How do you differentiate between cant work and wont work?

For hundreds of years - perhaps since the start of society itself, there has been the problem of people too poor to manage by themselves. From the first hunter gatherers who provided food (if it was available) to those injured, or maybe just too old human society has been willing to support those unable to support themselves.

However as society advanced the question started to arise of those who wished to be supported when perhaps they did not truly need supporting - that saw being supported as easier than supporting themselves. Various systems have been devised through the years to try and make sure that those who need help got it while those who did not were not able to take the "easy" option.

So we arrive at todays modern technologically advanced society complete with its benefit systems - and fierce accusations of both the needy going unsupported and the lazy taking advantage.

So how would you design a system to make sure that those needing help got it while those not needing it were unable to take advantage?

sphinx wrote:For hundreds of years - perhaps since the start of society itself, there has been the problem of people too poor to manage by themselves.  From the first hunter gatherers who provided food (if it was available) to those injured, or maybe just too old human society has been willing to support those unable to support themselves.  

However as society advanced the question started to arise of those who wished to be supported when perhaps they did not truly need supporting - that saw being supported as easier than supporting themselves.  Various systems have been devised through the years to try and make sure that those who need help got it while those who did not were not able to take the "easy" option.

So we arrive at todays modern technologically advanced society complete with its benefit systems - and fierce accusations of both the needy going unsupported and the lazy taking advantage.  

So how would you design a system to make sure that those needing help got it while those not needing it were unable to take advantage?

Compulsory voluntary work or work experience maybe? Those who really want to work will welcome the experience, and those who don't will soon find a job which pays more than benefits.

sphinx wrote:For hundreds of years - perhaps since the start of society itself, there has been the problem of people too poor to manage by themselves.  From the first hunter gatherers who provided food (if it was available) to those injured, or maybe just too old human society has been willing to support those unable to support themselves.  

However as society advanced the question started to arise of those who wished to be supported when perhaps they did not truly need supporting - that saw being supported as easier than supporting themselves.  Various systems have been devised through the years to try and make sure that those who need help got it while those who did not were not able to take the "easy" option.

So we arrive at todays modern technologically advanced society complete with its benefit systems - and fierce accusations of both the needy going unsupported and the lazy taking advantage.  

So how would you design a system to make sure that those needing help got it while those not needing it were unable to take advantage?

Great question -- and I'm going to answer more fully with my opinion later when I'm less busy -- but I think you have to start by carefully investigating those competing "fierce accusations" and determining which, if either, of them has the most truth to it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:For hundreds of years - perhaps since the start of society itself, there has been the problem of people too poor to manage by themselves.  From the first hunter gatherers who provided food (if it was available) to those injured, or maybe just too old human society has been willing to support those unable to support themselves.  

However as society advanced the question started to arise of those who wished to be supported when perhaps they did not truly need supporting - that saw being supported as easier than supporting themselves.  Various systems have been devised through the years to try and make sure that those who need help got it while those who did not were not able to take the "easy" option.

So we arrive at todays modern technologically advanced society complete with its benefit systems - and fierce accusations of both the needy going unsupported and the lazy taking advantage.  

So how would you design a system to make sure that those needing help got it while those not needing it were unable to take advantage?

Compulsory voluntary work or work experience maybe? Those who really want to work will welcome the experience, and those who don't will soon find a job which pays more than benefits.

So long as there are strict rules to prevent exploitation (I suggested somewhere else that councils take over from job centres and instead of unemployment benefit provide guaranteed work) on the simple case of unemployment

What about health and disability? As she is in the news lets take the "white Dee" scenario - someone who is diagnosed with depression and varies from being unable to get out of bed to looking fine - but subject to intense emotional breakdown. Some will claim she is faking it to get money, others will know that depression is hell and can indeed present like that. How do you decide if such cases are real or fake? How do you decide if working is a good or bad thing for them? Will employers even consider them anyway?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:For hundreds of years - perhaps since the start of society itself, there has been the problem of people too poor to manage by themselves.  From the first hunter gatherers who provided food (if it was available) to those injured, or maybe just too old human society has been willing to support those unable to support themselves.  

However as society advanced the question started to arise of those who wished to be supported when perhaps they did not truly need supporting - that saw being supported as easier than supporting themselves.  Various systems have been devised through the years to try and make sure that those who need help got it while those who did not were not able to take the "easy" option.

So we arrive at todays modern technologically advanced society complete with its benefit systems - and fierce accusations of both the needy going unsupported and the lazy taking advantage.  

So how would you design a system to make sure that those needing help got it while those not needing it were unable to take advantage?

Great question -- and I'm going to answer more fully with my opinion later when I'm less busy -- but I think you have to start by carefully investigating those competing "fierce accusations" and determining which, if either, of them has the most truth to it.

It is my belief they are both true - and probably equally.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Compulsory voluntary work or work experience maybe? Those who really want to work will welcome the experience, and those who don't will soon find a job which pays more than benefits.

So long as there are strict rules to prevent exploitation (I suggested somewhere else that councils take over from job centres and instead of unemployment benefit provide guaranteed work) on the simple case of unemployment

What about health and disability?  As she is in the news lets take the "white Dee" scenario - someone who is diagnosed with depression and varies from being unable to get out of bed to looking fine - but subject to intense emotional breakdown.  Some will claim she is faking it to get money, others will know that depression is hell and can indeed present like that.  How do you decide if such cases are real or fake?  How do you decide if working is a good or bad thing for them?  Will employers even consider them anyway?

In the case of depression or other mental illness, I think they need to establish if the person is doing all they can to help themselves or to get treatment. A lot of depression is very treatable with SSRIs or whatever.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So long as there are strict rules to prevent exploitation (I suggested somewhere else that councils take over from job centres and instead of unemployment benefit provide guaranteed work) on the simple case of unemployment

What about health and disability?  As she is in the news lets take the "white Dee" scenario - someone who is diagnosed with depression and varies from being unable to get out of bed to looking fine - but subject to intense emotional breakdown.  Some will claim she is faking it to get money, others will know that depression is hell and can indeed present like that.  How do you decide if such cases are real or fake?  How do you decide if working is a good or bad thing for them?  Will employers even consider them anyway?

In the case of depression or other mental illness, I think they need to establish if the person is doing all they can to help themselves or to get treatment. A lot of depression is very treatable with SSRIs or whatever.

I am not asking about treatment - that is a whole different debate and by no means a simple one. I am asking how you decide whether a person is faking illness/disability - or rather whether they are faking an inability to work.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In the case of depression or other mental illness, I think they need to establish if the person is doing all they can to help themselves or to get treatment. A lot of depression is very treatable with SSRIs or whatever.

I am not asking about treatment - that is a whole different debate and by no means a simple one.  I am asking how you decide whether a person is faking illness/disability - or rather whether they are faking an inability to work.

You decide by checking what treatment they're having. If they are having treatment and it's not working, you tell them they have to try something else. If they're not having treatment, then clearly they're not doing all they can to help themselves. People who go on and on with chronic depression are unlikely to be doing enough to help themselves IMO.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In the case of depression or other mental illness, I think they need to establish if the person is doing all they can to help themselves or to get treatment. A lot of depression is very treatable with SSRIs or whatever.

I am not asking about treatment - that is a whole different debate and by no means a simple one.  I am asking how you decide whether a person is faking illness/disability - or rather whether they are faking an inability to work.

Get the patient to provide a medical certificate from a GP, they are intelligent enough to know, and will have access to medical history etc.

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am not asking about treatment - that is a whole different debate and by no means a simple one.  I am asking how you decide whether a person is faking illness/disability - or rather whether they are faking an inability to work.

Get the patient to provide a medical certificate from a GP, they are intelligent enough to know, and will have access to medical history etc.

I don't think that's enough. If a person goes to the GP and says they're depressed, the GP will most likely believe them. I think that ongoing depression needs to be investigated if the person doesn't appear to be responding to medication.

I think there needs to be a huge overhaul of the benefits system, particularly JSA. I don't think it's enough to check if they've applied for jobs or not.

IMO, a lot of people on JSA don't have the confidence to work, and they're out of the habit. I think they should work for their money - say 10 hours a week or something if they're an adult. That will help them to get into the habit of working. Of course there would have to be work for them to do, and people would have to stop whining about companies getting work done for nothing.

To be fair to those saying they can't work and fair to all other members of society - thorough and regular checks must be carried out.

I saw an interesting documentary about this issue:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think there needs to be a huge overhaul of the benefits system, particularly JSA. I don't think it's enough to check if they've applied for jobs or not.

IMO, a lot of people on JSA don't have the confidence to work, and they're out of the habit. I think they should work for their money - say 10 hours a week or something if they're an adult. That will help them to get into the habit of working. Of course there would have to be work for them to do, and people would have to stop whining about companies getting work done for nothing.

What jobs should the unemployed do for nothing, we have a minimum wage law, so you would scrap that?

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think there needs to be a huge overhaul of the benefits system, particularly JSA. I don't think it's enough to check if they've applied for jobs or not.

IMO, a lot of people on JSA don't have the confidence to work, and they're out of the habit. I think they should work for their money - say 10 hours a week or something if they're an adult. That will help them to get into the habit of working. Of course there would have to be work for them to do, and people would have to stop whining about companies getting work done for nothing.

What jobs should the unemployed do for nothing, we have a minimum wage law, so you would scrap that?

If they work for 10 or 11 hours a week, they would be getting minimum wage via their JSA. It could be anything really - charity work of some kind, picking up litter, cleaning - whatever.

Some RW seem to think that we have full employment in this country, we dont', and there are many people applying for each position.

Such is the thickness of the RW.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

What jobs should the unemployed do for nothing, we have a minimum wage law, so you would scrap that?

If they work for 10 or 11 hours a week, they would be getting minimum wage via their JSA. It could be anything really - charity work of some kind, picking up litter, cleaning - whatever.

What people already do those jobs, and what would happen to those people?

Catman wrote:Some RW seem to think that we have full employment in this country, we dont', and there are many people applying for each position.

Such is the thickness of the RW.

You think people should be able to sit around getting paid for doing nothing?

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they work for 10 or 11 hours a week, they would be getting minimum wage via their JSA. It could be anything really - charity work of some kind, picking up litter, cleaning - whatever.

What people already do those jobs, and what would happen to those people?

There are staff shortages in many companies, and charity work is usually needed.

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they work for 10 or 11 hours a week, they would be getting minimum wage via their JSA. It could be anything really - charity work of some kind, picking up litter, cleaning - whatever.

What people already do those jobs, and what would happen to those people?

They shouldn't be put in "jobs" - they should do any community or charity work.

We have street cleaners, but the streets are still a disgrace - let them do that - on estates, parks etc.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Catman wrote:

What people already do those jobs, and what would happen to those people?

They shouldn't be put in "jobs" - they should do any community or charity work.

We have street cleaners, but the streets are still a disgrace - let them do that - on estates, parks etc.

Yes, I agree. It's not good for people to sit around all the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am not asking about treatment - that is a whole different debate and by no means a simple one.  I am asking how you decide whether a person is faking illness/disability - or rather whether they are faking an inability to work.

You decide by checking what treatment they're having. If they are having treatment and it's not working, you tell them they have to try something else. If they're not having treatment, then clearly they're not doing all they can to help themselves. People who go on and on with chronic depression are unlikely to be doing enough to help themselves IMO.

In a word - bollocks. There is no way the health service can afford to provide professionals to witness every dose supposed to be taken - or the blood tests to check if every dose was taken. Easiest thing in the world to say you are taking something while flushing it down the loo.
Treatment in many conditions is a double edged sword with variable effectiveness and side effects that can be worse than the symptoms(I am not on one of a group of recommended treatments because the side effects were scary - and if I had seen someone with those side effects before trying the drug I would not have tried it). You have to think outside of depression here - there is a list of conditions that can be variable and considered easy to fake as well as undiagnosed problems with varying symptomatology.

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they work for 10 or 11 hours a week, they would be getting minimum wage via their JSA. It could be anything really - charity work of some kind, picking up litter, cleaning - whatever.

What people already do those jobs, and what would happen to those people?

Honestly Phil, there are plenty of things you can do as a volunteer and make a difference without putting someone else out of a job.  It could lead to full time paid employment and if nothing else show to any future employer that you want to work, demonstrate your skills, loyalty, morality and commitment    x

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am not asking about treatment - that is a whole different debate and by no means a simple one.  I am asking how you decide whether a person is faking illness/disability - or rather whether they are faking an inability to work.

Get the patient to provide a medical certificate from a GP, they are intelligent enough to know, and will have access to medical history etc.

Yeah and GPs have been known to accept bribes or be threatened.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:Some RW seem to think that we have full employment in this country, we dont', and there are many people applying for each position.

Such is the thickness of the RW.

You think people should be able to sit around getting paid for doing nothing?

There aren't the jobs for them to go to, and they don't sit around doing nothing, they have job seeking outlets, where they are required to attend to seek work.

feelthelove wrote:

Catman wrote:

What people already do those jobs, and what would happen to those people?

Honestly Phil, there are plenty of things you can do as a volunteer and make a difference without putting someone else out of a job.  It could lead to full time paid employment and if nothing else show to any future employer that you want to work, demonstrate your skills, loyalty, morality and commitment    x

You could learn so much too.

Many many young are out of work these days - 2 years helping out or shadowing somebody - blummin heck you could really learn a good trade doing that.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You decide by checking what treatment they're having. If they are having treatment and it's not working, you tell them they have to try something else. If they're not having treatment, then clearly they're not doing all they can to help themselves. People who go on and on with chronic depression are unlikely to be doing enough to help themselves IMO.

In a word - bollocks.  There is no way the health service can afford to provide professionals to witness every dose supposed to be taken - or the blood tests to check if every dose was taken.  Easiest thing in the world to say you are taking something while flushing it down the loo.
Treatment in many conditions is a double edged sword with variable effectiveness and side effects that can be worse than the symptoms(I am not on one of a group of recommended treatments because the side effects were scary - and if I had seen someone with those side effects before trying the drug I would not have tried it).  You have to think outside of depression here - there is a list of conditions that can be variable and considered easy to fake as well as undiagnosed problems with varying symptomatology.

Well yes, it is easy to flush medication down the loo. The point is that if a person has been prescribed antidepressants and is still claiming they are too depressed to work, then clearly they are either not taking the medication or the medication is not working. If it's not working, then there's no point them taking it, and they should try something else.

Perhaps more "spies" should be employed to watch these people who claim they can't work.

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think people should be able to sit around getting paid for doing nothing?

There aren't the jobs for them to go to, and they don't sit around doing nothing, they have job seeking outlets, where they are required to attend to seek work.

Others have just explained it to you. Don't be so defeatist. I think you really believe that people are entitled to tax payers' money for no good reason.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think there needs to be a huge overhaul of the benefits system, particularly JSA. I don't think it's enough to check if they've applied for jobs or not.

IMO, a lot of people on JSA don't have the confidence to work, and they're out of the habit. I think they should work for their money - say 10 hours a week or something if they're an adult. That will help them to get into the habit of working. Of course there would have to be work for them to do, and people would have to stop whining about companies getting work done for nothing.

I think this is one area that Universal Credit will have a massive impact - once you are unemployed you get paid fortnightly for JSA and 4 or even 6 weekly for housing benefit or equivalent - which may even be paid direct to your landlord. You get used to a strange payment cycle and things being paid for you. You are treated as incapable and it is easy to believe you are incapable. If you get a short term job or part time you see no financial benefit from it. UC will be paid 4 weekly the same as wages, be expected to pay your own rent and bills, and will seen immediate benefit from any work - there will be far less difference between being in work and out of work which will help getting back into work be far less of a change.

feelthelove wrote:

Catman wrote:

What people already do those jobs, and what would happen to those people?

Honestly Phil, there are plenty of things you can do as a volunteer and make a difference without putting someone else out of a job.  It could lead to full time paid employment and if nothing else show to any future employer that you want to work, demonstrate your skills, loyalty, morality and commitment    x

Volunteer positions are really short on the ground FTL.

Before Doug got really ill, he was working for Banardos (volunteer) we got ours cats off the manager where he worked, and she has remained in contact.

There are people already in these positions, there aren't enough to go around, and not everyone would be suited to the position.

BigAndy9 wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Honestly Phil, there are plenty of things you can do as a volunteer and make a difference without putting someone else out of a job.  It could lead to full time paid employment and if nothing else show to any future employer that you want to work, demonstrate your skills, loyalty, morality and commitment    x

You could learn so much too.

Many many young are out of work these days - 2 years helping out or shadowing somebody - blummin heck you could really learn a good trade doing that.

Apprenticeships are pure gold Andy and a lot of small companies can't afford to pay an apprentice on top of their employee's time needed to train them   Hubby is a skilled worker and he's had young people prepared to come in and work for nothing in return for the training they need.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

There aren't the jobs for them to go to, and they don't sit around doing nothing, they have job seeking outlets, where they are required to attend to seek work.

Others have just explained it to you. Don't be so defeatist. I think you really believe that people are entitled to tax payers' money for no good reason.

Those that have been judged fit for work aren't allowed to sit around doing nothing, just pointing that fact out to you.

The spite of the RW is astounding, fed by their bible, the Daily Heil!

BigAndy9 wrote:To be fair to those saying they can't work and fair to all other members of society - thorough and regular checks must be carried out.

OK - what will the checks consist of - and why do they have to be regular? Someone who has cerebral palsy/spinal bifida with a mental age of 2 and physically unable to do little other than wave their arms voluntarily is not going to improve. Do you want to pay someone to check this every however often? Isn't that a waste of money?

feelthelove wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


You could learn so much too.

Many many young are out of work these days - 2 years helping out or shadowing somebody - blummin heck you could really learn a good trade doing that.

Apprenticeships are pure gold Andy and a lot of small companies can't afford to pay an apprentice on top of their employee's time needed to train them   Hubby is a skilled worker and he's had young people prepared to come in and work for nothing in return for the training they need.

If they could just get a load of companies to agree to take on an unemployed person for a few hours a week, it could make a big difference IMO. They could help with office work, or more practical things. It's finding employers who are prepared to spare the time which is probably the difficulty.

Catman wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Honestly Phil, there are plenty of things you can do as a volunteer and make a difference without putting someone else out of a job.  It could lead to full time paid employment and if nothing else show to any future employer that you want to work, demonstrate your skills, loyalty, morality and commitment    x

Volunteer positions are really short on the ground FTL.

Before Doug got really ill, he was working for Banardos (volunteer) we got ours cats off the manager where he worked, and she has remained in contact.

There are people already in these positions, there aren't enough to go around, and not everyone would be suited to the position.

I can't believe that Phil, I'm sorry but there is always something you can do to help another even if it's just in local community   x

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Others have just explained it to you. Don't be so defeatist. I think you really believe that people are entitled to tax payers' money for no good reason.

Those that have been judged fit for work aren't allowed to sit around doing nothing, just pointing that fact out to you.

The spite of the RW is astounding, fed by their bible, the Daily Heil!

Not allowed? As long as they can show they applied for some jobs, they can do what they like. You seem to think that working is a bad thing - not that you'd know much about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

In a word - bollocks.  There is no way the health service can afford to provide professionals to witness every dose supposed to be taken - or the blood tests to check if every dose was taken.  Easiest thing in the world to say you are taking something while flushing it down the loo.
Treatment in many conditions is a double edged sword with variable effectiveness and side effects that can be worse than the symptoms(I am not on one of a group of recommended treatments because the side effects were scary - and if I had seen someone with those side effects before trying the drug I would not have tried it).  You have to think outside of depression here - there is a list of conditions that can be variable and considered easy to fake as well as undiagnosed problems with varying symptomatology.

Well yes, it is easy to flush medication down the loo. The point is that if a person has been prescribed antidepressants and is still claiming they are too depressed to work, then clearly they are either not taking the medication or the medication is not working. If it's not working, then there's no point them taking it, and they should try something else.

Perhaps more "spies" should be employed to watch these people who claim they can't work.

What about the medication that keeps them from committing suicide but doesnt stop them spending 2 out of every 4 days unable to do anything because they cannot stop crying?

Regards spies - should they be used if they cost more to operate than they save in people caught?

feelthelove wrote:

Catman wrote:

Volunteer positions are really short on the ground FTL.

Before Doug got really ill, he was working for Banardos (volunteer) we got ours cats off the manager where he worked, and she has remained in contact.

There are people already in these positions, there aren't enough to go around, and not everyone would be suited to the position.

I can't believe that Phil, I'm sorry but there is always something you can do to help another even if it's just in local community   x

If someone is unemployed and on JSA, they have to show that they are actively seeking work, if they go to volunteering position, and apply for them (since you have to apply, they aren't given out willy nilly)...Then they aren't available for work, so they have their money stopped.

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Others have just explained it to you. Don't be so defeatist. I think you really believe that people are entitled to tax payers' money for no good reason.

Those that have been judged fit for work aren't allowed to sit around doing nothing, just pointing that fact out to you.

The spite of the RW is astounding, fed by their bible, the Daily Heil!

Phil this is not about the RW being spiteful this is a discussion asking people how they would fix the problem. Instead of explaining how the current system does not work (we know that bit) tell us how you would fix it. How do you make sure doug gets help but some faking little twat does not?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

Those that have been judged fit for work aren't allowed to sit around doing nothing, just pointing that fact out to you.

The spite of the RW is astounding, fed by their bible, the Daily Heil!

Not allowed? As long as they can show they applied for some jobs, they can do what they like. You seem to think that working is a bad thing - not that you'd know much about it.

They have to attend centres, after a certain amount of time!

More spies?

You are a right little Eva Braun you are!

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well yes, it is easy to flush medication down the loo. The point is that if a person has been prescribed antidepressants and is still claiming they are too depressed to work, then clearly they are either not taking the medication or the medication is not working. If it's not working, then there's no point them taking it, and they should try something else.

Perhaps more "spies" should be employed to watch these people who claim they can't work.

What about the medication that keeps them from committing suicide but doesnt stop them spending 2 out of every 4 days unable to do anything because they cannot stop crying?

Regards spies - should they be used if they cost more to operate than they save in people caught?

Well it's clearly not working very well then is it?

I don't think it's just the cost which is an issue, it's the principle which counts - it's bad for society to have people pretending they can't work when they can. It gives a bad example to children.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Those that have been judged fit for work aren't allowed to sit around doing nothing, just pointing that fact out to you.

The spite of the RW is astounding, fed by their bible, the Daily Heil!

Phil this is not about the RW being spiteful this is a discussion asking people how they would fix the problem.  Instead of explaining how the current system does not work  (we know that bit) tell us how you would fix it.   How do you make sure doug gets help but some faking little twat does not?

No it isn't!

You read your Daily Heil bible today, and within those pages it said, bash the unemployed some more!   

Catman wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

I can't believe that Phil, I'm sorry but there is always something you can do to help another even if it's just in local community   x

If someone is unemployed and on JSA, they have to show that they are actively seeking work, if they go to volunteering position, and apply for them (since you have to apply, they aren't given out willy nilly)...Then they aren't available for work, so they have their money stopped.

Wrong. You are fully able to do voluntary work while claiming JSA - in fact it is encouraged because it improves your chance of getting paid employment. You just have to keep looking for work, be available for interview at 48 hours, and be available for work within a week.
http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/volunteering-while-on-benefits

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not allowed? As long as they can show they applied for some jobs, they can do what they like. You seem to think that working is a bad thing - not that you'd know much about it.

They have to attend centres, after a certain amount of time!

More spies?

You are a right little Eva Braun you are!

Don't start that crap again. I hate attitudes like yours. Every suggestion is met with a reason why it won't work. All you do is bang on about "entitlement" with no gratitude for the benefits that you get.

When people are sentenced to community service if they commit a crime, where does that work come from?

Catman wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

I can't believe that Phil, I'm sorry but there is always something you can do to help another even if it's just in local community   x

If someone is unemployed and on JSA, they have to show that they are actively seeking work, if they go to volunteering position, and apply for them (since you have to apply, they aren't given out willy nilly)...Then they aren't available for work, so they have their money stopped.

You can still actively seek work and help your local community at the same time, it doesn't have to be an official position.  Take Doug for example, you have mentioned he is friends with many of your neighbours.  Just being a good listener, someone to talk to and share a cup of tea can make a real difference x

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

If someone is unemployed and on JSA, they have to show that they are actively seeking work, if they go to volunteering position, and apply for them (since you have to apply, they aren't given out willy nilly)...Then they aren't available for work, so they have their money stopped.

Wrong.  You are fully able to do voluntary work while claiming JSA - in fact it is encouraged because it improves your chance of getting paid employment.  You just have to keep looking for work, be available for interview at 48 hours, and be available for work within a week.
http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/volunteering-while-on-benefits

Of course they can do voluntary work. It's just another excuse he came up with.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What about the medication that keeps them from committing suicide but doesnt stop them spending 2 out of every 4 days unable to do anything because they cannot stop crying?

Regards spies - should they be used if they cost more to operate than they save in people caught?

Well it's clearly not working very well then is it?

I don't think it's just the cost which is an issue, it's the principle which counts - it's bad for society to have people pretending they can't work when they can. It gives a bad example to children.

This may shock you but a lot of medication does not "fix" people. It keeps them alive longer than not taking it, it may give some extra function back but not all of it.

Like I said I am using depression as an example - I am not limiting to it. It can be any condition.

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Phil this is not about the RW being spiteful this is a discussion asking people how they would fix the problem.  Instead of explaining how the current system does not work  (we know that bit) tell us how you would fix it.   How do you make sure doug gets help but some faking little twat does not?

No it isn't!

You read your Daily Heil bible today, and within those pages it said, bash the unemployed some more!   

Yeah phil as one of the sick unemployed I love being accused of fraud and being expected to do what i cannot do   

It is a problem - I am exploring solutions.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well it's clearly not working very well then is it?

I don't think it's just the cost which is an issue, it's the principle which counts - it's bad for society to have people pretending they can't work when they can. It gives a bad example to children.

This may shock you but a lot of medication does not "fix" people.  It keeps them alive longer than not taking it, it may give some extra function back but not all of it.

Like I said I am using depression as an example - I am not limiting to it.  It can be any condition.

Well then they can try something else - counselling for example. It's possible that having something useful to do might actually help them. Too much spare time and rumination never helped anyone. Sitting in a dark room and not going out is not going to help them is it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

This may shock you but a lot of medication does not "fix" people.  It keeps them alive longer than not taking it, it may give some extra function back but not all of it.

Like I said I am using depression as an example - I am not limiting to it.  It can be any condition.

Well then they can try something else - counselling for example. It's possible that having something useful to do might actually help them. Too much spare time and rumination never helped anyone. Sitting in a dark room and not going out is not going to help them is it?

I am not disagreeing - I am trying to get you to see beyond depression - take fibromyalgia or multiple sclerosis, or sickle cell or any other chronic condition