both have strong opinions and I can't see either of us altering those, which is a good thing as differing opinions are important. It would be no good if we all thought the same;)

 

I think we both have valid points within the context of things that we will agree on, even if not on the overall argument and we could probably bang heads for days on end with this one but we won't be able to afford the paracetamol on our benefits:p:D

[Bookworm]

Pah, you obviously haven't learned the art of scrounging properly if you pay for your medication. I get the good stuf, and I get it free. (just as well, as the quantities I need, I would have to remortgage the house!!! ) ;-)

[Simon7685]

Snap, I worked out that my meds would cost me over £100 a month if I had to pay but shhh, don't tell everyone or they will stop free prescriptions as well:eek:! Then I might, just might find myself jumping on the propoganda bus:p ............ I did only say might:D

[dragonkeeper]

 

Pah, you obviously haven't learned the art of scrounging properly if you pay for your medication. I get the good stuf, and I get it free. (just as well, as the quantities I need, I would have to remortgage the house!!! ) ;-)

 

watch youself, that is a dangerous quote even in jest. :grin:

bookie people will start thinking your are not legit by saying the "art" of scrounging.

 

besides that you can pre-pay for perscriptions to assist high quantity of medication.

 

8)

 

 

dk

[The Real Napster]

The main thing that needs to be determined in my opinion is what is classed as being disabled,I along with everyone else on this forum knows the meaning of being disabled,but I am at a loss to understand how the following is classed as disabled,I refer to having a "drug" problem,a "drink" problem,there are residential properties in this residential area that that the landlords "specialise" in housing these in what is termed HMO's,in other words cram as many into the property as you can get paid by theDWP for doing so.These properties in residential areas are an easy way for the owners and landlords to in my opinion "scrounge" at the system,rather than "let" to families or more deserving people,they prefer to house "benefit claimants",reason being,they don't have to collect the rent it is done for them.It is these landlords that are "[causing problems]" the system and they should be investigated.

Referring to the comments I made previously about these so-called "vulnerable " people with drink and drug problems,how it benefits them putting them into a residential area that already has a known drink and drug problem is beyond my comprehension,unless it is making life easier for them to require these substances they rely" on,as for disabled it does not stop them going out between 6.60am and 7.00am of a morning to the local off-licence,or going to the local drug drops,are we the so-called genuine disabled to be put in the same class as these,in my service days there was no drug problems but anyone with a drink problem it was classed as self inflicted injury ,and it was classed as a chargable offence,but that does not seem to be the case with these.Not only that but they get the priority treatment by the requirement of continous visits of ambulances and paramedics at the expence of the rest of us who have to wait for the attention ,they don't wait it is probably "red flagged" for immediate responce.

These in my opinion are the ones that should be seen to and it don't need any medicals to do so ,as they are already known to the DWP. Also if the truth was known they have never worked and therefor contributed to the system in any form of tax or nationla insurance so why should they be entitled to these payouts,I may add that they must be on the highest DLA and they all have the latest mobile phones a must for anyone with a drink/drug problem.Vulnerable MY A**E.

 

 

 

Here here never a truer word said

a VERY worried geniune disabled person....

[zazen.warrior]

Post removed.

Edited July 29, 2010 by zazen.warrior

[Bookworm]

Worth voting for you? Do you really think that you have a voice and that your ideas will be listened to unless they agree with theirs? Poor deluded fool. Clegg will be good for saying "yes, Master" and "no, Master" as and when told to and that's pretty much it.

 

At the next election, no one will trust them with as much as a toothpick.

[Bookworm]

 

 

 

watch youself, that is a dangerous quote even in jest. :grin:

bookie people will start thinking your are not legit by saying the "art" of scrounging.

 

besides that you can pre-pay for perscriptions to assist high quantity of medication.

 

8)

 

 

dk

LOL, that's all right, it was meant as a heavy form of sarcasm!

 

Anyway, believe it or not, I don't get free meds because of my disability, but because as a family, we are below the income threshold and that's how we get exemption (form HC2) for which I have to reapply and supply evidence every year.

[dragonkeeper]

Hi all

 

The lastest thing i heard was company bosses telling government to not just allow european immigrants to enter the country,

but to allow worldwide immigrants so that it will not cost them as much in pay.

 

And i thought slavery was abolished.

 

 

What jobs will there be left for the ESA crowd to allocate people fit to do.

Unless they use the immigrants to keep us in single file as we dance through the hoops.

 

:grin: :grin:

 

 

 

dk

[Helen2264]

The latest words from Mr Cameron "There is no way of dealing with an 11% budget deficit just by hitting either the rich or the welfare scrounger."

 

That's what is needed yes try and turn the whole country against the sick and vulnerable.

 

This man and his crony pals and puppets from lib dems are going to bring disaster to this country.

 

"villifieing the sick and the disabled and also promoting aggression, verbal and physical, against us"

There must be some laws against this sort of constant abuse. If derogatory, abusive terms are used to describe a particular race it is racism and not tolerated.

We are such an easy target thats why they get away with it. Isn't this incitement or something like?

Incitement.

"deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group"

Well the government are "deliberately provoking hatred" of the sick and disabled.

 

As for the "welfare scrougers" insult by DC, I'll choose to perceive it as more useful fodder for EHRC to be going on with.

 

His comment must surely be bordering on Discrimination by association.

 

Also I believe the decision makers for benefits are supposed to be impartial and make choices using only the facts, I don't see it possible for them to ever be able to do this with Mr Smith and Cameron vilifying people on Welfare.

 

I agree with you entirely 100% DC needs to keep calling us people on benefits scroungers to keep us isolated from working people they cannot afford for working people to feel sorry for us otherwise they will be in big trouble in other country if benefits are cut everyone get together whether working or not and march the street the country come to a standstill until the benefits demands are made and it always work but it will never happen in this country. God only knows what will happen in the months to come.

 

Be well

 

 

helen

[Bookworm]

Meanwhile...

 

Chancellor George Osborne also made a personal pledge to Sir Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of the WPP advertising agency, to lure him back to Britain by abolishing a punitive overseas tax.

 

He said he plans to reverse a tax that allows the government to levy profits made by the foreign subsidiaries of British incorporated companies.

Cameron: We have no right to be wealthy | Metro.co.uk

 

And this is going help the deficit how, exactly?

 

When the media do their "100 days with the coalition" summing-up, it's going to show how devastating this all is, and on how the poor, weak and vulnerable are going to be made to be made for the rich getting richer.

 

And it's only the beginning!!!

[ee-bee]

which is the country where you see the kids out in the streets begging?oh i know its britain in 12months time,

[Allwood]

which is the country where you see the kids out in the streets begging?oh i know its britain in 12months time,

 

12 months time, people are already doing it everyday in the cities and also on the underground stations you see young women with a child in their arms begging that has been Britain for the last 12 years.

[F_DCAs]

All politicians are the same - at least they are if they represent any one of the three main parties.

 

I've long been of the opinion that all three main parties are not worth anyone's vote.

 

I've said before that trying to choose between them was like trying to decide which one was the least foul out of three dog turds.

 

I'd like to have seen the Lib Dems get in on their own, if only just to see the face of crushing disappointment on both Brown and Cameron.

 

Now, that the Lib Dems have been exposed as sell-outs, I daresay that not very many on these boards - and certainly none who've read through this thread - will be voting for them.

 

After all, how many Lib Dem voters thought 'I'm not voting Tory', unbeknownst that a vote for the Lib Dems effectively WAS a Tory vote?

 

And if they were really sincere about getting rid of 'cheats' and fraud, there'd be nobody left in Parliament.

[sam247]

Forget Tory propaganda about bankruptcy and benefit scroungers. We all know who the real scroungers and, just in case you needed reminding, the UK is still one of the wealthiest nations on earth

It wasn’t government spending that caused this crisis, it was finance that caused this crisis.

Theres over £100billion lost a year through tax fraud and evasion,make those that caused the defecit pay for it,But do you know something? Even if there had been no defecit,The tories would still attack us.

As the Financial Times’ Martin Wolf has pointed out, cuts ‘will be viewed as punishment of the innocent for the sins not just of the guilty, but of the rescued and now bonus receiving guilty’.

[loan_ranger]

Meanwhile...

 

 

Cameron: We have no right to be wealthy | Metro.co.uk

 

And this is going help the deficit how, exactly?

 

When the media do their "100 days with the coalition" summing-up, it's going to show how devastating this all is, and on how the poor, weak and vulnerable are going to be made to be made for the rich getting richer.

 

And it's only the beginning!!!

In the story in the "Metro" DC says,

Mr Cameron said Britain does not have to sit at the sidelines as China and India grow to become world powers.

Are we to infer from his statement that, in order to compete, our poorest should work for less than $2/day or scavenge on refuse tips in the future.

[danielr]

So with all respect to you, I think that you are the one missing the point: this is a deliberate propaganda effort to justify hitting on ALL the disabled. Blame the Jews...

David Cameron could speak at Liberal Democrat conference as coalition cosies up | Politics | The Guardian

Is it just me or does Cameron put anyone else in mind of Hitler in the photograph on this article?

Do you know what Godwins law is?

 

As a Liberal Democrat voter of many years standing I have sadly concluded that I can no longer trust the party.

 

As a result of the Coalition I have voted by proxy for a party which I could never vote for or support;

On the other hand, I'd have felt more disappointed had their been a liberal labour coalition. I think that the trouble was that the liberals were damned if they did and damned if they didn't for the coalition government that we currently have.

 

What upsets me most is someone who is on benefits criticising someone else in the same position, 'I'm a genuine claimant - he/she is a scrounger.'

why does this upset you?

is it not clear that there are certain people who are genuine and certain people who aren't? in all circumstances.

 

Even if it's not the hundreds, of thousands, thousands, hundreds, or even tens or just a few...

If there is someone cheating the system then it's right that people should be upset. (and just being on benefits is no reason that someone should see that or say something about it).

 

and I think it's more right that people using the system should get more upset... [about people abusing it]

 

Imagine for a second that 50% of people on benefits were actually fraudulent, just by getting rid of them you could double the payments to everyone else! and save money elsewhere as well, and those fraudulent people would have to go to work and pay taxes generating even more money that could end up with those who actually need it.

(of course it's not 50%).

 

well, you've got to admit that your vision would be skewered surely? By definition, someone who spends all his time in the pub is hardly going to be an upstanding member of the community, so the pub population can't be a representative sample, surely? While you're behind the bar, you are not going to see all the others who are at work all day long, the honest people and the genuine?

I don't see how the fact that he'd worked in a pub makes the point less valid? it still stands as a point that in some towns (and I'm not going to hazard an ill-informed guess as to whether it's all, most, or just a few towns) there are people who are happily cheating a welfare safety net and going to the pub to laugh about it. and it is right that the persistent offenders should be found and stopped, if not to make a saving then at least to increase the amount of welfare available to the people who actually need it. and not just abuse it.

 

I challenged him about this at Labour Party Conference in 2007, but he insisted that even the most disabled people might be expected to look for work (and you can quote me on this) ‘even quadriplegics are capable of working’.

Lord Freud speaking recently - he certainly hasn’t changed his views

I work in IT, arguably my job *could* be done by somebody who has physical disabilities, (depending on what the disabilities are) and with appropriate training. I suppose the best example of someone who is disabled but overcomes that would be Stephen Hawkins.

 

I'm not saying that all disabled people should be put to work, just that a few people who are disabled could perhaps still work.

 

I'm also not saying that nobody who is disabled works, indeed I have a friend whose father lost the use of his legs in a car crash, he has continued to work. I'm not saying it was easy for him. indeed I'm not saying it'd be easy for anyone.

 

If you live your life in constant pain, not knowing whether you'd be able to get out of bed in the mornings then you should be entitled to benefits, you may be physically fit enought to run a marathon 1 out of 7 days, but missing 6 out of 7 days work will severely hamper your chances of being able to hold down a job.

 

on the other hand, if you are pain free and can get up and attend a job everyday then why would you not work?

 

The main thing that needs to be determined in my opinion is what is classed as being disabled

that's kind of what I'm saying above, how disabled does a person need to be before they can't work. obviously a great deal of that would depend on the field of work.

 

Stephen Hawkins clearly does rather well as an physicist, but I imagine would make a shocking builder.

 

so as insensitive as it might be to say, so, he is of course correct in that even a quadriplegic is capable of doing some kind of work.

 

I am at a loss to understand how the following is classed as disabled,I refer to having a "drug" problem,a "drink" problem

Addiction is medically defined and can be debilitating, you might think it's a personal choice, others don't.

 

landlords "specialise" in housing these in what is termed HMO's,in other words cram as many into the property as you can get paid by theDWP for doing so.These properties in residential areas are an easy way for the owners and landlords to in my opinion "scrounge" at the system,rather than "let" to families or more deserving people,they prefer to house "benefit claimants",reason being,they don't have to collect the rent it is done for them.It is these landlords that are "[causing problems]" the system and they should be investigated.

Having just been threatened with court action by my own landlord as he hadn't received his rent money as the estate agents had lost it, I can understand why a landlord would want to forego the shoddy service, missed payments high commission that estate agents charge, and just receive a nice steady income, surely that's not [causing problems] the system? would you prefer that the drink/drug addicts were homeless? can I assume that you're only talking about these people, or do you mean ALL people on benefits?

 

 

I may add that they must be on the highest DLA and they all have the latest mobile phones a must for anyone with a drink/drug problem.Vulnerable MY A**E.

Do you not believe that people on benefits are entitled to spend the benefit that they receive in whatever way they see fit? It's not like the benefits that are received are exactly a really great amount, so to have the latest greatest things then surely they must have saved up what little money they do have in order to get something nice?

 

Sorry, I am as bad as them, it says "severe skin disorder", my bad.

Peter Davey gets £42,000 in benefits a year and drives a Mercedes | Mail Online

In this example I'd day that it's not that I have a problem with the mother staying home and looking after her children, especially her child that has a 'severe' skin complaint.

I believe that the greatest cause of outrage at the article was the fact that the father of the family 'gave up' work and chose to live on benefits.

and that in the article she is quoted on saying

'I've always wanted a big family - no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I'm working or not.'

Whether you are someone who has always worked, or who has had to stop working due to ill health, or just lost your job, I'm sure that most can agree it's that attitude that is wrong.

 

the benefits system is supposed to be a welfare safety net surely? not a lifestyle choice because she wants 14 children but does not and cannot have the means to support them.

 

she also says

But according to the Daveys they have nothing to be thankful for.

'It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family,' added Mrs Davey.

and

She insists her husband would do any job 'as long as we could still afford the lifestyle we have now'.

she says that her husband would do any job if they could keep their current lifestyle?

in other words he'll never work again?

he worked in administration, (so I'm guessing on an OK, but not massive wage).

now they receive 42 thousand pounds a year in benefits.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want her family to starve, or be destitute, I don't want her sick child to not be cared for. I'm not jealous of the fact that they have a 42" TV, a premium sky subscription, all the latest games consoles and I don't (despite having always worked).

 

but in a time when there is practically no money to go around (in fact less than no money as we still have a budget based on borrowing) her desire for 14 children that she has no intention of ever working to support herself is taking the complete tax contributions of 11 people earning the UK national average wage of £26,000... -and I think that is skewed a little on the high side of what most people actually earn thanks to the very very high earners.

 

anyway, at a time when there is no money to go around and you have people who say they have never worked and other who say that they gave up work to live from the state and would only work if they could essentially find a job that paid over twice the national average wage then you DO have to stop and look at the people a second time. you DO have to tell them that their dreams are unrealistic.

 

Don't they think that we'd all like a job that paid over twice the national average and still have time to spend with our loved ones?

 

 

This makes my blood bood boil... my landlord looks after his mum in a residential home and doesn't get ANY benefits paid to him because they are classed as 'wealthy'. However as his mum has severe MS and other problems and is in a wheelchair there is little the government can do to him other than cut the nursing support he now has, somebody comes along three times a week to help him get his mum washed properly and then to give him 2 hours respite once a week... and now he has to fill in forms explaining why he hasn't claimed benefit nor paid tax for the last five years he has been her sole carer.... unfair or what!

Your landlord, (I assume) gets rental income from his property, if he's not paid tax in 5 years then that is a bad thing...

 

no it's not fair that he was denied help to look after his mum, but it is obviously completely fair that if he just didn't bother declaring his earnings or paying tax that he should be investigated. -two wrongs don't make a right.

 

He wasn't meaning 'all' on benefits, but the ones like Karen Matthews who have 7 kids by 5 different fathers and works the system.

 

What I don't understand here is that as a collective the country appears to be saying if you have a close relative that's dependant on you then it's fine to look after them, but only provided that they are old or disabled?

 

I'm not knocking carers, they do a difficult job, and I know that I'd be hard pushed to do it myself, but looking after 7 kids isn't exactly a walk in the park either. you have to care for them 24*7... (and I know it's not a choice to have a disabled parent or loved one, but it's also not necessarily a choice to have a child, or to be a single parent).

 

Carers on the "inactive" list? That says it all really, the contempt of these people for the likes of us.

I believe that it's economically inactive, if you are a full time (unpaid) carer then you're economically inactive from the treasuries point of view as you're not sending them money. I don't think they are saying that carers are inactive in that they are accusing them of sitting around doing nothing.

 

In reality, the scroungers are not on benefit at all. The accurate wording should be the banking scroungers. 11% deficit? Solve it in ONE SIMPLE act: get the banks to repay the £1.2 TRILLION used to bail them out. Let's be generous, don't even ask them to pay interest

 

two things...

 

first, make them pay interest!

but second this would do nothing to cut the deficit.

 

the trouble is that the country is in nearly a trillion pounds of debt, and continues to borrow...

even if the bankers paid back the trillion pounds that they borrowed it'd only clear the debt which would immediately start mounting again at a rate of around 156 billion pounds a year...

 

I mean the country borrowed 14 billion pounds just to see May through this year!

 

The fact is no matter how you slice it, all of us are going to either need to pay a little more to keep up with the current level of expenditure,

or expect a little less. to bring expenditure down more in line with the revenue coming in.

[danielr]

Theres over £100billion lost a year through tax fraud and evasion,make those that caused the defecit pay for it

 

ok, let's stop tax evasion...

 

we still need to find 56 billion pounds of savings.

 

I don't really think that there is any one particular person to blame where you can just say make them pay!

[sam247]

Does anyone really think that if all benefit fraud was stopped,the "genuinely"

disabled people would recieve more? I don,t think so.

And this budget wasn,t unavoidable as osborne claims,there are other ways to cut the defecit,

We all have to ask ourselves,who really runs this country,the government or the markets?

Osborne claims exports will grow from 0% to 30% in 3 years,who and where do we export to,as all of europe (our biggest market) are also introducing "austerity" budgets

Just as during thatchers time,the single mothers were targeted,now its the sick and disabled ,All of this coming suffering is completely unneccesary,But we,re an easy target,Unlike the bankers or tax fraudsters,"We,re all in this together" remember!

[sam247]

Danieir

"we still need to find 56 billion pounds of savings."

No we don,t,theres always been a defecit,anyway scrap trident,pull troops out of an unwinnable war in afghanistan,introduce a Robin Hood tax on banks,Defecit solved,people have been hoodwinked into thinking these cuts are necessary,they,re most certainly not,Irelands tried it,slashing services and benefits,unemployment has shot up,people are emigrating,their defecit has got worse,it hasn,t worked,And i,m afraid the same will happen here,By the way,when the tories left office,public debt was around 42% of GDP,theres always public debt,or the country couldn,t function

[danielr]

Does anyone really think that if all benefit fraud was stopped,the "genuinely"

disabled people would recieve more? I don,t think so.

 

no, I don't think so either, but I'd like to this so...

 

No we don,t,[need to make savings]theres always been a defecit,anyway scrap trident,pull troops out of an unwinnable war in afghanistan,

 

so you don't think that we need to make savings but then go on to identify two areas in which you believe that we could make savings to tackle the deficit?

of course we can always tax the rich as well... -but even the rish have a point at which they break.

 

-also: we haven't always run a deficit budget or always been in debt?

 

when the Tories started in 79 there was a massive deficit and debt, which was cleared.

then built up again.

when labour started in 97 there was debt and deficit in the budget which labour cleared.

then built up again...

 

if we always ran a massive deficit and always just had masses of spiralling debt as a country then other countries would just stop lending to us and we'd need to get bailed out by the IMF like happened (or nearly happened) to Greece.

 

And just like what'd happen to you or I if we earned £1000 a month but spent £1500 a month through loans and credit cards, eventually the credit would just run dry and we'd be left with a giant bill.

 

The trouble is that in previous years the governments have cleared the debt and balanced the books and kept a little aside for bad times. often not enough, hence the cuts needed during the recessions in the 70's 80's and 90's

 

our last government balanced the books.

but then instead of squirrelling a little away during the good times instead they publicly declared that they'd "abolished boom and bust" and never saved anything for the next recession. hence the severity of the cuts and tax increases needed for the recession in the 00's.

[sam247]

According to the Office for National statistics,in april 1997 the defecit was well over 40%,We are nothing like greece,their debt is short term,ours is long term,so comparing us with greece is false,as is comparing our economy with a household economy,The defecit was not caused by excessive government spending,but by lack of tax revenue,also if money had not been put into the economy,there would have been 500,000 more people out of work,spending on the car scrappage scheme helped keep 40,000 people in work,and the cut in VAT also helped small businesses,If it had not have been for the GLOBAL economic crisis,We,as well as the rest of the World,would not have had large defecits

[danielr]

That's what I said. In 97 there was a deficit. Bu we have not run a permanent deficit budget. There has been times (earlier in the 00's) when there was surpless in the budget.

 

Yes. We're not like Greece, but comparing a countries budget to a household budget isn't that far off the mark. You can't borrow endlessly constantly running a deficit in your personal finances just the same as the country can't either.

 

Incidentally I'm not criticising the spend your way out of recession method. It's tried and tested. I'm criticising the fact that the government put nothing away during the good times.

[Bookworm]

And I am criticising the fact that the disabled are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of whatever caused it.

 

I resent the fact that we are being scapegoated in such a manner and that for a lot of people, it will be the difference between on the breadline and below it. Personally, the country can stay on deficit for a bit later, as you say it's nothing new, I do resent picking on the weak and vulnerable to solve the issue, especially as it won't really make any difference long-term.

 

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

 

 

 

Not much "great" left in this Britain we live in, is there?