Councils sit on £67m in emergency help for poor

First topic message reminder :

Councils sit on £67m in emergency help for poor
Record numbers of families have pleas for help rejected even though councils in England are failing to spend allocated cash

A fledgling scheme to provide emergency help to the poorest in the country is in chaos, with £67m left unspent and record numbers of families being turned away.

Figures released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests indicate that by the end of January councils in England were sitting on £67m of the £136m that had been allocated to local welfare schemes. Half of local authorities had spent less than 40% of their funds.

An analysis by the Guardian shows that under the new local welfare assistance schemes, four in 10 applications for emergency funds are turned down, despite evidence that many applicants have been made penniless by benefits sanctions and delays in processing benefit claims. Under the previous system – the social fund – just two in 10 were. In some parts of the country, as few as one in 10 applicants obtain crisis help.

The schemes were designed to help low-income families in crisis, such as those in danger of becoming homeless or subjected to domestic violence. Charities and MPs have warned that those denied help are turning to food banks and loan sharks.

Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, which offers debt and legal advice, said the emergency financial support system was in chaos. "When the safety net fails, people are left with no way of putting food on the table, paying the rent or keeping the lights on. Confusion over what help is available and who to approach means that people who need support are left high and dry.

"People are in danger of being pushed into the arms of payday lenders and loan sharks by the chaotic emergency support system. Citizens Advice bureaux see people in desperate need of support who have nowhere else to turn when jobcentres and the local council don't give out support."

Under the new system, emergency funds are no longer ringfenced, meaning that councils can divert unspent cash to other budgets. Local welfare assistance schemes were created a year ago in 150 English authorities, alongside national schemes in Wales and Scotland, following the abolition of the social fund.

Most schemes do not offer cash or loans, but support in kind, such as food parcels and supermarket vouchers. The social fund provided loans repayable against future benefit payments – typically about £50 – and larger capital grants to destitute families who needed help to furnish flats or replace broken domestic appliances.

Despite charities reporting that demand for help has rocketed as a result of economic hardship and welfare cuts, some councils spent more money setting up and administering their welfare schemes than they gave to needy applicants.

Councils told the Guardian they had provided less in emergency funding than in the past because there was a lack of public awareness of the new system. Some had failed to advertise their schemes, while others set such tight eligibility criteria that many applicants – typically including low-paid working families, benefit claimants and those deemed to have not lived in their local area for long enough – were turned away.

Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, who has repeatedly raised the issue of local welfare in parliament, said his constituents frequently reported struggles to get crisis help. Constituents he has helped include:

• A low-wage family with three children, including an 11-month-old baby, who applied for £35 to pay for gas, electricity and baby food to help them until payday. The council scheme initially referred the family to a food bank. After lobbying by Danczuk, they were given £20 for energy costs, but were refused money for baby food.

• A pregnant mother and her partner, who after benefit changes were left with £7 a week for food after rent and council tax. They were told that they could not apply as the scheme was for "genuine emergencies" such as fires and flood.

In each case Danczuk believes the families would have qualified for emergency support under the social fund. "Central and local government are pushing people into the hands of payday loan companies and food banks. They have in effect privatised the lender of last resort," he said.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, which funds local welfare schemes run by 150 local authorities across England, said: "In contrast to a centralised grant system that was poorly targeted, councils can now choose how best to support those most in need. It is for local councils to decide how they spend their budgets."

But a Conservative council leader has called on the government to reinstate local welfare assistance funding, calling it a "cut too far". Louise Goldsmith, leader of West Sussex county council, said the proposed cut would leave many low income families without vital support when they were going through a "tough patch in their lives".

A briefing note prepared by the council found that 43% of 5,582 individuals and families helped by the local welfare fund to the end of February had applied because they had been left penniless by benefit sanctions and delays.

The Local Government Association has called upon the ministers to reverse the cut, and it is understood a number of councils and welfare charities are preparing to seek a judicial review of the government's decision to cut local welfare assistance funding in April 2015.

Many councils are using part of their welfare assistance allocation to provide financial support for local food banks, which provide penniless applicants with charity food parcels.

Lady Stowell, a local government minister, told the House of Lords in January that local authorities were "doing a good job of supporting people in times of crisis and are doing it without using all the funding that has been provided so far from DWP". But Centrepoint, the homelessness charity said that local welfare assistance underspending meant many homeless youngsters could not get vital support when they moved from hostels into independent living. "Councils need to start using these funds to address urgent need now and ensure that young people have access to it," said Seyi Obakin, Centrepoint's chief executive.Two local authorities – Labour-run Nottinghamshire county council and Tory-run Oxfordshire – have scrapped local welfare assistance altogether and plan to divert the money into social care services..

Conservative-run Herefordshire had county council spent less than £5,000 of its annual £377,000 allocation by the end of December last year, equivalent to 1% of its local welfare budget.It said its spending reflected low demand for crisis help, a claim disputed by Hereford Citizens Advice and Hereford food bank, which said they had been inundated with requests.

Labour-run Islington council had spent 80% of its emergency funds budget by the end of December last year and had spent all its emergency funds by April. It said it had encouraged its frontline staff to refer individuals to its local welfare scheme to ensure they got crisis help and assistance with any underlying problems, such as debt.

Local authorities are anticipating further problems over local welfare in 2015 when the DWP scraps funding for the schemes. Councils, charities and MPs have called on the government to restore and ringfence the crisis support allocation.

Councils say that in some cases they have refused emergency help because benefit claimants have been wrongly referred to local authority welfare schemes by jobcentres. Some councils have refused to accept applications from those who ought to have been offered a short-term benefit advance from their local jobcentre.

Scotland and Wales have their own welfare assistance schemes and these have higher applicant success rates than in England. In Northern Ireland, which still has the social fund, 70% of applicants received help.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/20/emergency-welfare-scheme-local-councils

It's a complete mess and makes lives worse for the most vunerable.

eddie wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

  

It's amazing what you can glean from a thread about emergency funds harves   

This from someone who has never been backward in coming forward and will talk about anything lol

eddie wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

  

It's amazing what you can glean from a thread about emergency funds harves   

Not as amazing as how long it will take to get the images out of your head

Sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

It's amazing what you can glean from a thread about emergency funds harves   

This from someone who has never been backward in coming forward and will talk about anything lol

Yep,that's true. Can't argue with that   

Nems wrote:

eddie wrote:

It's amazing what you can glean from a thread about emergency funds harves   

Not as amazing as how long it will take to get the images out of your head

That's why I'm still up,and doing this   

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:

This from someone who has never been backward in coming forward and will talk about anything lol

Yep,that's true. Can't argue with that   

LOL!!!!!!

I just read all this thread, in the hope it may help my neighbours. Thats 7 minutes of my life I won't be getting back then   

BUT at the risk of being jumped on, I do think Rags has a good point. Why do people who can't afford them have so many kids? And dont you get child benefit or something for each child anyway, so why are they so hard up?

harvesmom wrote:I just read all this thread, in the hope it may help my neighbours. Thats 7 minutes of my life I won't be getting back then   

BUT at the risk of being jumped on, I do think Rags has a good point. Why do people who can't afford them have so many kids? And dont you get child benefit or something for each child anyway, so why are they so hard up?

Fair point harves but what about families who have had kids while earning a decent wage and then a few years later get let go or the company goes bust? Not their fault is it? Very different from those already on benefits long term and then demand the council gives them a bigger house.

Cass wrote:

harvesmom wrote:I just read all this thread, in the hope it may help my neighbours. Thats 7 minutes of my life I won't be getting back then   

BUT at the risk of being jumped on, I do think Rags has a good point. Why do people who can't afford them have so many kids? And dont you get child benefit or something for each child anyway, so why are they so hard up?

Fair point harves but what about families who have had kids while earning a decent wage and then a few years later get let go or the company goes bust? Not their fault is it? Very different from those already on benefits long term and then demand the council gives them a bigger house.

I agree Cass, I was referring really to those who make a career out of having children, it seems to me now that a very large percentage of this country leave school and work out how fast they can get pregnant, get a council house, benefits etc. When I left school it was very different, we all did anything we could to get jobs. Now it seems the work ethic has gone and its how fast they can claim benefits.

I would never begrudge someone who has temporarily fallen on hard times any help at all, don't get me wrong.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I have no sympathy for idiots.

Isn't it idiotic to have an affair with a married man, or was that just a rumour?  ::D:: 

I was going to leave this alone but it bothered me a lot!
WTF?????

Why in gods name did you say this? Fine rags doesn't like me but this is way out of order. If you don't like what she is saying fine , rebute the post but there is no way you should have said this. Unsubstantiated rumor at best but it is no ones fucking business.

This is yet another example of dragging in crap from other forums and dragging this place down.

EVERYBODY JUST STOP IT

Harves I agree totally. Sorry am too pissed off to participate more tonight.

Nite all xx

Cass wrote:Harves I agree totally. Sorry am too pissed off to participate more tonight.

Nite all xx

No worries Cass, Night x

http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2013/oct/01/councils-sell-artworks

...They all have priceless artwork that sits in vaults gathering dust....It should be sold off and shared IMO.

...You would have to ask where some of this art was stolen from tbf.

Joy Division wrote:

Nems wrote:

Come off it JD is Rags just supposed to sit and take it?
No mention of Sassys original comment about affairs from you I notice!

..and I'm gonna tell you why Nems....

Rags has caused nothing but aggro since arriving here, some on the right will choose not to see that, but in absolute  truth,Rags been deliberately picking fights, lying and encouraging certain members to back her up.

This is not because oh how she spoke of my lad with Autism, but because you stopped to a totally new low when you were mocking Sassy's condition.

Rags, I'm only telling the truth and I think you know that anyway, but if you make even a bit of effort, most or all others will too, there are easier ways to get on, even with minor bickering going on as well as chat and debate.

Suppose I'm all the bastards   now eh?, maybe I always was?  

You're usually the one starting false rumours about me. It's probably your posts that Sassy has read, so if you and her keep lying about my private life, you'll get some comments back.

Sassy wrote:Well, as I've seen post after post about her having an affair with a married man JD, I asked if the rumour was true.   Because if she didn't, fine, if she did, she has no right to judge anyone else's sex life.

You didn't see any posts from me saying that. Even if it was true, it's nothing to do with people having children they can't afford. You just wanted to be nasty for the sake of it.

What I don't get is why people who are on a decent wage don't save as much money as they can for the future. We read stories about people losing their jobs and being broke. Well if they had saved up a bit each month whilst they had the well-paying job they would have something to fall back on. They should at least save enough so they have enough for a few months whilst they sort out benefits.

It's not like being made redundant is unusual these days, so why don't people think about the possibility of that happening in advance?

Raggamuffin wrote:What I don't get is why people who are on a decent wage don't save as much money as they can for the future. We read stories about people losing their jobs and being broke. Well if they had saved up a bit each month whilst they had the well-paying job they would have something to fall back on. They should at least save enough so they have enough for a few months whilst they sort out benefits.

It's not like being made redundant is unusual these days, so why don't people think about the possibility of that happening in advance?

Lots of people don't save because they either can't afford to or they're busy spending it on shite.
Yep it's true. I'm guilty of it too! We all buy stuff we don't need and can't sell ie garden flowers and plants - which, let's face it, are an expensive luxury and can't be sold, and they die! - and then we wonder why we are skint at the end of the month.

Some people are better than others with money, my OH is a saver and I'm a spender.

Most people though, live way above their means.

Another point I want to pick up on, which someone mentioned, is that girls who have babies do NOT automatically get a council flat - that is an outdated fallacy. It wasn't especially the case 20 years ago and it's even less so now.
All council waiting lists work on a points system and having a baby doesn't qualify you, necessarily for housing.

Some people need a reality check on what can happen to people who fall on hard times through no fault of their own. They should go and watch a BBC drama called Cathy Come Home - it shocked the nation at the time and it's on it's way back under this lot in power. Here's a clip - watch it

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What I don't get is why people who are on a decent wage don't save as much money as they can for the future. We read stories about people losing their jobs and being broke. Well if they had saved up a bit each month whilst they had the well-paying job they would have something to fall back on. They should at least save enough so they have enough for a few months whilst they sort out benefits.

It's not like being made redundant is unusual these days, so why don't people think about the possibility of that happening in advance?

Lots of people don't save because they either can't afford to or they're busy spending it on shite.
Yep it's true. I'm guilty of it too! We all buy stuff we don't need and can't sell ie garden flowers and plants - which, let's face it, are an expensive luxury and can't be sold, and they die! - and then we wonder why we are skint at the end of the month.

Some people are better than others with money, my OH is a saver and I'm a spender.

Most people though, live way above their means.

Another point I want to pick up on, which someone mentioned, is that girls who have babies do NOT automatically get a council flat - that is an outdated fallacy. It wasn't especially the case 20 years ago and it's even less so now.
All council waiting lists work on a points system and having a baby doesn't qualify you, necessarily for housing.

There was a suggestion that this low-paid family had once earned more money, had three children, and then fell on harder times. The point is that they could have saved during the well-paid time.

As for not being able to afford to save, well anyone can save a little bit - as you said, if they just stopped buying all this stuff they don't need they could surely save something. I don't get why people seem to think that once they have some money, they'll always have it. What happened to piggy banks?   

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Lots of people don't save because they either can't afford to or they're busy spending it on shite.
Yep it's true. I'm guilty of it too! We all buy stuff we don't need and can't sell ie garden flowers and plants - which, let's face it, are an expensive luxury and can't be sold, and they die! - and then we wonder why we are skint at the end of the month.

Some people are better than others with money, my OH is a saver and I'm a spender.

Most people though, live way above their means.

Another point I want to pick up on, which someone mentioned, is that girls who have babies do NOT automatically get a council flat - that is an outdated fallacy. It wasn't especially the case 20 years ago and it's even less so now.
All council waiting lists work on a points system and having a baby doesn't qualify you, necessarily for housing.

There was a suggestion that this low-paid family had once earned more money, had three children, and then fell on harder times. The point is that they could have saved during the well-paid time.

As for not being able to afford to save, well anyone can save a little bit - as you said, if they just stopped buying all this stuff they don't need they could surely save something. I don't get why people seem to think that once they have some money, they'll always have it. What happened to piggy banks?   

Most families with kids either can't save much or can't save save full stop Rags, unless one parent is on very good wages, or both a decent wage, as far as single parents go..they would have to be on an excellent wage in order to afford them to save..

I don't think you have kids Rages do you?

Irn Bru wrote:Some people need a reality check on what can happen to people who fall on hard times through no fault of their own. They should go and watch a BBC drama called Cathy Come Home - it shocked the nation at the time and it's on it's way back under this lot in power. Here's a clip - watch it

That horrible Irn, and I think your most correct in that we are returning to those times, with halfwits in the mix encouraging this coalition government to turn on benefit claimants and label them all as scroungers.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:Well, as I've seen post after post about her having an affair with a married man JD, I asked if the rumour was true.   Because if she didn't, fine, if she did, she has no right to judge anyone else's sex life.

You didn't see any posts from me saying that. Even if it was true, it's nothing to do with people having children they can't afford. You just wanted to be nasty for the sake of it.

That's a cracker coming from you after what you said last night.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There was a suggestion that this low-paid family had once earned more money, had three children, and then fell on harder times. The point is that they could have saved during the well-paid time.

As for not being able to afford to save, well anyone can save a little bit - as you said, if they just stopped buying all this stuff they don't need they could surely save something. I don't get why people seem to think that once they have some money, they'll always have it. What happened to piggy banks?   

Most families with kids  either can't save much or can't save save full stop Rags, unless one parent is on very good wages, or both  a decent wage, as far as single parents go..they would have to be on an excellent wage in order to afford them to save..

I don't think you have kids Rages do you?

Nonsense. Anyone can save a bit - just by not buying kids stuff they don't actually need. If they can only manage from one pay day to the next, perhaps they should think about whether they can afford another kid or not. If they don't save anything, it's their own fault that they didn't think ahead.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You didn't see any posts from me saying that. Even if it was true, it's nothing to do with people having children they can't afford. You just wanted to be nasty for the sake of it.

That's a cracker coming from you after what you said last night.

Ask yourself who started it though - your mate Sassy. Where did she hear these rumours anyway? I'd like to see these posts which claim I'm having an affair with a married man. If they exist, I have no doubt that they were made by you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Most families with kids  either can't save much or can't save save full stop Rags, unless one parent is on very good wages, or both  a decent wage, as far as single parents go..they would have to be on an excellent wage in order to afford them to save..

I don't think you have kids Rages do you?

Nonsense. Anyone can save a bit - just by not buying kids stuff they don't actually need. If they can only manage from one pay day to the next, perhaps they should think about whether they can afford another kid or not. If they don't save anything, it's their own fault that they didn't think ahead.

You really should think why so many lat day lenders have popped up, as well as Pawn shops...that should , that alone should set off alarms and speaks a lot of today's economy where wages are low, services cut to the core and moral is at an all time low with those already struggling on benefits are being made to feel like scroungers ,moon top of that this coalitions constants picking on the poorest every time a budget comes around...

Let's get them oot.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

That's a cracker coming from you after what you said last night.

Ask yourself who started it though - your mate Sassy. Where did she hear these rumours anyway? I'd like to see these posts which claim I'm having an affair with a married man. If they exist, I have no doubt that they were made by you.

Yes, let's ask who started the vile rumours that I molested kids, amd who encouraged it too elsewhere.

And that who picks on children with autism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Most families with kids  either can't save much or can't save save full stop Rags, unless one parent is on very good wages, or both  a decent wage, as far as single parents go..they would have to be on an excellent wage in order to afford them to save..

I don't think you have kids Rages do you?

Nonsense. Anyone can save a bit - just by not buying kids stuff they don't actually need. If they can only manage from one pay day to the next, perhaps they should think about whether they can afford another kid or not. If they don't save anything, it's their own fault that they didn't think ahead.

Yes, let's never get our kids a wee treat occasionally,,,fgs Rags, listen to what your saying, but there sadly are many who can't even afford to get their kids the odd treat...treating them occasionally is part of their childhood, just as is the tooth fairy, Christmas, birthdays , playing games etc etc...
Sadly many kids don't even get Christmas prezzies as their parents are too poor to buy any wether working or not...these are the parents who use the services of foodbanks.,,

You don't have kids do you?, so how the hell can you possibly grasp a parents finances or experiences of parenthood?

Your just another ridiculous RW yob who jumps in with both feet and dictates to others how they should live their life and what they should and should not be able to afford.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nonsense. Anyone can save a bit - just by not buying kids stuff they don't actually need. If they can only manage from one pay day to the next, perhaps they should think about whether they can afford another kid or not. If they don't save anything, it's their own fault that they didn't think ahead.

You really should think why so many lat day lenders have popped up, as well as Pawn shops...that should , that alone should set off alarms and speaks a lot of today's economy where wages are low, services cut  to the core and moral is at an all time low with those already struggling on benefits are being made to feel like scroungers ,moon top of that this coalitions constants picking on the poorest every time a budget comes around...

Let's get them oot.

Well if people have stuff to pawn, they either bought it or they inherited it. The fact is that people don't think enough about the future, and they don't save for it. They just spend what they have at the time.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nonsense. Anyone can save a bit - just by not buying kids stuff they don't actually need. If they can only manage from one pay day to the next, perhaps they should think about whether they can afford another kid or not. If they don't save anything, it's their own fault that they didn't think ahead.

Yes, let's never get our kids a wee treat occasionally,,,fgs Rags, listen to what your saying, but there sadly are many who can't even afford to get their kids the odd treat...treating them occasionally is part of their childhood, just as is the tooth fairy, Christmas, birthdays , playing games etc etc...
Sadly many kids don't even get Christmas prezzies as their parents are too poor to buy any wether working or not...these are the parents who use the services of foodbanks.,,

You don't have kids do you?, so how the hell can you possibly grasp a parents finances or experiences of parenthood?

Your just another ridiculous RW yob who jumps in with both feet and dictates to others how they should live their life and what they should and should not be able to afford.

A "wee treat" occasionally doesn't need to consist of anything other than a few sweets from time to time.

I don't care how they live their lives, but when they whinge and want public money because they didn't save anything or they had children they couldn't afford, then it's my business.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Yes, let's never get our kids a wee treat occasionally,,,fgs Rags, listen to what your saying, but there sadly are many who can't even afford to get their kids the odd treat...treating them occasionally is part of their childhood, just as is the tooth fairy, Christmas, birthdays , playing games etc etc...
Sadly many kids don't even get Christmas prezzies as their parents are too poor to buy any wether working or not...these are the parents who use the services of foodbanks.,,

You don't have kids do you?, so how the hell can you possibly grasp a parents finances or experiences of parenthood?

Your just another ridiculous RW yob who jumps in with both feet and dictates to others how they should live their life and what they should and should not be able to afford.

A "wee treat" occasionally doesn't need to consist of anything other than a few sweets from time to time.

I don't care how they live their lives, but when they whinge and want public money because they didn't save anything or they had children they couldn't afford, then it's my business.

How the hell would anyone be able to raise say , three kids on unemloyment benefit and child allowance and be able to save money?...

As your so sure if this , surely no doubt you will have a figure in mind of how much they can save each week then Rags?..

And what about Christmas time?, a little more than a few sweets is needed there...

Please don't tell me parents on unemployment benefits should have have saved up a few hundred pound from their unemloyment benefit before Christmas?


Pic times not bad enough to be labeled as scroungers , the right wing are now dictating to the unemployed on how to libe their lives!!

This is going back to the dark ages indeed.

Cue BA with the restraints and guide book any second now!

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A "wee treat" occasionally doesn't need to consist of anything other than a few sweets from time to time.

I don't care how they live their lives, but when they whinge and want public money because they didn't save anything or they had children they couldn't afford, then it's my business.

How the hell would anyone be able to raise say , three kids on unemloyment benefit and child allowance and be able to save money?...

As your so sure if this , surely no doubt you will have a figure in mind of how much they can save each week then Rags?..

Well then they shouldn't have had three children if they were on benefits. What I'm saying is that if they had a good income previously, they should have saved money then.

Joy Division wrote:And what about Christmas time?, a little more than a few sweets is needed there...

Please don't tell me parents on unemployment benefits should have have saved up a few hundred pound from their unemloyment benefit before Christmas?


Pic times not bad enough to be labeled as scroungers , the right wing are now dictating to the unemployed on how to libe their lives!!

This is going back to the dark ages indeed.

Cue BA with the restraints and guide book any second now!

Actually, nothing is needed at Christmas, unless you take the view that you must buy what others are buying. People are silly about money at Christmas.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:And what about Christmas time?, a little more than a few sweets is needed there...

Please don't tell me parents on unemployment benefits should have have saved up a few hundred pound from their unemloyment benefit before Christmas?


Pic times not bad enough to be labeled as scroungers , the right wing are now dictating to the unemployed on how to libe their lives!!

This is going back to the dark ages indeed.

Cue BA with the restraints and guide book any second now!

Actually, nothing is needed at Christmas, unless you take the view that you must buy what others are buying. People are silly about money at Christmas.

Yes some are, but you are not speaking for the majority there Rags.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Actually, nothing is needed at Christmas, unless you take the view that you must buy what others are buying. People are silly about money at Christmas.

Yes some are, but you are not speaking for the majority there Rags.

Surely you accept though that most people assume they need money for Christmas - for presents, mince pies, decorations, etc, and that this has become almost a "rule" of society. It's not a law though, and people are free to decide for themselves what they can afford, if anything.

I think people should rethink all this stuff - start on the basis that they have nothing, and then decide what is absolutely essential and go from there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

Yes some are, but you are not speaking for the majority there Rags.

Surely you accept though that most people assume they need money for Christmas - for presents, mince pies, decorations, etc, and that this has become almost a "rule" of society. It's not a law though, and people are free to decide for themselves what they can afford, if anything.

I think people should rethink all this stuff - start on the basis that they have nothing, and then decide what is absolutely essential and go from there.

But that's just it...why should low paid people who work all the hours they can and those children whose parents are on unemployment benefit through no fault of their own go without Christmas presents or even food and warmth?

Too much judgement and not enough compassion.Or frankly,realism.

People can get pregnant using contraception.People can be in full time employment and then get made redundant.people are not always responsible for the knocks life dishes out to them.To claim otherwise is is simply inaccurate.

People should not be starving and even more importantly,their children should not go hungry in a so called 'civilised' society. It is basic human compassion I am taking about.

Which the Tories seem keen to prove that they are not capable of feeling.
What a shower they are.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Surely you accept though that most people assume they need money for Christmas - for presents, mince pies, decorations, etc, and that this has become almost a "rule" of society. It's not a law though, and people are free to decide for themselves what they can afford, if anything.

I think people should rethink all this stuff - start on the basis that they have nothing, and then decide what is absolutely essential and go from there.

But that's just it...why should low paid people who work all the hours they can and those children whose parents are on unemployment benefit through no fault of their own go without Christmas presents or even food and warmth?

Why should they go without Christmas present? Because they can't afford them, that's why.

Life isn't about having what others have, it's about what you can afford yourself. Sure, there are rich people who don't seem to make much effort, and it might seem unfair, but it's how it is. It's not a question of "fault", it's a question of being responsible for your own spending, and looking over your shoulder at what others have doesn't help at all.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


But that's just it...why should low paid people who work all the hours they can and those children whose parents are on unemployment benefit through no fault of their own go without Christmas presents or even food and warmth?

Why should they go without Christmas present? Because they can't afford them, that's why.

Life isn't about having what others have, it's about what you can afford yourself. Sure, there are rich people who don't seem to make much effort, and it might seem unfair, but it's how it is. It's not a question of "fault", it's a question of being responsible for your own spending, and looking over your shoulder at what others have doesn't help at all.

I really don't think life is worth living if it to be a joyless thing merely to be endured.

Children will want presents at christmas,even if its only a few small things.It is not realistic to expect children to have absolutely nothing at all for christmas.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why should they go without Christmas present? Because they can't afford them, that's why.

Life isn't about having what others have, it's about what you can afford yourself. Sure, there are rich people who don't seem to make much effort, and it might seem unfair, but it's how it is. It's not a question of "fault", it's a question of being responsible for your own spending, and looking over your shoulder at what others have doesn't help at all.

I really don't think life is worth living if it to be a joyless thing merely to be endured.

Children will want presents at christmas,even if its only a few small things.It is not realistic to expect children to have absolutely nothing at all for christmas.

Do you actually want to converse with me? It's just that you didn't yesterday.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..and I'm gonna tell you why Nems....

Rags has caused nothing but aggro since arriving here, some on the right will choose not to see that, but in absolute  truth,Rags been deliberately picking fights, lying and encouraging certain members to back her up.

This is not because oh how she spoke of my lad with Autism, but because you stopped to a totally new low when you were mocking Sassy's condition.

Rags, I'm only telling the truth and I think you know that anyway, but if you make even a bit of effort, most or all others will too, there are easier ways to get on, even with minor bickering going on as well as chat and debate.

Suppose I'm all the bastards   now eh?, maybe I always was?  

You're usually the one starting false rumours about me. It's probably your posts that Sassy has read, so if you and her keep lying about my private life, you'll get some comments back.

There have been no lies about your private life!

You bring it all on yourself through your antics, it's all self induced IMO!   

I have absolutely no problem with people who have children and unexpectedly find themselves out of a job or in tough times. I don't have a problem with people who unexpectedly fall pregnant when contraception fails. That is what the benefit system is there for.

What I do have an issue with is people who plan to have babies who are on benefits and can't afford to support them.  There are many working parents who would love more children but simply can't afford to have them due to childcare costs, meeting their every day needs in terms of clothes, food etc.

Why would you bring another life into the world if you couldn't afford to support them and provide a decent upbringing?  The only reasons I can think of are selfish tbh  

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're usually the one starting false rumours about me. It's probably your posts that Sassy has read, so if you and her keep lying about my private life, you'll get some comments back.

There have been no lies about your private life!

You bring it all on yourself through your antics, it's all self induced IMO!   

Yes there have - unless you can prove they're not lies.

Your "mental illness" is all self-induced. You sit there doing nothing except ranting about "gayness" and abusing people who aren't gay. You don't need to go out to work because you get money from the tax payers and you order everything online. Of course you can go out when you want to, so that's all bullshit about anxiety.

When you get this inheritance, I have no doubt that your concern for "poor" people will go out of the window.

feelthelove wrote:I have absolutely no problem with people who have children and unexpectedly find themselves out of a job or in tough times. I don't have a problem with people who unexpectedly fall pregnant when contraception fails. That is what the benefit system is there for.

What I do have an issue with is people who plan to have babies who are on benefits and can't afford to support them.  There are many working parents who would love more children but simply can't afford to have them due to childcare costs, meeting their every day needs in terms of clothes, food etc.

Why would you bring another life into the world if you couldn't afford to support them and provide a decent upbringing?  The only reasons I can think of are selfish tbh  

I don't know why people are "unexpectedly" out of a job though. Surely everyone knows by now that hardly any jobs are guaranteed to be safe these days.

Raggamuffin wrote:

feelthelove wrote:I have absolutely no problem with people who have children and unexpectedly find themselves out of a job or in tough times. I don't have a problem with people who unexpectedly fall pregnant when contraception fails. That is what the benefit system is there for.

What I do have an issue with is people who plan to have babies who are on benefits and can't afford to support them.  There are many working parents who would love more children but simply can't afford to have them due to childcare costs, meeting their every day needs in terms of clothes, food etc.

Why would you bring another life into the world if you couldn't afford to support them and provide a decent upbringing?  The only reasons I can think of are selfish tbh  

I don't know why people are "unexpectedly" out of a job though. Surely everyone knows by now that hardly any jobs are guaranteed to be safe these days.

True Raggamuffin but then no one would ever have children would they?