70,000 job seekers' benefits withdrawn unfairly, says thinktank

by Guest Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:44 am

First topic message reminder :

70,000 job seekers' benefits withdrawn unfairly, says thinktank
Right-of-centre Policy Exchange says people who break job search conditions for first time face unnecessary hardship

Nearly 70,000 job seekers have had their benefits withdrawn unfairly, making them reliant on food banks, the right-of-centre thinktank Policy Exchange has said .

The intervention is the first by a respected rightwing voice claiming that something has gone wrong with the administration of benefits.

A chorus of churches, charities and Labour has been warning the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, for months that the administration of benefit sanctions has become too punitive.

Duncan Smith has commissioned a limited independent review into the administration of sanctions, and this is likely to confirm problems in the way they are imposed, but not challenge their level.

Policy Exchange says almost a third of all people who break their job search conditions for the first time have their benefits taken away by mistake and face unnecessary hardship as a result.

Guy Miscampbell, the author of the Policy Exchange report, said: "It is clear that there are a significant number of people who have their benefit taken away from them unfairly. Four weeks without any money is driving people to desperate measures including a reliance on food banks".

The report suggests: "With some 874,000 adverse decisions being made between October 2012 and September 2013, and over 146,000 of them being successfully appealed or reconsidered it is clear that the possibility of wrongly applied sanctions, and what their effects might be, is an important one. With some estimates suggesting that 43% of those referred to food banks are there due to benefit stoppage or being refused a crisis loan, it is clear that there is not currently an adequate safety net for those who are wrongly sanctioned".

The report comes as a public health specialist, Professor Elizabeth Dowler of Warwick University, said that poverty–stricken families who cannot afford to buy sufficient food are overtaking unhealthy eating as the most pressing public health concern.

The claim is made in a BBC Panorama documentary broadcast on Monday evening, which found that over a third of local authorities in England and Wales were providing funding for food banks, despite government claims that charity food is not a part of the social security system. "Food banks are an inadequate plaster over a gaping wound," Dowler said.

On Sunday, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, repeated his criticisms of the welfare system, saying that "some of the priests who are right there on the ground say it comes across as punitive". He revealed that he was bringing a group of priests together to discuss the evidence, and welcomed the inquiry into food banks being chaired by the archbishop of Truro and Frank Field.

Policy Exchange suggests issuing first-time offenders, who may or may not have been fairly sanctioned, with a 'yellow card' in the form of a benefits card. It says this would be a more compassionate way of trying to help people back into work.

Benefits would be accessed via this card for a maximum of eight weeks. If the claimant continues to breach job search conditions, the card and benefits would be taken away. This system would provide a safety net, mitigating hardship while a sanction is appealed, forcing claimants to re-engage with Jobcentre staff and deterring non-compliance through the added inconvenience of daily sign on.

They would also be asked to sign on daily as part of a proposal to create a more compassionate but stricter sanctions regime.

It suggests that repeat offenders should be punished more seriously.

The report also recommends more stringent penalties for people who consistently break the terms of their job search requirements. According to the research, between October 2012 and September 2013 there were 30,000 claimants on their third sanction or more for lower tier offences such as missing an interview with a Jobcentre adviser. Repeat offenders should have their benefits taken away for a longer period of time from 13 to 26 weeks for a third breach. For each offence, a further 13 weeks should be added.

Monday's Panorama also uncovers evidence that a jobcentre appears to be explicitly alerting its staff to the financial savings to be made through "sanctioning" job seekers when they are judged to have broken benefit conditions.

A wall chart in a Grantham jobcentre explicitly sets out the cash savings available to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) through stopping the benefits of claimants, ranging from £227.20 a week for a four-week sanction to £3,728 for a sanction lasting one year.The DWP told Panorama: "This was an isolated incident and does not reflect our policy on sanctions."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/03/70000-job-seekers-benefits-withdrawn-unfairly-thinktank

That will be people who didn't go like the blind man who couldn't read the letter etc.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:39 pm

I'm told that you have also Sassy are you and Drinky soul mates?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:46 pm

Dont give a shit who he is, a two faced tw*t by any other name would look just as cretinous.

as for the threads joke player coalbunker....funny that you know...we never hear of these tax fraudsters being hunted down and caught...., not the big boys anyway...its always the one man band who is hammered...the corporations and multi millon earners always get away....

as to whats wrong with removing ineligible people from the welfare system...Nothing...nothing at all...what IS very very wrong is the fact that 70,000 were "removed" WRONGLY

NOW have you got that....these people were NOT ineligible...they were wrongly targeted, in some cases deliberately to meet "targets" and the R/W bastards cheer about it and try to deflect from the unpalatable truth.

"F*ck you jack I'm alright" comes to mind...

NOW has the thick, braindead and oxygen thieving R/W GOT THAT ....not ineligible folks being deprived wrongly, but 70,000 genuine claimants.....NOT media hype but from the R/W think tank.....

you shits disgust me....

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:51 pm

victorismyhero wrote:Dont give a shit who he is, a two faced tw*t by any other name would look just as cretinous.

as for the threads joke player coalbunker....funny that you know...we never hear of these tax fraudsters being hunted down and caught...., not the big boys anyway...its always the one man band who is hammered...the corporations and multi millon earners always get away....

as to whats wrong with removing ineligible people from the welfare system...Nothing...nothing at all...what IS very very wrong is the fact that 70,000 were "removed" WRONGLY

NOW have you got that....these people were NOT ineligible...they were wrongly targeted, in some cases deliberately to meet "targets" and the R/W bastards cheer about it and try to deflect from the unpalatable truth.

"F*ck you jack I'm alright" comes to mind...

NOW has the thick, braindead and oxygen thieving R/W GOT THAT ....not ineligible folks being deprived wrongly, but 70,000 genuine claimants.....NOT media hype but from the R/W think tank.....

you shits disgust me....

Really so do you left wing arseholes who want to fuck the workers and reward the shirkers. Like many RWERS I support the workers not constantly bleat about the hundreds of thousands fraudsters.

If we followed you people we would be completely bankrupt and the genuinely claimants would have nowhere to go.

We are bust pal and paying for benefits on borrowed money.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:59 pm

coalbunker wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:Dont give a shit who he is, a two faced tw*t by any other name would look just as cretinous.

as for the threads joke player coalbunker....funny that you know...we never hear of these tax fraudsters being hunted down and caught...., not the big boys anyway...its always the one man band who is hammered...the corporations and multi millon earners always get away....

as to whats wrong with removing ineligible people from the welfare system...Nothing...nothing at all...what IS very very wrong is the fact that 70,000 were "removed" WRONGLY

NOW have you got that....these people were NOT ineligible...they were wrongly targeted, in some cases deliberately to meet "targets" and the R/W bastards cheer about it and try to deflect from the unpalatable truth.

"F*ck you jack I'm alright" comes to mind...

NOW has the thick, braindead and oxygen thieving R/W GOT THAT ....not ineligible folks being deprived wrongly, but 70,000 genuine claimants.....NOT media hype but from the R/W think tank.....

you shits disgust me....

Really so do you left wing arseholes who want to fuck the workers and reward the shirkers. Like many RWERS I support the workers not constantly bleat about the hundreds of thousands fraudsters.

If we followed you people we would be completely bankrupt and the genuinely claimants would have nowhere to go.

We are bust pal and paying for benefits on borrowed money.

what a mindless blustering joker you are...just like a coalbunker......empty.......

you just cannot bear to answer the problem can you....

your R/W hatred of anyone less fortunate is never so clear as in these "debates". Again and again you refuse to man up and see the truth...thus it must be that you consider 70,000 GENUINE people left with no support as a good price to pay for your pogrom on benefits....

cowards again...why dont you say what your REALLY want...why not admit you would love to see all benefits removed and folks starve...after all...its nothing to you

Not to mention the number of deaths these policies have CAUSED....

Blood on your hands.......

you see thers the difference between you and me....i dont mind the removal of the dead wood from the system, however I think 70,000 GENUINE CLAIMANTS left destitute is too great a price.
You, lacking any decent humanity clearly dont......

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:02 pm

coalbunker wrote:I'm told that you have also Sassy are you and Drinky soul mates?

Bless you darling, don't believe everything those kind of people tell you. I'm much sharper than they will ever be, even in the middle of treatment.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:03 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
coalbunker wrote:

Really so do you left wing arseholes who want to fuck the workers and reward the shirkers. Like many RWERS I support the workers not constantly bleat about the hundreds of thousands fraudsters.

If we followed you people we would be completely bankrupt and the genuinely claimants would have nowhere to go.

We are bust pal and paying for benefits on borrowed money.

what a mindless blustering joker you are...just like a coalbunker......empty.......

you just cannot bear to answer the problem can you....

your R/W hatred of anyone less fortunate is never so clear as in these "debates". Again and again you refuse to man up and see the truth...thus it must be that you consider 70,000 GENUINE people left with no support as a good price to pay for your pogrom on benefits....

cowards again...why dont you say what your REALLY want...why not admit you would love to see all benefits removed and folks starve...after all...its nothing to you

Not to mention the number of deaths these policies have CAUSED....

Blood on your hands.......

you see thers the difference between you and me....i dont mind the removal of the dead wood from the system, however I think 70,000 GENUINE CLAIMANTS left destitute is too great a price.
You, lacking any decent humanity clearly dont......

And so say all of us. Disgusting people with an agenda to get rid (by any means) those they consider to be beneath them. Line the bastards up and shoot them.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:05 pm

Bloody hell, Coalbunker isn't Drinky as well is he, didn't he used to say his Dad was a miner?

lol!

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:07 pm

There are those on here and other forums which act like imperious workhouse owners, declaring anyone without a job to either find one or be pissed upon. They never realise that some people cannot work for health reasons or are trying desperately to find work within their chosen field of expertise. Why should a Chartered Surveyor give up all those years of training to work in McDonald's. Would they expect a Solicitor or Doctor to do this.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:09 pm

Croissant wrote:There are those on here and other forums which act like imperious workhouse owners, declaring anyone without a job to either find one or be pissed upon. They never realise that some people cannot work for health reasons or are trying desperately to find work within their chosen field of expertise. Why should a Chartered Surveyor give up all those years of training to work in McDonald's. Would they expect a Solicitor or Doctor to do this.

Of course they wouldn't Keith, a doctor or a lawyer would be 'one of them' and treated accordingly.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:09 pm

Sassy wrote:Bloody hell, Coalbunker isn't Drinky as well is he, didn't he used to say his Dad was a miner?

I used this ID as a play on Debunker not coal miner Sassy. I see, I'm right wing another banning in the offing. Have you no linits to your quest to ban any voices not repeating your own?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:10 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
coalbunker wrote:

Really so do you left wing arseholes who want to fuck the workers and reward the shirkers. Like many RWERS I support the workers not constantly bleat about the hundreds of thousands fraudsters.

If we followed you people we would be completely bankrupt and the genuinely claimants would have nowhere to go.

We are bust pal and paying for benefits on borrowed money.

what a mindless blustering joker you are...just like a coalbunker......empty.......

you just cannot bear to answer the problem can you....

your R/W hatred of anyone less fortunate is never so clear as in these "debates". Again and again you refuse to man up and see the truth...thus it must be that you consider 70,000 GENUINE people left with no support as a good price to pay for your pogrom on benefits....

cowards again...why dont you say what your REALLY want...why not admit you would love to see all benefits removed and folks starve...after all...its nothing to you

Not to mention the number of deaths these policies have CAUSED....

Blood on your hands.......

you see thers the difference between you and me....i dont mind the removal of the dead wood from the system, however I think 70,000 GENUINE CLAIMANTS left destitute is too great a price.
You, lacking any decent humanity clearly dont......

Oh for goodness sake, for weeks without JSA is hardly being left destitute for life now is it, the reality is this is a momentarily loss of support of which it does not state if any are solely dependent on this money to survive, when many people are living with others who have money to support them. Again it is a usual guilt ridden piece of garbage used to give some on the left a rallying cry. Again is it wrong to stop people getting JSA if they have other support if they failed to commit to finding employment?
No, the reality is here is it wrong to do nothing if people do nothing to help to get back into employment?

This again is an absurd claim by the Guardian seeking to absolve any wrongs that was a reality as it was 6 years ago, that there are people out there that were in financial difficulty, many their own making. Why is it constantly Victor you ignore the fact countless do not fail to get by with little, others do not do what is required to look for work, you take a choice section as if it is a means to spout off your babble to attack the Government which is utter bullshit.

The fact is again you ignore far more people in employment those on the least wages are paying less in Tax, less people claiming benefits, it is only those on the upper levels that have had a cap placed onto them, which then has you and others scream like banshee's over some injustice, when the reality is if more food banks had been available under Labour vastly more would have used them, because far more people were out of work in their last years and far more were getting less on the lower wages, which is why none of this bullshit claimed by the Guardian constantly adds up. The reality is millions out there are in debt because they are in the main solely irresponsible for being poor with their money and live way beyond their means. The reality is a need would have been more apparent before when far more were unemployed and those on the lowest incomes worse off. There is no real evidence linking this to welfare change except those with a sad attempt to make one so ignoring countless factors, it is the same bullshit pedal over and over again.

So 70,000 lost a couple of hundred quid, someone break out a violin

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:11 pm

Four weeks.... so where does the food come from? The costs involved with looking for and applying for work?

Then there's the bills.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:11 pm

I'm not saying there aren't real cases by the hundreds of thousands but I am saying there was fraud on a grand scale.

The left do fuck all about it and simply place more burdens on the productive taxpayers.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:14 pm

When you go into a Job centre nobody helps you find work, there is very little real advice available and you come out feeling dirty and guilty.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:14 pm

coalbunker wrote:
Sassy wrote:Bloody hell, Coalbunker isn't Drinky as well is he, didn't he used to say his Dad was a miner?

I used this ID as a play on Debunker not coal miner Sassy. I see, I'm right wing another banning in the offing. Have you no linits to your quest to ban any voices not repeating your own?

Why would I want to ban you? And the only one that says things like that is Drinky. You carry on, you're showing yourself to be as much of a tosser as they are. It's great fun.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:15 pm

Croissant wrote:Four weeks.... so where does the food come from? The costs involved with looking for and applying for work?

Then there's the bills.

Again Keith how many were solely reliant on this money to feed themselves?
How many live with parents, partners etc, who have incomes that can support them?

Again the article is neglecting of these facts, showing how something can be easily distorted to make something out far worse than it actually is

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:16 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

what a mindless blustering joker you are...just like a coalbunker......empty.......

you just cannot bear to answer the problem can you....

your R/W hatred of anyone less fortunate is never so clear as in these "debates". Again and again you refuse to man up and see the truth...thus it must be that you consider 70,000 GENUINE people left with no support as a good price to pay for your pogrom on benefits....

cowards again...why dont you say what your REALLY want...why not admit you would love to see all benefits removed and folks starve...after all...its nothing to you

Not to mention the number of deaths these policies have CAUSED....

Blood on your hands.......

you see thers the difference between you and me....i dont mind the removal of the dead wood from the system, however I think 70,000 GENUINE CLAIMANTS left destitute is too great a price.
You, lacking any decent humanity clearly dont......

Oh for goodness sake, for weeks without JSA is hardly being left destitute for life now is it, the reality is this is a momentarily loss of support of which it does not state if any are solely dependent on this money to survive, when many people are living with others who have money to support them. Again it is a usual guilt ridden piece of garbage used to give some on the left a rallying cry. Again is it wrong to stop people getting JSA if they have other support if they failed to commit to finding employment?
No, the reality is here is it wrong to do nothing if people do nothing to help to get back into employment?

This again is an absurd claim by the Guardian seeking to absolve any wrongs that was a reality as it was 6 years ago, that there are people out there that were in financial difficulty, many their own making. Why is it constantly Victor you ignore the fact countless do not fail to get by with little, others do not do what is required to look for work, you take a choice section as if it is a means to spout off your babble to attack the Government which is utter bullshit.

The fact is again you ignore far more people in employment those on the least wages are paying less in Tax, less people claiming benefits, it is only those on the upper levels that have had a cap placed onto them, which then has you and others scream like banshee's over some injustice, when the reality is if more food banks had been available under Labour vastly more would have used them, because far more people were out of work in their last years and far more were getting less on the lower wages, which is why none of this bullshit claimed by the Guardian constantly adds up. The reality is millions out there are in debt because they are in the main solely irresponsible for being poor with their money and live way beyond their means. The reality is a need would have been more apparent before when far more were unemployed and those on the lowest incomes worse off. There is no real evidence linking this to welfare change except those with a sad attempt to make one so ignoring countless factors, it is the same bullshit pedal over and over again.

So 70,000 lost a couple of hundred quid, someone break out a violin

Oh my bloody God!!!!!! So you don't give a flying fuck if there are people out there who, because of a mistake by someone else, can't eat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:22 pm

Sassy wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Oh for goodness sake, for weeks without JSA is hardly being left destitute for life now is it, the reality is this is a momentarily loss of support of which it does not state if any are solely dependent on this money to survive, when many people are living with others who have money to support them. Again it is a usual guilt ridden piece of garbage used to give some on the left a rallying cry. Again is it wrong to stop people getting JSA if they have other support if they failed to commit to finding employment?
No, the reality is here is it wrong to do nothing if people do nothing to help to get back into employment?

This again is an absurd claim by the Guardian seeking to absolve any wrongs that was a reality as it was 6 years ago, that there are people out there that were in financial difficulty, many their own making. Why is it constantly Victor you ignore the fact countless do not fail to get by with little, others do not do what is required to look for work, you take a choice section as if it is a means to spout off your babble to attack the Government which is utter bullshit.

The fact is again you ignore far more people in employment those on the least wages are paying less in Tax, less people claiming benefits, it is only those on the upper levels that have had a cap placed onto them, which then has you and others scream like banshee's over some injustice, when the reality is if more food banks had been available under Labour vastly more would have used them, because far more people were out of work in their last years and far more were getting less on the lower wages, which is why none of this bullshit claimed by the Guardian constantly adds up. The reality is millions out there are in debt because they are in the main solely irresponsible for being poor with their money and live way beyond their means. The reality is a need would have been more apparent before when far more were unemployed and those on the lowest incomes worse off. There is no real evidence linking this to welfare change except those with a sad attempt to make one so ignoring countless factors, it is the same bullshit pedal over and over again.

So 70,000 lost a couple of hundred quid, someone break out a violin

Oh my bloody God!!!!!! So you don't give a flying fuck if there are people out there who, because of a mistake by someone else, can't eat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again read what I said, the reality is how many here were reliant on JSA to survive, think this point over again? Yes 4 weeks without £72 a week
Again how many live with parents, partners ect, who have incomes, they lost 4 weeks, yet never saw countless stories in the press of people claiming they were going without food because their money was stopped, does this point not also make you realise it is an easy way to distort a picture of the true reality, in that did it really affect people that badly. I have no doubt some may have been affected, but again how hard is it to apply for a certain amount of jobs in 2 weeks?

Hardly anything, again this article by the guardian is an utter joke, ignoring again the fact why is it with more people in employment, those on the least wages, have less tax to pay, with no viable wage increase for 10 years, how now suddenly people are worse off when it is the top levels of benefits that have changed?
Again this shows alot of what is being claimed is utter bull, what the reality is then is other factors, or that people have been this bad off for years, mainly again because so many are utterly hopeless with their money

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:33 pm

It's quite pointless, even when it's proved it is done incorrectly, and cause people to be so hungry they have to use food banks, you'd still excuse it. Aren't you lucky you have never been in that position.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:42 pm

BULLSHIT didge...utter head in your own anal orifice bullshit....

If someone is on JSA they dont have enough to "save" anything to provide for any eventuality...let alone 4 weeks WITHOUT anything, MANY dont have "relatives they can depend on...and in any case, since they had done nothing wrong...I.E they were WRONGLY sanctioned......why should they have to?

warped priorities of the R/W and especially the R/W liberalist.... hit the poorest, but let the moneyed masters cheat all they want....
We see this all the time...thread after thread bashing the unfortunate, but nothing from the R/W even critisising
the moneyed tax cheats that cost this country FAR more than benefits do.,,,COWARDS.

I recon didge must be a tax cheating euro commissar with his snout deep in the tough, given his rabid defense of the EU, and his failure despite claiming an intellect the size of a planet, to see that the tax cheats are the real problem.....

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:43 pm

Sassy wrote:It's quite pointless, even when it's proved it is done incorrectly, and cause people to be so hungry they have to use food banks, you'd still excuse it. Aren't you lucky you have never been in that position.

What has been proved, that the reality does not add up, because if food banks had been available in the last years of Labour far more would have used them, because far more were worse off, because far more were unemployed, those on the lowest wages pain more in taxes etc again.

That is the reality, so why now, the reality is people now as they were then are in the main crap with money, others though on less incomes are not yet as always people try to excuse those who are poor. Yes there are genuine people that need help, but all this blame culture on the benefits does not add up, being as it is the higher amounts that are capped, not the lowest amounts being less.

Again the claims just do not make sense, and more likely is that food banks would have been needed as much if not more in the last years under Labour

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:46 pm

victorismyhero wrote:BULLSHIT didge...utter head in your own anal orifice bullshit....
No debate, personal babble sputed

If someone is on JSA they dont have enough to "save" anything to provide for any eventuality...let alone 4 weeks WITHOUT anything, MANY dont have "relatives they can depend on...and in any case, since they had done nothing wrong...I.E they were WRONGLY sanctioned......why should they have to?
Take a very dim you do of people who need JSA, for example, if they are only on this and no other benefits, they clearly live with others who have income, because if not they would be on other benefits, and yes people can save on such low incomes, so you are just talking shite

warped priorities of the R/W and especially the R/W liberalist.... hit the poorest, but let the moneyed masters cheat all they want....
More babble
We see this all the time...thread after thread bashing the unfortunate, but nothing from the R/W even critisising
More babble
the moneyed tax cheats that cost this country FAR more than benefits do.,,,COWARDS.
more babble

I recon didge must be a tax cheating euro commissar with his snout deep in the tough, given his rabid defense of the EU, and his failure despite claiming an intellect the size of a planet, to see that the tax cheats are the real problem.....

more woeful insults and cannot counter my points, what a child

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:54 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:It's quite pointless, even when it's proved it is done incorrectly, and cause people to be so hungry they have to use food banks, you'd still excuse it. Aren't you lucky you have never been in that position.

What has been proved, that the reality does not add up, because if food banks had been available in the last years of Labour far more would have used them, because far more were worse off, because far more were unemployed, those on the lowest wages pain more in taxes etc again.

That is the reality, so why now, the reality is people now as they were then are in the main crap with money, others though on less incomes are not yet as always people try to excuse those who are poor. Yes there are genuine people that need help, but all this blame culture on the benefits does not add up, being as it is the higher amounts that are capped, not the lowest amounts being less.

Again the claims just do not make sense, and more likely is that food banks would have been needed as much if not more in the last years under Labour

OP:

70,000 job seekers' benefits withdrawn unfairly, says thinktank
Right-of-centre Policy Exchange says people who break job search conditions for first time face unnecessary hardship

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:55 pm

Yes the think tank thinks that, I have just pointed out and countered showing how flawed their thinking is, try debating for yourself, as I read that at the beginning

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:57 pm

FGS!

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:58 pm

No that is not a counter either

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:01 pm

Didge, I wouldn't dream of countering you, it would be pointless, you are locked in your own little unemphatic world without a clue about how people have to live. And are quite happy for people to suffer because of the mistakes of others just because of your political leanings. There is no counter for that, just sadness that someone could be that cold and unfeeling.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:03 pm

Sassy wrote:Didge, I wouldn't dream of countering you, it would be pointless, you are locked in your own little unemphatic world without a clue about how people have to live. And are quite happy for people to suffer because of the mistakes of others just because of your political leanings. There is no counter for that, just sadness that someone could be that cold and unfeeling.

That is not a counter again, but a poor excuse not to

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:07 pm

Didge the Labour party didn't lift a finger to get people of benefits it suited them to keep them dependent on the state Whether they were really needy doesn't matter. The fact that people on modest incomes pay taxes to keep fraudsters is unimportant. That my friend speaks volumes about the integrity of the lefty argument.

There answer is tax the productive to keep the voting booths full of dependents.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:10 pm

Now, I wonder when the architect is going to draw up plans for the Workhouses?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:11 pm

coalbunker wrote:Didge the Labour party didn't lift a finger to get people of benefits it suited them to keep them dependent on the state Whether they were really needy doesn't matter. The fact that people on modest incomes pay taxes to keep fraudsters is unimportant. That my friend speaks volumes about the integrity of the lefty argument.

There answer is tax the productive to keep the voting booths full of dependents.

Agreed very much so, they left a culture after 13 years, that it was better off for people to claim than to work.
That will take years to fix

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:13 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Croissant wrote:Four weeks.... so where does the food come from? The costs involved with looking for and applying for work?

Then there's the bills.

Again Keith how many were solely reliant on this money to feed themselves?
How many live with parents, partners etc, who have incomes that can support them?

Again the article is neglecting of these facts, showing how something can be easily distorted to make something out far worse than it actually is

Very few.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:14 pm

Also, why pay for insurance cover if there is no cover?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:15 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
coalbunker wrote:Didge the Labour party didn't lift a finger to get people of benefits it suited them to keep them dependent on the state Whether they were really needy doesn't matter. The fact that people on modest incomes pay taxes to keep fraudsters is unimportant. That my friend speaks volumes about the integrity of the lefty argument.

There answer is tax the productive to keep the voting booths full of dependents.

Agreed very much so, they left a culture after 13 years, that it was better off for people to claim than to work.
That will take years to fix

Maybe so, but penalising those caught in that trap is not the way, surely?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:17 pm

Of course...tackling the real problem is not to your taste is it cowards......Sort the tax fraudsters out first...
But then maggie left a greed is good culture behind dindnt she, and now we are reaping the "benefits"...wholesale tax fraud and obscene bonuses.....

AND stick your fingers in your ears if you like didge...but folks are beginning to see through you R/W and in particular the liberalists both R and L wing.....

you have No idea of the real world, none whatsoever..and spare me the faux life history.....

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:19 pm

NemsAgain wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Agreed very much so, they left a culture after 13 years, that it was better off for people to claim than to work.
That will take years to fix

Maybe so, but penalising those caught in that trap is not the way, surely?

How do you though eradicate the problem Nems?

Again to me there are genuine people that need support and they are clubbed in wrongly with those who for years did not want to lift a finger and get by off others working, something had to give and why many in this country backed the idea of capping the limit of benefits

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:23 pm

victorismyhero wrote:Of course...tackling the real problem is not to your taste is it cowards......Sort the tax fraudsters out first...
But then maggie left a greed is good culture behind dindnt she, and now we are reaping the "benefits"...wholesale tax fraud and obscene bonuses.....

AND stick your fingers in your ears if you like didge...but folks are beginning to see through you R/W and in particular the liberalists both R and L wing.....

you have No idea of the real world, none whatsoever..and spare me the faux life history.....

Sorry again you never addressed a single point I made and now again are rambling about even older past events.

I am easily more the realist out of the pair of us, because I back what I say with facts, you go off poor claims, you ignore so many factors or choose to ignore them, you seek never to blame individuals themselves for their own failings, to you it is always Governments, that is poor and not being realistic at all, yes sometimes Governments are to blame and also fuck up, but the real reality is that many people in this day and age are clueless when it comes to money and will strive to obtain material objects over what is really important, food on their plates

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:25 pm

Can those that are refused benefit get their insurance contribution back?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:26 pm

Mind you..... did you hear about the bloke that found a job via the job centre, it was at a factory making fire hydrants. He had to turn it down because he couldn't get parked.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:28 pm

Croissant wrote:Mind you..... did you hear about the bloke that found a job via the job centre, it was at a factory making fire hydrants. He had to turn it down because he couldn't get parked.

Not bad keith

lol!

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:42 pm

More drivel "blaming the poor for being poor", and STILL no condemnation of the REAL problem in this country's finances....The TAX FRAUDSTERS.....but then again , you cant really criticise the ones you doff your cap to can you.....

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:46 pm

victorismyhero wrote:More drivel "blaming the poor for being poor", and STILL no condemnation of the REAL problem in this country's finances....The TAX FRAUDSTERS.....but then again , you cant really criticise the ones you doff your cap to can you.....

Thank you for proving my point, as who spoke of the poor, I am talking about many people being clueless with money, there are poor people very good with money so again you are not a realist and jump to poor conclusions, because you are so bent up with hate

Again in this country alone millions are in debate through poor money management, plenty on good incomes also, something you seem to neglect, all it is to you is point scoring on Political parties, which is woeful to say the least, you never look at the bigger picture and root cause of problems, but live in some mythical world away from reality

What about tax fraudsters? They are a massive problem, but we are not taking about that, though happy to agree with you they need resolving but this will only be really achieved through global consensus, again showing you lack the reality of the problem

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:47 pm

Its a convenient and unproveable fiction this nonsense that the poor are somehow to blame for their condition, convenient, disingenious and fraudulent. Based on false ideas obtained from blinkered observation and selective reasoning.

take didges favourite....because "some" seem to cope on low wages or next to non existant benefits, ALL should...because of course in his warped estimation, EVERYONE IS THE SAME and has IDENTICAL situations...

this is the faux reality of the liberalist...we are all clones...identical in all ways...if if we are not then they will damn well try to make sure we become so. L/W or R/W the liberalist is nothing of the sort...

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:47 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:More drivel "blaming the poor for being poor", and STILL no condemnation of the REAL problem in this country's finances....The TAX FRAUDSTERS.....but then again , you cant really criticise the ones you doff your cap to can you.....

Thank you for proving my point, as who spoke of the poor, I am talking about many people being clueless with money, there are poor people very good with money so again you are not a realist and jump to poor conclusions, because you are so bent up with hate

Again in this country alone millions are in debate through poor money management, plenty on good incomes also, something you seem to neglect, all it is to you is point scoring on Political parties, which is woeful to say the least, you never look at the bigger picture and root cause of problems, but live in some mythical world away from reality

What about tax fraudsters? They are a massive problem, but we are not taking about that, though happy to agree with you they need resolving but this will only be really achieved through global consensus, again showing you lack the reality of the problem

For Victor to read again as he clearly cannot read

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:49 pm

Didge, you have to have money to be able to manage it.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:49 pm

Back to the victorian age, the poor and the 'deserving' poor. Them that complained being no longer 'deserving'.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:54 pm

Sassy wrote:Back to the victorian age, the poor and the 'deserving' poor. Them that complained being no longer 'deserving'.

Same guilt argument, I do not want to see anyone poor, but your argument has no validity, under the last Labour Government in the last years, no wages were really rising, vastly more were unemployed, people on the lowest incomes worse off, you ignore these points and then claim now it is a travesty, when it was still as much a travesty people were bad off, if not worse off then.
Thus you make absurd claims to now and not before when the reality is more were worse off after the recession, which makes your claims contradicting, as what was done for the poor then, they got the same benefits on many things except the higher cap that is now in place

So again your argument is very hypocritical, with ignoring the one major problem we have in this country is that we have a culture of many people living beyond their means because they are tempted to buy anything to make themselves feel good, it is like a virus and keeps sucking away at their money and never satisfies that need

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:56 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:More drivel "blaming the poor for being poor", and STILL no condemnation of the REAL problem in this country's finances....The TAX FRAUDSTERS.....but then again , you cant really criticise the ones you doff your cap to can you.....

Thank you for proving my point, as who spoke of the poor, I am talking about many people being clueless with money, there are poor people very good with money so again you are not a realist and jump to poor conclusions, because you are so bent up with hate

Again in this country alone millions are in debate through poor money management, plenty on good incomes also, something you seem to neglect, all it is to you is point scoring on Political parties, which is woeful to say the least, you never look at the bigger picture and root cause of problems, but live in some mythical world away from reality

What about tax fraudsters? They are a massive problem, but we are not taking about that, though happy to agree with you they need resolving but this will only be really achieved through global consensus, again showing you lack the reality of the problem

rubbish...

there was recently the issue of starbucks and amazon i think...who ended up only paying a minute amount of what they really owed....when they could have easily been made to pay it all...they were "let off" lightly...

as to needing global consensus...this is the retreat and excuse of the moneyed few....
ONE LAW......whats made here pays tax here.....in full and on time ...or else....no relief for intracompany loans and other "loopholes"
Tax the money as it goes through the till.....THEN pay them back ONLY on legit business expense.....as decided by the revenue.
as for personal money...again...whats made here gets taxed here....NO "hideaways" no "avoidance"........

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:59 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Thank you for proving my point, as who spoke of the poor, I am talking about many people being clueless with money, there are poor people very good with money so again you are not a realist and jump to poor conclusions, because you are so bent up with hate

Again in this country alone millions are in debate through poor money management, plenty on good incomes also, something you seem to neglect, all it is to you is point scoring on Political parties, which is woeful to say the least, you never look at the bigger picture and root cause of problems, but live in some mythical world away from reality

What about tax fraudsters? They are a massive problem, but we are not taking about that, though happy to agree with you they need resolving but this will only be really achieved through global consensus, again showing you lack the reality of the problem

rubbish...
yes your arguments normally are

there was recently the issue of starbucks and amazon i think...who ended up only paying a minute amount of what they really owed....when they could have easily been made to pay it all...they were "let off" lightly...

as to needing global consensus...this is the retreat and excuse of the moneyed few....
ONE LAW......whats made here pays tax here.....in full and on time ...or else....no relief for intracompany loans and other "loopholes"
Tax the money as it goes through the till.....THEN pay them back ONLY on legit business expense.....as decided by the revenue.
as for personal money...again...whats made here gets taxed here....NO "hideaways" no "avoidance"........

What a daft belief, you will only obtain making head way on tax fraud when globally all nations are in agreement and stop all the loop holes, it is that simple, I am shocked even you cannot figure that out, but then again you do not live in the world of reality . How do you enforce the above if corporate companies are not here and even if you try to they move on or use other companies?
Thus you have not the first clue, you need consensus throughout to enforce companies to cough up

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:00 pm

So Didge, when you are out of work and your savings are declared to highlight your great money management - you get no benefit anyway.

by Sponsored content