Police Swoop On Benefits Street

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:24 pm

25th January 2014

Does this debunk the myth that those on benefits are struggling? Should the police swoop on all of those on benefits, with an auditor?

'Black Dee' from hit Channel 4 documentary Benefits Street has been charged with drug and firearm offences - along with a further six residents of the notorious road.

Samora Roberts, known as Dee, 32, was charged with conspiracy to supply a class B controlled drug, conspiracy to supply a class A controlled drug (crack cocaine), possession of a Class A controlled drug - (diamorphine) and possession of ammunition for a firearm without a certificate.

Police have charged a number of people with drug offences following a series of raids carried out in James Turner Street, Winson Green, Birmingham last year.

The street is infamous after being featured in Channel 4’s highly controversial documentary.

The five-part series follows the lives of the residents on James Turner Street - where up to 90 per cent of residents are on benefits.

The drugs raids took place in June 2013 at a number of addresses in the street following concerns raised by the local community.

Following the warrants, a number of people were arrested and Class A and B drugs were recovered by officers.

After ongoing enquiries, seven people were charged on Wednesday with a number of offences and all have been bailed to appear before Birmingham Magistrates Court on February 6.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545748/BREAKING-NEWS-Benefits-Streets-Black-Dee-six-James-Turner-Street-residents-charged-drug-offences-following-police-raids.html#ixzz2rPsBR68u

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:40 pm

Drugs, alcohol and gadgets - the benefit of choice for millions.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:54 pm

I hate criminals!

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:56 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:I hate criminals!

Does that apply to Jimmy Savile then Andy?,me was the worst sort of criminal, along with murderers.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:59 pm

Joy Division wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:I hate criminals!

Does that apply to Jimmy Savile then Andy?,me was the worst sort of criminal, along with murderers.

I hate criminals JD.

As far as I am aware, Sir Jimmy has never been convicted of anything.

There are some who claim you are a criminal, but until that is proven i'll continue to like you as a fun poster.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:06 pm

As for these druggies - how about random drug testing for all those on benefits.

Maybe breath tests during work times too?

If found over the limit - no benefits.

If it's good for the armed forces, then these recipients of our kindness should also be prepared to go through with them.

Please discuss.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:31 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Does that apply to Jimmy Savile then Andy?,me was the worst sort of criminal, along with murderers.

I hate criminals JD.

As far as I am aware, Sir Jimmy has never been convicted of anything.

There are some who claim you are a criminal, but until that is proven i'll continue to like you as a fun poster.

I'm sure there are Andy, but that's just all hot air, anger and frustration, they don't know me in real life,so what would they know eh?!

But we know what Jimmy did though Andy and so do his victims.

by Guest Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:35 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:As for these druggies - how about random drug testing for all those on benefits.

Maybe breath tests during work times too?

If found over the limit - no benefits.

If it's good for the armed forces, then these recipients of our kindness should also be prepared to go through with them.

Please discuss.

Absolutely Andy, breath tests and drug tests during working hours, I'm sure many bosses would be caught out too.

Yes I know what you really mean...test those on benefits Rolling Eyes

If that keeps you happy Andy, I'm all for it Smile

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:42 am

http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2014-01-25/seven-charged-over-benefits-street-drug-raids/

JUNE LAST YEAR.

Why not bring that up earlier?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:46 am

.....Timed pretty well, to coincide, with the broadcast of this program.

Twisted Evil

by Ben Reilly Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:17 am

BigAndy9 wrote:As for these druggies - how about random drug testing for all those on benefits.

Maybe breath tests during work times too?

If found over the limit - no benefits.

If it's good for the armed forces, then these recipients of our kindness should also be prepared to go through with them.

Please discuss.

We did that here in the States!

In 2009, Arizona was the first state to adopt a program that drug-tested recipients of welfare whom officials had “reasonable cause” to believe were using drugs. Besides stigmatizing recipients of government assistance, implying that they’re a group of no-good drug fiends, the bill was implemented to try rand resuscitate a failing budget, and Arizona officials believed that testing could save the state $1.7 million a year.

But in 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didn’t return the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0.1 percent of the amount distributed over that period.

Similarly lackluster results have dogged Oklahoma’s drug testing program in which only 29 people failed. When contacted, Oklahoma’s Department of Human Services said it didn’t keep track of the amount the state saved by denying benefits to those who tested positive, but testing fees are estimated to have totaled $74,000.

Florida had a testing program in 2011 that was halted by the courts not long after it was started. During its brief lifespan it had similarly poor results. Only 2.6 percent of those tested turned up positive for illicit substances. And since Florida reimbursed those who were clean for the cost of their tests, the state actually lost $45,780 because of the program.

Florida is especially important because Gov. Rick Scott owned a $62 million stake in Soltanic Corp., a chain of urgent care centers that, among other things, specializes in confidential drug testing. He transferred the shares of the company to his wife in January of 2011 just three months before both mandating that state employees would be tested and signing the law for welfare testing into effect.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/gop%E2%80%99s_inane_money_eating_sham_drug_tests_for_welfare_a_huge_failure/

Silly conservatives, leave the problem-solving to liberals -- you create far too many huge, costly programs on the basis of ignorance and prejudice.

by Beekeeper Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:59 am

:D

BigAndy, Shady, Drinky, Tess and the Smelly One are probably deep in discussion even now as to how they themselves can set up their own drug-testing and recipient-bashing company to cash in on their beloved Tory's newest anti-welfare/anti-poor/anti-worker policies !!!

::rambo:: ::lies:: ::drnkpst:: ::happ:: ::=|Q::

by Ben Reilly Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:17 am

It's all bullshit. They whine about the debt hoping we'll believe that's what they care about -- what they care about is that people they desperately want to believe are completely different them are "picking their pockets." In other words, people of different races, etc., find themselves in hard times, and they want to blame everything but the hard times. They think welfare props up the people they don't like, so they're against welfare.

As Colbert would point out, these people don't refer to facts because they believe the things they want to believe, like kids with Santa Claus. And these people are the ones preventing societies across the globe, from Afghanistan to the U.K. to the U.S., from becoming egalitarian and humane places to live. They hold us back and drag us down, and the only way they get into power is by preying upon our weaknesses, chiefly fear and hate.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:59 am

...They want to exterminate the poor.

They shouldn't have a TV, or an internet connection!

...They should be facing eviction, with no kind of heating etc...

..Any one that is surviving is accused of being a fucking fraudster FFS!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:05 am

...I can tell the likes of Fartson & Co.....That we are well above board here!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:09 am

Again people are excusing those who abuse the system, these who do give those who claim benefits a bad name also which is unfair. You cannot ignore that many people who go out to work will be happy about people who abuse the system, because it is their taxes that pay for the benefits. Nobody has an issue when for the most it is genuine, but again here people are ignoring those who do.

Catman, if you cannot afford a tele or interment connection, then you don't have one, there are not life necessities, it is as simple as that, to think you do need them, shows why I am correct that some people have the wrong ethos these days and live beyond their means

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:18 am

PhilDidge wrote:Again people are excusing those who abuse the system, these who do give those who claim benefits a bad name also which is unfair. You cannot ignore that many people who go out to work will be happy about people who abuse the system, because it is their taxes that pay for the benefits. Nobody has an issue when for the most it is genuine, but again here people are ignoring those who do.

Catman, if you cannot afford a tele or interment connection, then you don't have one, there are not life necessities, it is as simple as that, to think you do need them, shows why I am correct that some people have the wrong ethos these days and live beyond their means

Well, we can afford an internet connection and a TV....What is your problem with that?

It isn't against the law for your family to help you out with money, when you are in a period of troubles.

...Are you against family members, to help out, at times of trouble?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:23 am

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Again people are excusing those who abuse the system, these who do give those who claim benefits a bad name also which is unfair. You cannot ignore that many people who go out to work will be happy about people who abuse the system, because it is their taxes that pay for the benefits. Nobody has an issue when for the most it is genuine, but again here people are ignoring those who do.

Catman, if you cannot afford a tele or interment connection, then you don't have one, there are not life necessities, it is as simple as that, to think you do need them, shows why I am correct that some people have the wrong ethos these days and live beyond their means

Well, we can afford an internet connection and a TV....What is your problem with that?

It isn't against the law for your family to help you out with money, when you are in a period of troubles.

...Are you against family members, to help out, at times of trouble?

Was I talking about you?

No, if you can afford then I have no issue and think family should always help out, so again who make poor assumptions, again they are not necessities

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:34 am

I think that a TV, internet connection..etc are very important.

Most can't afford any of that these days, i feel privileged...Also i'm still able to provide some high nutrition foods for Doug...In lew of inheritance of course.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:36 am

Catman wrote:I think that a TV, internet connection..etc are very important.

Most can't afford any of that these days, i feel privileged...Also i'm still able to provide some high nutrition foods for Doug...In lew of inheritance of course.

Are they important, a TV?
Hence the ethos view I speak, no they are not important, they are material objects, which you do not need in life to make you happy.
Again this is a fine example of where people place material things over necessities

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:38 am

...Actually i lie!

It's the best stuff that you can get, only the rich could afford it!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:40 am

PhilDidge wrote:
Catman wrote:I think that a TV, internet connection..etc are very important.

Most can't afford any of that these days, i feel privileged...Also i'm still able to provide some high nutrition foods for Doug...In lew of inheritance of course.

Are they important, a TV?
Hence the ethos view I speak, no they are not important, they are material objects, which you do not need in life to make you happy.
Again this is a fine example of where people place material things over necessities

Yes...A TV is very important, not to send the poor over the edge....Do you expect the poor to live in a dark room, freezing cold...With a couple of candles or something?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:43 am

...I'm on a fixed rate electric and gas (online) tariff.

Doug tends to get very cold, i have the heating on full blast!

Problem?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:48 am

...I have an endless supply of Vodka and tobacco!

I love it!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:48 am

Get more blankets then, save on heating costs and you are better off keeping the heating low or getting a thermostat that kicks in when it goes below a temp, I keep mine at 16c, which is sufficient, that way I save on costs, you should invest in doing the same. No wonder you waste money if you have it on full blast when there is no need

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:50 am

Catman wrote:...I have an endless supply of Vodka and tobacco!

I love it!

Not the best to be drunk when caring for someone, if this was a real job for you, then you would be sacked

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:50 am

......My brothers say..

Well, don't worry....Mum provided!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:52 am

Catman wrote:......My brothers say..

Well, don't worry....Mum provided!

Most people have their parents provide whilst growing up, but when as adults we should provide for ourselves. There is nothing worse to me than not being able to provide for my family and hence why I ensure this does not happen and always provide for them

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:59 am

PhilDidge wrote:
Catman wrote:...I have an endless supply of Vodka and tobacco!

I love it!

Not the best to be drunk when caring for someone, if this was a real job for you, then you would be sacked

I'm not drunk for all the time, and mostly don't drink until after 7PM, my timings are a bit out out recently...But i've been a bit depressed.

I run the home, Doug can't see very well now...I do everything here...He can't walk for more than two minutes.

He has slapped once, in the last 12 years, that was fairly recent and he hasn't done it again.

We spend lots of time talking, for most of the day and night.

I have my time, but i can still fulfill all of my duties here, i'll have you know.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:00 am

PhilDidge wrote:
Catman wrote:......My brothers say..

Well, don't worry....Mum provided!

Most people have their parents provide whilst growing up, but when as adults we should provide for ourselves. There is nothing worse to me than not being able to provide for my family and hence why I ensure this does not happen and always provide for them

Will you realise an inheritance?

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:06 am

...He knows that i'm staying up all night...He doesn't pressure me...Because he knows that i need to realign myself.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:30 am

Still does not make it right to do when caring for someone, no matter how you dress it up

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:31 am

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Most people have their parents provide whilst growing up, but when as adults we should provide for ourselves. There is nothing worse to me than not being able to provide for my family and hence why I ensure this does not happen and always provide for them

Will you realise an inheritance?

I am part of one of which I asked my mother to remove me from, as have no need or want of where it can go to instead others in the family

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:37 am

PhilDidge wrote:Still does not make it right to do when caring for someone, no matter how you dress it up

...Would depend on your individual constitution, i would suppose.

I've been up for most of the day, night...I can still string a fucking sentence together, and my typing gets better!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:40 am

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Still does not make it right to do when caring for someone, no matter how you dress it up

...Would depend on your individual constitution, i would suppose.

I've been up for most of the day, night...I can still string a fucking sentence together, and my typing gets better!

No as alcohol impairs judgement and people make mistakes, again no job in care would allow such a practice. Personally I would have someone else brought into care for Doug being as a person constantly drinking is a liability and a danger not only to themselves but the person they care for.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:43 am

....OK, i would admit, that i left the bread off the online shopping list..I've said that Doug should go and get it from out local shop...It's two minutes away...and he is supposed to get a little bit of exercise.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:46 am

Again that is no excuse for constantly drinking whilst being a carer. If you are needing a drink constantly to get through caring, clearly you are unable to cope with the situation, thus it would benefit not only you and Doug to seek outside assistance. Drinking is for recreational use, when it becomes a necessity, then there is huge problems

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:48 am

PhilDidge wrote:
Catman wrote:

...Would depend on your individual constitution, i would suppose.

I've been up for most of the day, night...I can still string a fucking sentence together, and my typing gets better!

No as alcohol impairs judgement and people make mistakes, again no job in care would allow such a practice. Personally I would have someone else brought into care for Doug being as a person constantly drinking is a liability and a danger not only to themselves but the person they care for.

I don't constantly drink.

We have been looking out for each other for fourteen years, when we first met he was on cannabis for 24/7.for many years..I just wish that they would make it legal, as he never had the problems fourteen years ago, that he has now.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:52 am

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No as alcohol impairs judgement and people make mistakes, again no job in care would allow such a practice. Personally I would have someone else brought into care for Doug being as a person constantly drinking is a liability and a danger not only to themselves but the person they care for.

I don't constantly drink.

We have been looking out for each other for fourteen years, when we first met he was on cannabis for 24/7.for many years..I just wish that they would make it legal, as he never had the problems fourteen years ago, that he has now.

I would have to disagree when you stated this:

...Would depend on your individual constitution, i would suppose.
I've been up for most of the day, night...I can still string a fucking sentence together, and my typing gets better!

That is getting on for 24 hours drinking, that is not normal or healthy and is someone who needs alcohol to deal with stress, as that is not normal recreational drinking .

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:53 am

PhilDidge wrote:Again that is no excuse for constantly drinking whilst being a carer. If you are needing a drink constantly to get through caring, clearly you are unable to cope with the situation, thus it would benefit not only you and Doug to seek outside assistance. Drinking is for recreational use, when it becomes a necessity, then there is huge problems

I don't constantly drink!

Mostly i only drink after 7PM, albeit my timings have been out of scync, recently...because i've been a bit depressed.

Doug is in the support group, ATOS/DWP recognize me as his career.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:56 am

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Again that is no excuse for constantly drinking whilst being a carer. If you are needing a drink constantly to get through caring, clearly you are unable to cope with the situation, thus it would benefit not only you and Doug to seek outside assistance. Drinking is for recreational use, when it becomes a necessity, then there is huge problems

I don't constantly drink!

Mostly i only drink after 7PM, albeit my timings have been out of scync, recently...because i've been a bit depressed.

Doug is in the support group, ATOS/DWP recognize me as his career.

As seen your previous post would question the point that you do, being as you clearly stated you have been drinking throughout the day yesterday and throughout the night, whilst caring for someone.
Sorry I find that very irresponsible, again if you have depression then you are not able to care for someone, hence my earlier points, you could in fact be placing Doug at risk! You need to put his needs over yours, thus if you do have problems, then you need to take care of those and let others assist Doug

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:03 am

PhilDidge wrote:
Catman wrote:

I don't constantly drink.

We have been looking out for each other for fourteen years, when we first met he was on cannabis for 24/7.for many years..I just wish that they would make it legal, as he never had the problems fourteen years ago, that he has now.

I would have to disagree when you stated this:

...Would depend on your individual constitution, i would suppose.
I've been up for most of the day, night...I can still string a fucking sentence together, and my typing gets better!

That is getting on for 24 hours drinking, that is not normal or healthy and is someone who needs alcohol to deal with stress, as that is not normal recreational drinking .

...Well, i'm looking after someone that can't walk for more than about five minutes, can read the writing on a pack of rice..has constant back pain, itching, night sweats..vascular pain in his legs.

Of course, it's hard for me at times..We know each other, and we both know, after all of these years, that we will need to spend a certain amount of time apart, there isn't any kind of rest bite care these days, since the Tory scum cut back on all that.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:06 am

Catman wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I would have to disagree when you stated this:

...Would depend on your individual constitution, i would suppose.
I've been up for most of the day, night...I can still string a fucking sentence together, and my typing gets better!

That is getting on for 24 hours drinking, that is not normal or healthy and is someone who needs alcohol to deal with stress, as that is not normal recreational drinking .

...Well, i'm looking after someone that can't walk for more than about five minutes, can read the writing on a pack of rice..has constant back pain, itching, night sweats..vascular pain in his legs.

Of course, it's hard for me at times..We know each other, and we both know, after all of these years, that we will need to spend a certain amount of time apart, there isn't any kind of rest bite care these days, since the Tory scum cut back on all that.

Yes but you are not in a fit place to be caring for someone, as you have depression and are drinking heavily, it seems also by your own admission, that means you are not placing Dougs best interests first, it also means you are not able to care for him properly. You really need to take stock of your situation for the benefit of both of you.

Anyway this is getting well off topic

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:10 am

PhilDidge wrote:
Catman wrote:

I don't constantly drink!

Mostly i only drink after 7PM, albeit my timings have been out of scync, recently...because i've been a bit depressed.

Doug is in the support group, ATOS/DWP recognize me as his career.

As seen your previous post would question the point that you do, being as you clearly stated you have been drinking throughout the day yesterday and throughout the night, whilst caring for someone.
Sorry I find that very irresponsible, again if you have depression then you are not able to care for someone, hence my earlier points, you could in fact be placing Doug at risk! You need to put his needs over yours, thus if you do have problems, then you need to take care of those and let others assist Doug

Again.

I would suggest that you are being quite nasty in your analysis, if i wasn't here, who would look after him..Since he is unable to go very far, can't see very well, can't use a computer that well.

We live in an area, that isn't serviced very well by local amenities.

...I would suggest, that other people, that didn't have a partner, would be left to die by the Tory scum like you.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:12 am

PhilDidge wrote:
Catman wrote:

...Well, i'm looking after someone that can't walk for more than about five minutes, can read the writing on a pack of rice..has constant back pain, itching, night sweats..vascular pain in his legs.

Of course, it's hard for me at times..We know each other, and we both know, after all of these years, that we will need to spend a certain amount of time apart, there isn't any kind of rest bite care these days, since the Tory scum cut back on all that.

Yes but you are not in a fit place to be caring for someone, as you have depression and are drinking heavily, it seems also by your own admission, that means you are not placing Dougs best interests first, it also means you are not able to care for him properly. You really need to take stock of your situation for the benefit of both of you.

Anyway this is getting well off topic

Well, some of us aren't going to die at the hands of you Tory scum...Fucking get used to it!

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:20 am

...I will also add, that Doug is very well aware of my stress levels...He gets worried when i start bashing the keyboard...He will always divert me away..Why do you think that i log off so much these days after the racist cunts start on me.

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:28 am

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:31 am

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:22 pm

I know you've a lot on your plate Phil but you need to take care of yourself too; for both your sakes Sad

by Guest Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:25 pm

feelthelove wrote:I know you've a lot on your plate Phil but you need to take care of yourself too; for both your sakes

Exactly, but here I give meaningful advice and have it thrown back in my face for it with yet again swearing abuse!

That to me is someone who does not recognise there is a problem

by Sponsored content