Unemployment benefit/government handouts.

[fork me]

Wrong. Contracting out the 'Paint Lamposts And Pick Litter' business to a fat cat agency would make someone a very great deal of money. Their self esteem would rocket.

Fair point, more of Cameron's mates get slightly richer.

 

[fork me]

It's a fact that some people have children purely to get a council house. Probably a very small number of people, but true nonetheless. Taking their children away is obviously an extreme measure, but even the threat of it might make some of them think twice about popping one out in order to simply set up a life of sponging off the state. You could even argue that the children might actually end up better people for it with a decent role model in their life, but as I'm not a parent (yet) I wouldn't like to open that particular can of worms.

I'm a teacher by trade, for four years I was in a pastoral role, meaning that dealing with kids who had been abused, were in care, etc was a major part of my job. If you had any idea how being put into care can f*** kids up you'd withdraw that comment immediately. The welfare of the kids is WAY more important than "teaching their parents a lesson".

 

[Safeway]

Maybe it is but what's the solution? You say they should be forced into work, OK, but that means you have to force someone to employ them. Who?

I don't know!

Also, you're completely missing the ppoint that there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, a LOT more. Personally I believe that finding jobs for people that want them is more important than forcing scroungers into work. If there was enough work, I;d be happy to force them to do it, but not when doing so effectively takes a job away from someone who actually wants it.

Fair enough.

 

[beorhthelm]

...Try looking at it from the other side. You're 40 something and were made redundant after working in a factory for 20 years, you have no qualifications and little chance of getting a job. You're at your lowest ebb ever and have no self confidence. Are you reallly telling me that if in that situation some suit at the job centre tells you that if you want to keep you're meagre dole payments you have to spend 15 hours a week picking litter it will INCREASE your self confidence and make it more likely for you to get work? Because that's the reality of schemes like this.

yeah ok, your probably right. Having people sit at home is far better for self confidence.

Just as long as there is structure and agreements around it I have no problem people working for their benefits. I would have happily done so and my partner is currently looking at volunteer work to stop her going out of her mind. The safeguard that would be needed is that it has to allow people to continue their search for work otherwise it's self defeating.

or we can be more constructive about this. yes, of course it needs structure and agreement, account for those its difficult to fit with such as single mums, and focus on the young and long term unemployed. it needs to be suitable where possible and practical to all sides. Tesco's shelf stacking might be suitable for a school leaver but not for a 45 yo office worker. though lets not assume that they dont want to take such a role, theres more to work that productivity, some would take the chance to get out the house, be with people. Some chap who use to work in a factory might not mind a couple of shifts in Sainsbury's warehouse so much.

The biggest problem at the moment is those vehemently opposed are obstructing what could be a very valuable programme and discourage a broader range of companies from getting involved. At the end of the day they arent going to be working for nothing, but for their dole. Got an interview? time off, thats the point isnt it. what other complaints do people have that cant be addressed with some consideration rather than rejection of the entire idea?

 

[Safeway]

I'm a teacher by trade, for four years I was in a pastoral role, meaning that dealing with kids who had been abused, were in care, etc was a major part of my job. If you had any idea how being put into care can f*** kids up you'd withdraw that comment immediately. The welfare of the kids is WAY more important than "teaching their parents a lesson".

Agree entirely about the child's welfare, and as I said I have no experience of child care so am ignorant to the effect of being placed in care. But even just the threat of it, to send the message that having a kid does not guarantee a free home, might put some off.

 

[KVLT]

Agree entirely about the child's welfare, and as I said I have no experience of child care so am ignorant to the effect of being placed in care. But even just the threat of it, to send the message that having a kid does not guarantee a free home, might put some off.

Because all pregnancies are planned of course? Or do we now make intercourse illegal for anyone but the gainfully employed? Maybe a policy of forced sterilization might help our society along perhaps?

It's very easy to come out with a load of generalized bluster but for it to stand up to scrutiny requires a bit more objectivity IMO.

 

[Safeway]

Because all pregnancies are planned of course? Or do we now make intercourse illegal for anyone but the gainfully employed? Maybe a policy of forced sterilization might help our society along perhaps?

It's very easy to come out with a load of generalized bluster but for it to stand up to scrutiny requires a bit more objectivity IMO.

There are plenty of cases for forced sterilisation in Portslade!

In all seriousness though, some pregnancies ARE planned. Planned to get a free home. Of course you're right, it's impossible to stop. But that doesn't make it any less annoying.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Not particularly, but why should they get away with it just because they're deemed to be too much trouble to train/employ? That sends completely the wrong message. I don't know what the answer is, but this country hasn't always had the Jeremy Kyle generation so there's no reason why it should have one in the future.

The Jeremy Kyle generation are the offspring of the Maggie Thatcher generation. Respect and values went downhill when she came into power.

 

[warsaw]

Too many sweeping generalisations on both sides on this thread. Having spent 20+ years working in Job Centres let me explain why you're all right and all wrong.

There are 4 broad groups of claimants:

WASTERS: Have deliberately chosen a life on benefits, know how to work the system, claim and fiddle everything they can ACTION: Put them in the stocks, cut off their bollocks, take away their fags and booze, stop their money. But if you bring in workfare it will cost a lot to supervise them

UNEMPLOYABLE; may have worked and want to but for various reasons will never work again. Alcoholics, people with low level mental or physical health problems, very thick people, these are people that might be considered to fall between signing on or being on sickness benefits. It was reckoned that there are between 1/2 million and 1m falling into this category. ACTION: very difficult, they are not on the sick so are cheaper anyway, but again workfare would be very costly to administer

EMPLOYABLE LONG TERM UNEMPLOYED: Say 2 years plus want to work but have not been succesful despite decent attempts. ACTION: Need intensive ongoing support to boost confidence, morale perhaps including work experience or voluntary work with guaranteed job offers.

IN BETWEENERS: between jobs and keen to work. May take them a while as they may be professionals, may be near retirement age, may have mortgages to pay ACTION: Make sure the move off benefits is simple and work pays. Simples

Ees complicated there are no simple answers otherwise it would have been done. But cutting benefits for those in genuine need is plain wrong.

 

[cunning fergus]

If you're going to use the word FACT so freely it might pay to do just a little research.

Current UK spending :

Health = £125b
Education = £90b
Defence = £44b
Welfare = £110b

Very high level figures but kind of shows how incorrect your right wing rant was !

Good stuff..............can you also research how much the UK get's from tax and what we are currently paying servicing the national debt?

I will bet you that we generate roughly the same amount we spend on Welfare that is generated in income tax.........at the moment anyway.

 

[Castello]

Agree entirely about the child's welfare, and as I said I have no experience of child care so am ignorant to the effect of being placed in care. But even just the threat of it, to send the message that having a kid does not guarantee a free home, might put some off.

what worries me most about this poster, is that someone who freely admits to having no experience and is ignorant of the effects is still arguing with people that do know what they are talking about ie a teacher. I used to until last year work with the very groups you know so little about and yet able to state "facts". Believe me your words just make you seem more and more stupid. I would explain why, but it seems that others have been for 9 pages and you're still arguing.

Get some self respect and just stop.

 

[fork me]

Too many sweeping generalisations on both sides on this thread. Having spent 20+ years working in Job Centres let me explain why you're all right and all wrong.

There are 4 broad groups of claimants:

WASTERS: Have deliberately chosen a life on benefits, know how to work the system, claim and fiddle everything they can ACTION: Put them in the stocks, cut off their bollocks, take away their fags and booze, stop their money. But if you bring in workfare it will cost a lot to supervise them

UNEMPLOYABLE; may have worked and want to but for various reasons will never work again. Alcoholics, people with low level mental or physical health problems, very thick people, these are people that might be considered to fall between signing on or being on sickness benefits. It was reckoned that there are between 1/2 million and 1m falling into this category. ACTION: very difficult, they are not on the sick so are cheaper anyway, but again workfare would be very costly to administer

EMPLOYABLE LONG TERM UNEMPLOYED: Say 2 years plus want to work but have not been succesful despite decent attempts. ACTION: Need intensive ongoing support to boost confidence, morale perhaps including work experience or voluntary work with guaranteed job offers.

IN BETWEENERS: between jobs and keen to work. May take them a while as they may be professionals, may be near retirement age, may have mortgages to pay ACTION: Make sure the move off benefits is simple and work pays. Simples

Ees complicated there are no simple answers otherwise it would have been done. But cutting benefits for those in genuine need is plain wrong.

One big problem is that too many people, including those in government, can't (or won't) distinguish between the first category, and the second and third ones.

 

[Safeway]

what worries me most about this poster, is that someone who freely admits to having no experience and is ignorant of the effects is still arguing with people that do know what they are talking about ie a teacher. I used to until last year work with the very groups you know so little about and yet able to state "facts". Believe me your words just make you seem more and more stupid. I would explain why, but it seems that others have been for 9 pages and you're still arguing.

Get some self respect and just stop.

Do you know what the best thing about being stupid is? You don't KNOW you're stupid.

Either way, do you not agree that society would benefit from having the scrounging element removed? THAT'S my basic point. These people offer nothing and the rest of us are paying for them. Rather than have a pop at me, perhaps direct your ire at the scum that introduce lives into the world for all the wrong reasons. You know, the very groups you know so much about.

 

[severnside gull]

Hand on heart I'm a dyed in the wool socialist (although I dislike and distrust all politicians of whatever flavour - I have rarely met an honest one and treat them all with equal distrust).

But I believe in the concept of some form of workfare wholeheartedly.

The trouble is that organising it comes down to politicians and their partiality and eye for personal profit gets in the way of creating anything likely to be equitable or fair.

If like me you had spent a lifetime working with young people and promoting the concepts of lifelong learning and developing self esteem only to see it largely destroyed by the creation of a generation who cannot get work and indeed may, as a result, never work.......................................
Not everyone is self-motivating. Ours is not a perfect society. Please, if nothing else give people something to get out of bed for and the opportunity to feel that they have earned a place in society instead of drip feeding them dole money for doing nothing and consigning them to........ well.....to what? What are they learning about themselves, about society, about their place in that society?

I watched a girl today taking the government to court for the right to be paid unemployment benefit without ever having the opportunity to experience real work and the satisfaction of earning her own way - what was on "offer" was shelf stacking whereas she said wanted to do voluntary work (where is call me dave's "big society"?) - but what really concerned me was that the thrust of her argument seemed to be that it was demeaning to have to do work not of her own choice, and degraded her human right to get paid for doing nothing ........................... I really didn't know whether to be impressed by her or to despair for her.

For certain what is in place is wrong, lacks transparency and appears to benefit profit making organisations with limited safeguards for the workfare employee. But if that could be corrected and young people could work to the benefit of society and thereby earn their income instead of being gifted it, how much better for them and for the future of all of us .................?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

but as I'm not a parent (yet) .

The idea that you might reproduce concerns me much more than benefit spongers.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

the scum that introduce lives into the world for all the wrong reasons.

What irony. See above.

 

[fork me]

What like most eastern Europeans who come here with no work experience and of whom don't speak English that well,more bloody excuses im afraid as these chaps get work and work hard.

It takes a special kind of person to leave their home country and move thousands of miles to live in a foreign country, especially if you don't know the language. Eastern European countries have just as many workshy scroungers as we do, we just don't tend to meet them becuase they, like ours, can;t be bothered to get off their arses and go and look for work elsewhere.

The ones who come to Britain tend to either have work experience and come to England for the better pay (this includes tradesmen, builders etc.) or be very well educated and looking to make money and improve their language skills.

It's the same in Cyprus, there are LOADS of Eastern Europeans and Russians here. Most of the men who come over are skilled manual workers who tend to work at three times the speed and double the skill of the Cypriot workers. Most of the (non-Russian) girls who come over work as waitresses and bar workers. Being a fairly socialble chap who drinks a lot, I know a lot of these very well. Nearly all of them have University degrees. They tend to come to Cyprus with weak English and no Greek, and then within a few months are fluent in both languages, and often Russian as well. One example is Judith who's Hungarian, she came to Cyprus speaking little English but with a degree in Leisure and Tourism. She already spoke Hungarian and Romanian and a little English. She's now fluent in English, Greek and Russian and taken exams to prove it. She's now left the island to take up a highly paid job as a hostess on a cruise ship, her dream job.

It was the same in Brighton, I ran a mobile disco business and did a lot of work in the seafront hotels. A lot of the Polish girls working in them were doing so to improve their English. Once their English was good enough they went back to Poland where they were now highly desirable for the 5 star hotels there.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Do you know what the best thing about being stupid is? You don't KNOW you're stupid.

Either way, do you not agree that society would benefit from having the scrounging element removed? THAT'S my basic point. These people offer nothing and the rest of us are paying for them. Rather than have a pop at me, perhaps direct your ire at the scum that introduce lives into the world for all the wrong reasons. You know, the very groups you know so much about.

There you go again, hoarding your ignorance and pontifications around like badges of honour.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

and the rest of us are paying for them.

Will you stop talking on behalf of all tax payers. You're entitled to your (rather ignorant) views but please don't think you speak for everyone.

 

[Nibble]

that.

or at worst case ....work for dole , ie you get your rent paid and 80 quid a week as long as you are working at whatever you are asked to do , this has to be across the board however which brings us perilously close to communism doesn't it...??[/QUOTE

The one major flaw in this statement and the one that shows you to be a fool is that if there is work out there to be done, and jobseekers are capable of doing it why not give them the job and pay them a normal f***ing wage you moron?