Benefit Street

[popeyethesailortam]

Did any of the forum users see this program on channel 4?

 

Is it any wonder working class Britain is behind the benefit reforms!

 

Before anyone comments it isn't representive of people on benefits, I can assure you it is.

 

I could take you to 3 large housing schemes in my town where the same thing is happening.

 

I've said it before, If a working age adult is claiming jobseekers.

 

Have them in from 9 until 5pm 5 days a week at the job centre (or adapted building suitable for keeping them for 8 hours).

[antone]

Yes, you have said that before. It was a ridiculous idea when you first mentioned it, and it remains so today. What would the (em) benefit be? Who would pay for this? Why unnecessarily increase the welfare budget simply to impose punitive measures to keep the chattering classes happy?

[Kris.]

I can assure it doesn't represent everyone on jobseekers. There are genuine people who have lost their jobs and they have no choice but to claim JSA and spend a lot of their time looking and applying for jobs and locking them in a building for 8 hours a day will not be help anyone out plus the added cost to the taxpayer to subsidise that would just cost to much it's a stupid idea, so automatically putting these people in the same category as those who do bleed the system for everything and sit at home, drink and take drugs all day is wrong. I'm not saying living a life on benefits is right it isn't I believe if you are able to contribute you should.

[obiter dictum]

http://t.co/LGfDnHa1LK

 

 

There are ten million people living in social housing in this country, and yet it seems only dysfunctional residents seem to appear on our TV screens.

Edited January 7, 2014 by capquest worst knightmare

[osdset]

Before anyone comments it isn't representive of people on benefits, I can assure you it is.

Twaddle.

 

I could take you to 3 large housing schemes in my town where the same thing is happening.

I could take you to one large building in Westminster that's full of fugly, obese, alcohol swigging, drug addicted, lying, cheating, benefit scroungers.

[estellyn]

I am rather surprised at channel 4 - to put something out with this tone. I wonder if they will develop the 'message' over the series.

 

 

Behind the 'headline' of what the street supposedly represents, there is a back story to each individual, and reasons as to how they ended up in the situation they are in. Common themes seemed to be poor education, drug use, alcoholism and mental health problems - for which these people are getting little help, it seems. and their situations won't improve without intensive help, which is not and likely never will be available.

[antone]

 

I could take you to one large building in Westminster that's full of fugly, obese, alcohol swigging, drug addicted, lying, cheating, benefit scroungers.

 

I favour drug testing the lot of them. After all, people who spend all their benefits on drugs and booze just end up starving in the dark. They don't get to pass laws.

[firstship]

Perhaps you are aware that this programme was staged by Channel 4 to make the street look even worse than it actually is. That said the content does not represent ALL Jobseekers either.

 

There are thousands of community jobs that could be carried out to enable Jobseekers to earn the benefit,for example there are many hundreds of miles of drainage ditches that need to be kept clear in the country,and as we are suffering with massive floods,this would be a useful contribution to the community.they could be supervised by the many retired policeman and firemen who are in their early 50s and receiving tax payer subsidised pensions

 

FS

[osdset]

Perhaps you are aware that this programme was staged by Channel 4 to make the street look even worse than it actually is. That said the content does not represent ALL Jobseekers either.

 

There are thousands of community jobs that could be carried out to enable Jobseekers to earn the benefit,for example there are many hundreds of miles of drainage ditches that need to be kept clear in the country,and as we are suffering with massive floods,this would be a useful contribution to the community.they could be supervised by the many retired policeman and firemen who are in their early 50s and receiving tax payer subsidised pensions

 

FS

 

 

Great idea! There are plenty of pensioners in their 70's 80's that are poncing off the hard working taxpayer who would jump at the chance as well, what about single mums? They could strap a flashing beacon to the pram and act as mobile lighthouses in stormy weather.

[Consumer dude]

Great idea! There are plenty of pensioners in their 70's 80's that are poncing off the hard working taxpayer who would jump at the chance as well, what about single mums? They could strap a flashing beacon to the pram and act as mobile lighthouses in stormy weather.

 

Pmsl..

[45002]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefits-street/4od

 

C4 does do some good documentaries ...

 

But this one is just cheap and tacky just like stories in "The Sun" "Daily Mail" and everyone in it is just playing to the camera's ...

[Desperate Daniella]

I sometimes think some of you don't want any benefits cut for anybody?

[antone]

I sometimes think some of you don't want any benefits cut for anybody?

 

Guilty as charged. We are the sixth richest country on Earth, we can afford to take care of our poor and sick. There is neither moral nor economic justification for any of the current round of welfare cuts.

 

So yes, I believe that those who are disadvantaged in this highly privileged and wealthy nation should be supported and allowed to maintain their dignity. And the next time the banks crash the economy, we should place the blame squarely where it belongs.

 

PS - I say this as someone who does not, currently, receive a single penny in state benefits.

[popeyethesailortam]

Yes, you have said that before. It was a ridiculous idea when you first mentioned it, and it remains so today. What would the (em) benefit be? Who would pay for this? Why unnecessarily increase the welfare budget simply to impose punitive measures to keep the chattering classes happy?

 

 

What would the benefit be? Well the less honest ones couldn't go out robbing shops or jobbing on the side. There are as firstship suggests many community jobs that could be carried out by these fit able people. You also get them into the routine of getting up and going to a 'workplace'.

 

Osdset, having a baby should not be considered reason enough not to do something useful.

 

I do however agree with drug tests on claimants. If you can buy drugs then why should we feed clothe and house you. It is not an illness, you made a life choice to take them in the first place.

 

Benefits were and should only be a support for those that are genuinely ill or out of work for a reasonably short period. They should only be set at a level you can survive on. Not at a level where holidays and days out and takeaways can be afforded.

 

The pendulum swung far too far the wrong way and now it is being swung back to be fairer on us taxpayers, the bleeding heart liberals and the terminally workshy are crying their hearts out.

[terrence]

Well i thought it was brilliant,i don't live a million miles away from there and worked in the area a few times .what i admired was the great community spirit they all shared.helping friends and neighbours out.i live in a affluent area and you certainly wouldn't get that sort friendly help off my snotty neighbours.p.s. its just had a mention on Central news.good luck to them

[sadone]

The pendulum swung far too far the wrong way and now it is being swung back to be fairer on us taxpayers, the bleeding heart liberals and the terminally workshy are crying their hearts out.

 

Jesus christ...

 

So yes, I believe that those who are disadvantaged in this highly privileged and wealthy nation should be supported and allowed to maintain their dignity. And the next time the banks crash the economy, we should place the blame squarely where it belongs.

 

Well said.

[Fuzzgin]

I assume some people on here grew up in rich houses and never needed a job as if you had you'd be pretty annoyed to be told that havng paid into an insurance scheme all your working lives you could no longer claim when accident, illness or redundancy struck without having to work for your pittance. Those of us who can work and have a job should be grateful for that luck. I am.

[Nystagmite]

I do however agree with drug tests on claimants. If you can buy drugs then why should we feed clothe and house you. It is not an illness, you made a life choice to take them in the first place.

 

Some use drugs / alcohol as a coping mechanism. So it's not always a choice as such.

 

That means some people will be screwed then - given that morphine (and diamorphine) are the same / ver similar to heroin.

[caro]

I didn't see the programme but there was a report on midlands news that residents aren't happy with the way they've been portrayed. .

[osdset]

What would the benefit be? Well the less honest ones couldn't go out robbing shops or jobbing on the side. There are as firstship suggests many community jobs that could be carried out by these fit able people. You also get them into the routine of getting up and going to a 'workplace'.

 

Osdset, having a baby should not be considered reason enough not to do something useful.

 

I do however agree with drug tests on claimants. If you can buy drugs then why should we feed clothe and house you. It is not an illness, you made a life choice to take them in the first place.

 

Benefits were and should only be a support for those that are genuinely ill or out of work for a reasonably short period. They should only be set at a level you can survive on. Not at a level where holidays and days out and takeaways can be afforded.

 

The pendulum swung far too far the wrong way and now it is being swung back to be fairer on us taxpayers, the bleeding heart liberals and the terminally workshy are crying their hearts out.

 

 

Andy's in Flo again, ooh err!

[popeyethesailortam]

Please return to the benefit forum. You have a similar thread from a moderator on that forum so no reason for this one to be moved.

[Nystagmite]

But the benefits forum is to help people with thei entitlements rather than discussing the benefit system.

[popeyethesailortam]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?414265-PRS-landlord-to-evict-tenants-on-housing-benefit.%2811-Viewing%29-nbsp

 

If thats the case then that thread started by a mod should be moved.

[Desperate Daniella]

Guilty as charged. We are the sixth richest country on Earth, we can afford to take care of our poor and sick. There is neither moral nor economic justification for any of the current round of welfare cuts.

 

So yes, I believe that those who are disadvantaged in this highly privileged and wealthy nation should be supported and allowed to maintain their dignity. And the next time the banks crash the economy, we should place the blame squarely where it belongs.

 

PS - I say this as someone who does not, currently, receive a single penny in state benefits.

 

I agree. We should be looking after the poor, sick and disadvantaged.

 

However, what we should not be doing is encouraging people to think that they can bring up their families on benefits. I don't mean people whose lives have changed, those who have been made redundant, or those who are ill, or have been in accidents. I don't mean people who are disabled. Of course they should get our help. But young fit guys should have to do community service for their benefits because it will get them out of bed in the morning, and I mean single mothers who think it is perfectly okay to have three or four or more children by different men who play no part whatsoever in their child's life.

 

Why would anyone encourage this? It's bad for the girls, and bad for their children.

 

About three years ago, through work, I met a number of girls who live on a large council estate not far from where I live. Let me tell you about three of them. I've changed their names.

 

Teresa. Teresa was 20 and had a three year old little girl. She told me her parents were working class and her whole family worked and had never been on benefits. Teresa got pregnant by a drug-taking schizophrenic who happened to be black. Her parents threw her out and told her to get on with it. She visited her parents once a fortnight but they made it quite clear that they were not around to babysit or help out. You might think Teresa would be angry with her family, but far from it: she couldn't believe what an idiot she had been and as soon as her daughter went to primary school she intended to go back to college. She didn't want to stay on the estate and she certainly didn't want any more children from another unreliable bloke. She was a terrific mum, taking her daughter to the library, swimming, the park, and she just wanted to improve her life.

 

Benefits were her safety net, as they should be. She didn't want to be on them for life.

 

Tracey: Tracey was 21 and had four children from four different men, none of whom was around. Her mum had lived in exactly the same way. When Tracey got pregnant for the first time at 16 her mum told her how to apply for a council flat. The flat she was living in when I met her was a filthy mess with broken furniture. In winter the children were not warmly dressed. However, Tracey and her children did have a large flat screen TV, Wii, Nintendo's, Playstations, and everything like that. People say that it is the middle classes who resent someone like Tracey getting benefits, but the strongest condemnation I ever heard was from her neighbour, a very elderly Indian guy who had fought in the British Army in the war, worked until retirement, and said he was absolutely disgusted by her.

 

I don't think Tracey had much of a chance. Her mother had lived on benefits all her life and brought up her children to think this was the right thing to do. Her mother actually said that there was never going to be any point in Tracey working; she had four children and the benefit money was more than she could ever earn.

 

Claire: I only met Claire on one occasion and I am so sad about her. Claire was 19 and had twins of about 18 months and a new baby. The father drank and I think he probably took drugs too - he looked white, pasty and spotty. Claire was one of the most stunning girls I have ever seen. She was beautiful, and she was bright. If she had gone to work in an office at 16 instead of getting pregnant I'm sure she would have had guys fighting over her. She could have had a great life; instead she's stuck with three babies and a layabout boyfriend with whom she has screaming arguments.

 

If my daughter got pregnant at 16 it wouldn't occur to me to tell her to apply for a council flat to live on her own with a young baby.

 

Many of these girls have potential. To say that the best they can expect is to live on benefits having babies with various unreliable boyfriends is downright patronising.

 

If they didn't get automatic council flats when they got pregnant less of them would get pregnant.

 

I don't think access to ever increasing benefits helps these girls at all. At 20 they should be out having fun with their friends, not stuck in a flat with three or four young children.

 

But clearly most of you think that is all many young girls should be aspiring to, and it's fine to support them and their ever-growing families for about 50 years.

[Nystagmite]

But it's not just young girls. I used to be friends with someone who would be about 40 now. She has 5 children by 4 different fathers and her eldest is a parent too. But unlike her, he appears (or appeared, rather. I'm not in contact with her now) to be actually wanting to do something with his life.

 

She said a few years ago that she doesn't know what she's going to do if she's found for fit work and how she can't work because she had at the time, 2 children under 3.