man cuts his neck in job centre due to bedroom tax

[dasis16]

Political speech.

 

There are a lot of 'the Government this and the Government that' in this thread, but the reality is they are in the exact same boat.

 

Have a read in the Debt forums about people borrowing to pay bills, well this is exactly what this Government are having to do thanks to the last lot of muppets. Borrowing to pay bills eventually comes to a head and all further funding is non existent.

A nation as great as the UK should be lending money to others not borrowing. The Labour Government didn't care and just continued to borrow, borrow, borrow wasting it on silly projects like 'two' giant aircraft carriers, ships we don't have the sailors to crew or aircraft to arm.

 

The biggest bill in the UK is the Welfare bill which outstrips the amount collected, it can't continue.

 

First of all, no-one in government is in the same boat. That's why the slogans of "we're all in this together" etc. make me so angry. MPs are not having to choose between eating or paying the rent, they are choosing whether or not to take a pay rise.

 

The "deficit" is in my opinion a non-issue. Even if I am wrong on that point, it isn't being paid off anyway. In fact, it's getting bigger! The measures that affect the poor and vulnerable most, such as the bedroom tax and WCAs, are not effectively saving money. The entire benefits reform is completely unnecessary, and if they had just decided to scrap that instead, they could have saved themselves a fortune and whole lot of hassle.

 

This government's priorities seem completely skewed to me. Internet porn, their own wages, gay marriage (and i'm gay btw) are not issues the government should be concentrating on when so many people are suffering. I genuinely don't understand how they sleep at night.

[tokenfield]

Please don't think I am taking sides here as I am not.

 

Welfare was set up to provide funds for those, (mainly war widows), who had hit desperate times, it was never devised as the complete wage for those not in work that it has turned into.

Coupons and cash were issued so a family could survive not live a normal wage earners standard of living.

 

I'm not saying there are enough jobs to go around etc, but with the myriad of add on's and credits available now, it has got out of hand.

 

So, so right!

 

I watched a two part documentary recently about how the Victorians dealt with poverty. They simply shamed people for being in poverty - most were there through their own inability to think and act for themselves.

 

Having come to the conclusion that they were probably right - it leaves me thinking that today things have changed for the worse - there is no shame anymore in not being able to provide for yourself and family.

 

The welfare culture has become a way of life - some recipients receiving far more than they would if they worked.

You can't blame the employers, the fault lies with the governments of the past in making it possible for many to receive benefits approaching £500 a week.

 

Even I remember that being unable to pay your debts was a criminal matter. Being unable to pay your way was considered anti social.

A modern day version of the workhouse needs to be seriously considered.

[Nystagmite]

Very few receive £500 a week in benefits. Contrary to what the media want you to believe, many of us receive nowhere near as much as that.

 

The problem is low paid jobs, which are then having to be topped up with benefits.

[osdset]

I watched a two part documentary recently about how the Victorians dealt with poverty. They simply shamed people for being in poverty - most were there through their own inability to think and act for themselves.

Well why not return to the Victorian way of life? 12 year old prostitutes on the streets of east London, and cotton mills. Most were in poverty because the government and elite class of the day wanted them there, if there was not a huge foundation of expendable life at the bottom of the pyramid how could those at the top pay for those little luxuries?

 

 

You can't blame the employers, the fault lies with the governments of the past in making it possible for many to receive benefits approaching £500 a week.

The fault lies with successive governments keeping NMW at near poverty level and subsidising employers profits with top up benefits. How many benefit recipients ever got close to receiving £500 per week?

 

Even I remember that being unable to pay your debts was a criminal matter. Being unable to pay your way was considered anti social.

Yeah bring back debtors prisons, banging up hoards of the debt ridden will really save the country loads of money won't it?

 

A modern day version of the workhouse needs to be seriously considered.

You will be happy to know that it already is in the form of residential workfare for the disabled, you know those other feckless debt ridden parasites, they really have no shame when it comes to being unable to pay their way. While we're at it can't we return to locking up unmarried mothers as well?

[Minibits]

A modern day version of the workhouse needs to be seriously considered.

 

It probably has.

 

The tory version will be up and running just as soon as everyone on benefits has received a sanction for three years or more, saving on average around £100 per claimant per week. Then they will pay an unknown (probably foreign based) company around £500 per week to house them in disused factories, and feed them with food salvaged from Aldi's waste bins.

 

The only delay is finding a politician's brother-in-law, cousin, uncle etc. who owns a foreign based business, has no respect for human life and has a lifetime's supply of brown envelopes.

 

Tokenfield, are you really "fed up and old"?

[dasis16]

Well why not return to the Victorian way of life? 12 year old prostitutes on the streets of east London, and cotton mills. Most were in poverty because the government and elite class of the day wanted them there, if there was not a huge foundation of expendable life at the bottom of the pyramid how could those at the top pay for those little luxuries?

 

Mmmm, Cholera

 

Thank you for confirming the troll is a troll. You have prevented me from angrily stomping my fingers across the keyboard

[estellyn]

It probably has.

 

The tory version will be up and running just as soon as everyone on benefits has received a sanction for three years or more, saving on average around £100 per claimant per week. Then they will pay an unknown (probably foreign based) company around £500 per week to house them in disused factories, and feed them with food salvaged from Aldi's waste bins.

 

The only delay is finding a politician's brother-in-law, cousin, uncle etc. who owns a foreign based business, has no respect for human life and has a lifetime's supply of brown envelopes.

 

Tokenfield, are you really "fed up and old"?

 

Yes he sounds very much like one of our serial trolls, best not to engage.

[osdset]

Yes he sounds very much like one of our serial trolls, best not to engage.

 

As the debtors act of 1869 abolished imprisonment for debt, and yer man reckons he can remember when debt was a criminal offence it follows that we have a 144 year old troll. Do you think he started trolling on parchment?

[Nystagmite]

How many benefit recipients ever got close to receiving £500 per week?

 

I can't say I actually know anyone who does. Those people are in a minority. I wouldn't get anywhere near that even if I moved into my own flat.

[jadeybags]

Aren't drug users a minority, anyway?

 

That they are. My brother is one of the minority, but not heroin by the way, he is in the process of trying to find work. But JSA is seriously not enough to support a drug habit like people seem to believe. They don't use their benefits on electric/food/bills, all that goes to pot because they don't think like others do about things like that & they end up very ill!! It's not the life of riley that the Daily fail has people thinking.

It causes horrendous depression & a nasty vicious circle. And if drug addicts on benefits are anything like my brother, they owe people money before they even get the benefits every other week

It's a miserable sh** life. I would rather be earning minimum wage & at least eating something to be honest. Being in debt to a legal company would seem a dream to a drug addict I think..

[dyfed]

So, so right!

 

I watched a two part documentary recently about how the Victorians dealt with poverty. They simply shamed people for being in poverty - most were there through their own inability to think and act for themselves.

 

Having come to the conclusion that they were probably right - it leaves me thinking that today things have changed for the worse - there is no shame anymore in not being able to provide for yourself and family.

 

The welfare culture has become a way of life - some recipients receiving far more than they would if they worked.

You can't blame the employers, the fault lies with the governments of the past in making it possible for many to receive benefits approaching £500 a week.

 

Even I remember that being unable to pay your debts was a criminal matter. Being unable to pay your way was considered anti social.

A modern day version of the workhouse needs to be seriously considered.

 

Read the daily mail by any chance? Lol

I just laugh at comments like yours on here. I mean no offence but cummmmoooonnn are you SERIOUS?

Why not go the whole hog and lobby your waste of space MP into bringing about Action T4?

[dyfed]

lol

[estellyn]

As the debtors act of 1869 abolished imprisonment for debt, and yer man reckons he can remember when debt was a criminal offence it follows that we have a 144 year old troll. Do you think he started trolling on parchment?

 

'giggle', funny!

[time4change2]

The majority of the welfare bill goes on pensions and housing benefit payments to private landlords - however these things are not targeted. The things that are actually being targeted make up a small proportion of the total welfare bill - this is simply a case of an economic excuse being used to push through an ideological agenda.

 

 

true the last 2 documentaries i watched stated that 90% of the welfare does go on that unemployment or sickness benefit

[Consumer dude]

Not normally, no - at least if the person who lives in is a paid carer rather than a family member or friend. But if a person receives ESA and someone else receives Carers Allowance for them, then no Severe Disability Premium is payable

So the answer really is "it depends".

 

 

If the Disabled person who needs care and finds some one who is happy to care and the carer does not claim carers allowance, will the carer be seen as a carer in the official sense and will other benefits that the disabled person is receiving be affected..

[Conniff]

Read the daily mail by any chance? Lol

 

Why do those who want to deride others always use this tired old analogy.

[Consumer dude]

Human nature is often finding fault in others to somehow justify some truth in what you (the individual is saying).

[estellyn]

Why do those who want to deride others always use this tired old analogy.

 

Not an 'analogy', an accusation, but you're right, it is entirely possible to be completely ignorant of the facts without being a Daily Mail reader.

[sequenci]

 

Even I remember that being unable to pay your debts was a criminal matter.

 

Wasn't the criminal offence abolished in Victorian times? Late 1860s I believe?

[antone]

Not an 'analogy', an accusation, but you're right, it is entirely possible to be completely ignorant of the facts without being a Daily Mail reader.

 

Exactly - it's not that everyone who is ignorant of the facts reads the Daily Mail, but reading that paper does hamper one's ability to understand reality.

 

It's one of these overlapping set things. John Stuart Mill was famously caught out in that way, and had to clarify his position:

 

I didn't say that all conservatives were stupid, I said that most stupid people are conservative.

[antone]

Wasn't the criminal offence abolished in Victorian times? Late 1860s I believe?

 

1869, if friend osdset is correct. Which, as he points out, would make tokenfield about 150 years old.

[dyfed]

Its a sad individual who condemns a man for claiming benefits after he has cut his own throught for claiming said benefits.

This witch hunt is turning blood thirsty and I think its disgusting.

[antone]

Its a sad individual who condemns a man for claiming benefits after he has cut his own throught for claiming said benefits.

This witch hunt is turning blood thirsty and I think its disgusting.

 

It's a good new stick for the Daily Mail crew, though, isn't it? "We give all this money to these scroungers and all they do is spend their time cutting their throats in the local Jobcentre!"

[estellyn]

Exactly - it's not that everyone who is ignorant of the facts reads the Daily Mail, but reading that paper does hamper one's ability to understand reality.

 

It's one of these overlapping set things. John Stuart Mill was famously caught out in that way, and had to clarify his position:

 

We so need to do a Venn diagram of fact ignorance, fact awareness and daily mail readership. At the risk of getting something thrown at me - does fact awareness and daily mail readers actually intersect in order to make a Venn diagram?

[sequenci]

We so need to do a Venn diagram of fact ignorance, fact awareness and daily mail readership. At the risk of getting something thrown at me - does fact awareness and daily mail readers actually intersect in order to make a Venn diagram?

 

You need another aspect to the diagram - cancer paranoia.