Scrounger

First topic message reminder :

5th May 2014

Some people say this is a typical scrounger.

This thread is for the benefit of our foreign posters who don't understand our English use of the word scrounger - it doesn't mean all people on benefits - read below to understand it better.

Partying in rowdy bars, downing shots and pints of beer and gleefully clutching a bottle of pink champagne ... these are the holiday snaps of White Dee, one of the stars of controversial TV show Benefits Street.

Dee, whose real name is Deirdre Kelly, claims to be too depressed to go to work and lives off benefits as a result.

Yet here she is living the life of a party girl on an all-expenses-paid, mid-week trip to Magaluf in Majorca.

The mother of two was invited on the four-day holiday by another of her agent’s clients, an American singer.

She was seen drinking a £500 bottle of Moet and lounging around at a private pool party before going on a bar crawl, where she downed copious amounts of alcohol.





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620144/Benefits-Street-star-White-Dee-state-handouts-depressed-knocks-shots-beer-day-party-holiday.html#ixzz30qNI3zHr

Nems wrote:White Dee is a scrounger. Thats why the programme focussed on her, a genuine person would not have fitted with their programme brief.

She is, people like her make me crazy.  If people like White Dee didn't exist the term scrounger wouldn't exist and neither would the belief held by many that vast numbers of people cheat the system.

Anyone who has suffered from clinical depression knows that going on a holiday is an impossibility.  Getting out of bed, answering the phone/door, stepping outside your front door, those are the day to day challenges   

It doesn't matter if the activity you face is your wildest dream you just can't do it.  Even if you want to in your mind your body just won't allow it  

feelthelove wrote:

Nems wrote:White Dee is a scrounger. Thats why the programme focussed on her, a genuine person would not have fitted with their programme brief.

She is, people like her make me crazy.  If people like White Dee didn't exist the term scrounger wouldn't exist and neither would the belief held by many that vast numbers of people cheat the system.

Anyone who has suffered from clinical depression knows that going on a holiday is an impossibility.  Getting out of bed, answering the phone/door, stepping outside your front door, those are the day to day challenges   

It doesn't matter if the activity you face is your wildest dream you just can't do it.  Even if you want to in your mind your body just won't allow it  

Exactly, that is why programmes like that benefit street are so damaging

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I have been on benefits since I was made medically redundant in 2006 JD.

Contribution based benefits stop after 12 months - I am on income based which last as long as the illness - things like Multiple sclerosis or HIV can severely impact on a persons ability without always shortening life expectancy.  Fibromyalgia is recognized as such a condition.

Unfortunately I do not stoop over the computer - I am led 3/4 horizontal the majority of the time I am using it.  My typing rate is not fast enough and I am not accurate enough to work as data entry.  Employers in general are unwilling to provide a work station where I can lie down.

Since being transferred to ESA I have been working with a specialist employment advisor at the job centre who knows far more about me than you do - and together we have been looking at multiple avenues.  Unfortunately the jobs I have applied for I have not for various reasons got.

Now perhaps you can explain to me and the other readers of this forum why is so important to you than I do turn out to be a fraud.

Well then Sphinx...maybe this will give you and idea on how others feel who you slate and label..along with that bunch of clowns almost everyday on here.

But 8 years  and no success with a job...perhaps you should go the old school route and  actually approach employers directly Sphinx?...

It all sounds too easy with your ESA advisor by rubbishing jobs and just accepting knock backs from others.

You once said something to the effect of ...those who do some line of work should not be on benefits for more than a year.

..I'm not picking on you Sphinx, but what I'm doing is mirroring your views on unemployed and/or people with a disability who can work...anyway,  8 years and no job?...come on Sphinx, you even said before there is work if people just look.

I'm sorry, but 8 years is a kong time, and had that been someone on the benefits street or someone LW, you would be screaming that from the rooftops.

JD you would sound far more impressive if you had actually been reading what I had been writing and if your criticisms had relevance to what I have been writing. As it is you sound like like a whining idiot who cannot be deflected from some private cause no matter what is actually relevant.

Do you think I do not approach employers direct? I am not a complete dumb ass and seeing as in the past I have managed to get and keep work while others are loosing jobs and finding nothing you can rest assured I do have an idea of what I am about.

If you think ESA advisors are easy (or even if you think I am easy) try meeting some. The jobs I can go for are few and far between and it would benefit nobody if I went for something I could not do - I do not apply for HGV jobs because I do not have an HGV licence and if I lied I would be found out the first day. That applies to the vast majority of jobs.

If you remember from my previous posts in stating about people with disabilities working I have always quantified that by stating that the way forward is for the government to require employers to give work to the disabled the same as they did when the welfare state started up.

As for time 8 years is no time at all - as unfortunately your lad will find out when he reaches adulthood. Some things do not get better. Some things do not improve. I have tried and continue to try to improve - I do not succeed as much as I wish.

Of course you could tell me to accept the inevitable, that I am not going to get better to any significant degree, and that I should give up trying to get better so I can get a job. However I am not going to do so and even if I did do you think my inability to improve is going to in anyway make me more sympathetic towards those who can improve but who dont bother trying?

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Because people who inherit money deserve it, while people who inherit no money didn't deserve any?

No No No.

People who inherit money get it from someone (however far down the line it is) who worked and provided a service to earn the money which they paid tax on - and which tax has been paid on each and every time it is inherited by someone new.  The person who earned the money had a say in what it was used for by leaving it to someone when they died.

People who get money from benefits are getting their money from the taxes others pay on money they or their ancestors earned.  The person or people who earned the money have no say in what it is used for - it is taken from them and used without input from them.

...what makes you so superior to these people in receipt of housing and other benefits Sphinx?, you get them as well, others pay taxes to keep you , we don't have a choice about that...but I don't grudge it, it's what unemployment benefits are for and so many on here now just feel the need to keep casting it up and trying to make those who have landed on bad times , feel terrible about it.

..and the thing is ..they pretend never to have been in benefits ...or if they were, it was only for a ' wee while' .


B'ahhs ...I can see right through the wee whores!

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No No No.

People who inherit money get it from someone (however far down the line it is) who worked and provided a service to earn the money which they paid tax on - and which tax has been paid on each and every time it is inherited by someone new.  The person who earned the money had a say in what it was used for by leaving it to someone when they died.

People who get money from benefits are getting their money from the taxes others pay on money they or their ancestors earned.  The person or people who earned the money have no say in what it is used for - it is taken from them and used without input from them.

...what makes you so superior to these people in receipt of housing and other benefits Sphinx?, you get them as well, others pay taxes to keep you , we don't have a choice about that...but I don't grudge it, it's what unemployment benefits are for and so many on here now just feel the need to keep casting it up and trying to make those who have landed on bad times , feel terrible about it.

..and the thing is ..they pretend never to have been in benefits ...or if they were, it was only for a ' wee while' .


B'ahhs ...I can see right through the wee whores!

So JD you believe that white Dee is genuinely a sufferer of crippling depression and is totally incapable of work and deserves every penny she gets?

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


...what makes you so superior to these people in receipt of housing and other benefits Sphinx?, you get them as well, others pay taxes to keep you , we don't have a choice about that...but I don't grudge it, it's what unemployment benefits are for and so many on here now just feel the need to keep casting it up and trying to make those who have landed on bad times , feel terrible about it.

..and the thing is ..they pretend never to have been in benefits ...or if they were, it was only for a ' wee while' .


B'ahhs ...I can see right through the wee whores!

So JD you believe that white Dee is genuinely a sufferer of crippling depression and is totally incapable of work and deserves every penny she gets?

...I never said that Sphinx, I think she probably should be on JSA, but then again, none of us should judge by one photo of her Sphinx,for heavens sake...

Thought you were against others making unproven claims Sphinx?

Nems wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

She is, people like her make me crazy.  If people like White Dee didn't exist the term scrounger wouldn't exist and neither would the belief held by many that vast numbers of people cheat the system.

Anyone who has suffered from clinical depression knows that going on a holiday is an impossibility.  Getting out of bed, answering the phone/door, stepping outside your front door, those are the day to day challenges   

It doesn't matter if the activity you face is your wildest dream you just can't do it.  Even if you want to in your mind your body just won't allow it  

Exactly, that is why programmes like that benefit street are so damaging

As are the people who claim benefits they are not entitled to   

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So JD you believe that white Dee is genuinely a sufferer of crippling depression and is totally incapable of work and deserves every penny she gets?

...I never said that Sphinx, I think she probably should be on JSA, but then again, none of is should judge by one photo of her Sphinx,moor heavens sake...

Thought you were against others making unproven claims Sphinx?

I have not judged it off of one photo JD - I have judged it the same as everyone else from her appearances on benefits street and several pictures at different times (even not watching benefits street you cannot escape the details of her behaviour)

So you think she should probably be on JSA just like I do but apparently you are allowed to come to that conclusion and I am not.

If you read back my issue with her from the start has been the pain her antics are going to be causing those affected genuinely by depression whether suffering it themselves or having a close friend/relative affected.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No No No.

People who inherit money get it from someone (however far down the line it is) who worked and provided a service to earn the money which they paid tax on - and which tax has been paid on each and every time it is inherited by someone new.  The person who earned the money had a say in what it was used for by leaving it to someone when they died.

People who get money from benefits are getting their money from the taxes others pay on money they or their ancestors earned.  The person or people who earned the money have no say in what it is used for - it is taken from them and used without input from them.

...what makes you so superior to these people in receipt of housing and other benefits Sphinx?, you get them as well, others pay taxes to keep you , we don't have a choice about that...but I don't grudge it, it's what unemployment benefits are for and so many on here now just feel the need to keep casting it up and trying to make those who have landed on bad times , feel terrible about it.

..and the thing is ..they pretend never to have been in benefits ...or if they were, it was only for a ' wee while' .


B'ahhs ...I can see right through the wee whores!

I am assuming you work JD? From your comments? With your disability and all?

And what 'wee whores' exactly are you referring to?

harvesmom wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


...what makes you so superior to these people in receipt of housing and other benefits Sphinx?, you get them as well, others pay taxes to keep you , we don't have a choice about that...but I don't grudge it, it's what unemployment benefits are for and so many on here now just feel the need to keep casting it up and trying to make those who have landed on bad times , feel terrible about it.

..and the thing is ..they pretend never to have been in benefits ...or if they were, it was only for a ' wee while' .


B'ahhs ...I can see right through the wee whores!

I am assuming you work JD? From your comments? With your disability and all?

And what 'wee whores' exactly are you referring to?

I do indeed from home HM..and those wee whores are the like of BA, shady and co...my pet name for them, don't worry, I've not given the women that title for obvious reasons, but that doesn't yeah there is not a small posse of them labelling and slating the unemployed here day after day.

Joy Division wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

I am assuming you work JD? From your comments? With your disability and all?

And what 'wee whores' exactly are you referring to?

I do indeed from home HM..and those wee whores are the like of BA, shady and co...my pet name for them, don't worry, I've not given the women that title for obvious reasons, but that doesn't yeah there is not a small posse of them labelling and slating the unemployed here day after day.

OK JD that's fair enough, but why are you having a go at Sphinx ? We both know her well enough to know that if she can work she will, I don't think its fair to have a go at people who are genuinely ill do you?

Catman

Joy Division wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

I am assuming you work JD? From your comments? With your disability and all?

And what 'wee whores' exactly are you referring to?

I do indeed from home HM..and those wee whores are the like of BA, shady and co...my pet name for them, don't worry, I've not given the women that title for obvious reasons, but that doesn't yeah there is not a small posse of them labelling and slating the unemployed here day after day.

I don't slate the unemployed day after day.So please stop lying.What I do do is point out the truth & you don't like it.

Try growing up as you sound like some 16 year old who's going through his rebelious phase & wants to change the world.

In terms of bigot my dear JD,you are right up there with them.

harvesmom wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


I do indeed from home HM..and those wee whores are the like of BA, shady and co...my pet name for them, don't worry, I've not given the women that title for obvious reasons, but that doesn't yeah there is not a small posse of them labelling and slating the unemployed here day after day.

OK JD that's fair enough, but why are you having a go at Sphinx ? We both know her well enough to know that if she can work she will, I don't think its fair to have a go at people who are genuinely ill do you?

..that's just my point though HM, Sphinx joins in labelling folk as scroungers and saying they are fit for work when she really does not know that by looking at a picture, whilst claiming benefits herself, it's double standards HM, and I only highlighted Sphinx's situation to let her see what she and others do with other people who are on benefits or have a disability, but Sphinx admits herself she can work.


Im just pointing out the stones and glass houses HM.

Shady wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


I do indeed from home HM..and those wee whores are the like of BA, shady and co...my pet name for them, don't worry, I've not given the women that title for obvious reasons, but that doesn't yeah there is not a small posse of them labelling and slating the unemployed here day after day.

I don't slate the unemployed day after day.So please stop lying.What I do do is point out the truth & you don't like it.

Try growing up as you sound like some 16 year old who's going through his rebelious phase & wants to change the world.

In terms of bigot my dear JD,you are right up there with them.

Ah right Shady, I see...so you don't scream about immigrants whenever you log on?,mor how good the racist party UKIP is?   

And of course you've never labelled the unemployed in general as feckless or scroungers?  

Joy Division wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

OK JD that's fair enough, but why are you having a go at Sphinx ? We both know her well enough to know that if she can work she will, I don't think its fair to have a go at people who are genuinely ill do you?

..that's just my point though HM, Sphinx joins in labelling folk as scroungers and saying they are fit for work when she really does not know that by looking at a picture, whilst claiming benefits herself, it's double standards HM, and I only highlighted Sphinx's situation to let her see what  she and others do with other people who are on benefits or have a disability, but Sphinx admits herself she can work.


Im just pointing out the stones and glass houses HM.

Lovely, but did you see the whole series, and the question time type debate that followed it? I know the series would just show the bad bits of course, that's why she was the star of it, but the debate was very interesting. As were the follow up interviews on breakfast TV, magazines etc, where she was 'herself'.

This woman almost challenges the great British public to say she's not ill, she is so false even an idiot can see that. She doesn't care what people think because she knows she is untouchable. I think Sphinx was coming from that angle, not from just one photo.

There is a line that has to be drawn JD between genuinely ill people who will work if they can and people like white Dee who abuse the system. Do you not see that?

harvesmom wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..that's just my point though HM, Sphinx joins in labelling folk as scroungers and saying they are fit for work when she really does not know that by looking at a picture, whilst claiming benefits herself, it's double standards HM, and I only highlighted Sphinx's situation to let her see what  she and others do with other people who are on benefits or have a disability, but Sphinx admits herself she can work.


Im just pointing out the stones and glass houses HM.

Lovely, but did you see the whole series, and the question time type debate that followed it? I know the series would just show the bad bits of course, that's why she was the star of it, but the debate was very interesting. As were the follow up interviews on breakfast TV, magazines etc, where she was 'herself'.

This woman almost challenges the great British public to say she's not ill, she is so false even an idiot can see that. She doesn't care what people think because she knows she is untouchable.  I think Sphinx was coming from that angle, not from just one photo.

There is a line that has to be drawn JD between genuinely ill people who will work if they can and people like white Dee who abuse the system. Do you not see that?

..I didn't watch the series HM, I saw just a tiny bit of the debate.

Of course it's wrong if people are playing the system..,and some are, someone can definitely have half decent days and smile now and again with depression though HM, I'm not in a position to tell if this woman is at it or not, as she is probably much different when the cameras go home, but I suppose she can be at it.

But I don't think any of us are qualified to judge her tbh, she may well have even been told to act a certain way to cause controversy ?

It's not just this lady Dee though HM, some on here are happy to post ridiculous thread attacking folk in general on benefits, saying they shouldn't be allowed holidays.,,shit like that, I just don't go for that, it's bully and belittling people HM, and I bet those who say such things most likely would not if they met the people in RL

Joy Division wrote:

Shady wrote:

I don't slate the unemployed day after day.So please stop lying.What I do do is point out the truth & you don't like it.

Try growing up as you sound like some 16 year old who's going through his rebelious phase & wants to change the world.

In terms of bigot my dear JD,you are right up there with them.

Ah right Shady, I see...so you don't scream about immigrants whenever you log on?,mor how good the racist party UKIP is?   

And of course you've never labelled the unemployed in general as feckless or scroungers?  

Don't put up a smoke screen about immigrants with me because it won't work.You said that I slate the unemployed here day after day.......Look at your own post.

I slag off those that don't deserve benefits whereas many a time I have defended those on benefits who need them.But you in your left wing paranoia ignored that.

Joy Division wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

Lovely, but did you see the whole series, and the question time type debate that followed it? I know the series would just show the bad bits of course, that's why she was the star of it, but the debate was very interesting. As were the follow up interviews on breakfast TV, magazines etc, where she was 'herself'.

This woman almost challenges the great British public to say she's not ill, she is so false even an idiot can see that. She doesn't care what people think because she knows she is untouchable.  I think Sphinx was coming from that angle, not from just one photo.

There is a line that has to be drawn JD between genuinely ill people who will work if they can and people like white Dee who abuse the system. Do you not see that?

..I didn't watch the series HM, I saw just a tiny bit of the debate.

Of course it's wrong if people are playing the system..,and some are, someone can definitely have half decent days and smile now and again with depression though HM, I'm not in a position to tell if this woman is at it or not, as she is probably much different when the cameras go home, but I suppose she can be at it.

But I don't think any of us are qualified to judge her tbh, she may well have even been told to act a certain way to cause controversy ?

It's not just this lady Dee though HM, some on here are happy to post ridiculous thread attacking folk in general on benefits, saying they shouldn't be allowed holidays.,,shit like that, I just don't go for that, it's bully and belittling people HM, and I bet those who say such things most likely would not if they met the people in RL

I don't think you are fully understanding the symptoms of depression JD. What people are trying to tell you is, if you are truly ill and someone says hey you won a million pounds, it wouldn't make any difference. Hence, White Dee being told to act in a certain way wouldn't have worked.

And I have to tell you, had I met White Dee on my way to work at 5am this morning, and yesterday morning, waving a 500 pound bottle of bubbly around I would most likely have smacked her one let alone told her I disagree with her lifestyle!

smelly_bandit wrote:Catman

What about him?   

Ben_Reilly wrote:People work depressed all the time, it just makes them really bad employees.

Just wondering, BA, if you could meet a typical benefits scrounger in a dark alley, just the two of you alone, and you could walk back out without anyone ever know what happened ... what would you do to them?

Maybe say hello, or good evening - you said it was a dark alley, so is it late?

Nothing more - everything i feel has actually been said by the English people, and our current Conservative government are attempting to address these issues against extreme opposition, as you would expect, from those taking from the system.

It doesn't matter what you say, people will fight hard and dirty to keep their lifestyles.

What i can do is point out the fraud and injustices to other people who have their heads buried in the sand.

harvesmom wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..I didn't watch the series HM, I saw just a tiny bit of the debate.

Of course it's wrong if people are playing the system..,and some are, someone can definitely have half decent days and smile now and again with depression though HM, I'm not in a position to tell if this woman is at it or not, as she is probably much different when the cameras go home, but I suppose she can be at it.

But I don't think any of us are qualified to judge her tbh, she may well have even been told to act a certain way to cause controversy ?

It's not just this lady Dee though HM, some on here are happy to post ridiculous thread attacking folk in general on benefits, saying they shouldn't be allowed holidays.,,shit like that, I just don't go for that, it's bully and belittling people HM, and I bet those who say such things most likely would not if they met the people in RL

I don't think you are fully understanding the symptoms of depression JD. What people are trying to tell you is, if you are truly ill and someone says hey you won a million pounds, it wouldn't make any difference. Hence, White Dee being told to act in a certain way wouldn't have worked.

And I have to tell you, had I met White Dee on my way to work at 5am this morning, and yesterday morning, waving a 500 pound bottle of bubbly around I would most likely have smacked her one let alone told her I disagree with her lifestyle!

...I've definitely got a bit of an idea HM, and if someone doesn't even bat an eyelid after winning a million pounds, then I would say that would be the sort who just couldn't lift their head in the morning...every morning and who would be so unable to function that they would probably also sleep most of the time and stare blankly and would certainly be the type to require care...

I'm sure there would be many depressed people who would react to winning a million pounds HM amd the level of depression one would need to have not to react to winning a million pounds is altogether something else..

Surely your not saying every depressed person would not react in any way to winning a million quid?...


I definitely know a bit about depression HM, but there are some one here who not long ago were mocking others for the medication they wee on to treat depression ....

Now if you would like to pull those up who mock depressed people then that would be a good start , but the truth is with some HM, they just like to pick on folk for being depressed by saying they are ' weak' for taking anti depressants...I'm just not for that,,,others trying to play doctor and pretending to know better, then when they see a photo of a woman on benefits in a more cheerful mood...they do the usual RW thing and jump on her like vultures...

We' re all different HM and we all have different coping strategies.

harvesmom wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..I didn't watch the series HM, I saw just a tiny bit of the debate.

Of course it's wrong if people are playing the system..,and some are, someone can definitely have half decent days and smile now and again with depression though HM, I'm not in a position to tell if this woman is at it or not, as she is probably much different when the cameras go home, but I suppose she can be at it.

But I don't think any of us are qualified to judge her tbh, she may well have even been told to act a certain way to cause controversy ?

It's not just this lady Dee though HM, some on here are happy to post ridiculous thread attacking folk in general on benefits, saying they shouldn't be allowed holidays.,,shit like that, I just don't go for that, it's bully and belittling people HM, and I bet those who say such things most likely would not if they met the people in RL

I don't think you are fully understanding the symptoms of depression JD. What people are trying to tell you is, if you are truly ill and someone says hey you won a million pounds, it wouldn't make any difference. Hence, White Dee being told to act in a certain way wouldn't have worked.

And I have to tell you, had I met White Dee on my way to work at 5am this morning, and yesterday morning, waving a 500 pound bottle of bubbly around I would most likely have smacked her one let alone told her I disagree with her lifestyle!

That's just not correct harvesmom.

So what's the solution to all this? No Government seems to able to do anything about it for fear of being accused of picking on the "poor". People are judged fit for work, and then the decision is overturned on appeal - sometimes rightly of course.

The only solution is for working people to rebel and object to their taxes being used in this manner. That's difficult for those on PAYE because they don't have much choice other than to choose a low paid job where they don't have to pay much tax. Those who are self employed can minimise their tax bills through expenses I suppose.

BigAndy9 wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

I don't think you are fully understanding the symptoms of depression JD. What people are trying to tell you is, if you are truly ill and someone says hey you won a million pounds, it wouldn't make any difference. Hence, White Dee being told to act in a certain way wouldn't have worked.

And I have to tell you, had I met White Dee on my way to work at 5am this morning, and yesterday morning, waving a 500 pound bottle of bubbly around I would most likely have smacked her one let alone told her I disagree with her lifestyle!

That's just not correct harvesmom.

I doubt that someone who is severely depressed would buy lottery tickets anyway. People don't seem to understand that clinical depression isn't about being miserable, it alters everything - and I don't think a lottery win would register with them. They wouldn't suddenly become well again and jump for joy.

Raggamuffin wrote:So what's the solution to all this? No Government seems to able to do anything about it for fear of being accused of picking on the "poor". People are judged fit for work, and then the decision is overturned on appeal - sometimes rightly of course.

The only solution is for working people to rebel and object to their taxes being used in this manner. That's difficult for those on PAYE because they don't have much choice other than to choose a low paid job where they don't have to pay much tax. Those who are self employed can minimise their tax bills through expenses I suppose.

Oh, they can, can they?

Shall we get JD in to confirm this?

JD, can you minimise the tax you pay by getting fuel receipts from your family and saying you incurred those costs? Or any other "canny" ways of stealing money from our mouths you'd like to share?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So what's the solution to all this? No Government seems to able to do anything about it for fear of being accused of picking on the "poor". People are judged fit for work, and then the decision is overturned on appeal - sometimes rightly of course.

The only solution is for working people to rebel and object to their taxes being used in this manner. That's difficult for those on PAYE because they don't have much choice other than to choose a low paid job where they don't have to pay much tax. Those who are self employed can minimise their tax bills through expenses I suppose.

Oh, they can, can they?

Shall we get JD in to confirm this?

JD, can you minimise the tax you pay by getting fuel receipts from your family and saying you incurred those costs?   Or any other "canny" ways of stealing money from our mouths you'd like to share?

I wouldn't dream of committing fraud like this Andy, perhaps If the government had closed many tax loopholes abused by the rich over the years then there would be a bit more to go around.

Joy Division wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

OK JD that's fair enough, but why are you having a go at Sphinx ? We both know her well enough to know that if she can work she will, I don't think its fair to have a go at people who are genuinely ill do you?

..that's just my point though HM, Sphinx joins in labelling folk as scroungers and saying they are fit for work when she really does not know that by looking at a picture, whilst claiming benefits herself, it's double standards HM, and I only highlighted Sphinx's situation to let her see what  she and others do with other people who are on benefits or have a disability, but Sphinx admits herself she can work.


Im just pointing out the stones and glass houses HM.

As demonstrated above Sphinx came to the same conclusion you did on the same evidence you did - only as far as you are concerned you are allowed to do so and I am not.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So what's the solution to all this? No Government seems to able to do anything about it for fear of being accused of picking on the "poor". People are judged fit for work, and then the decision is overturned on appeal - sometimes rightly of course.

The only solution is for working people to rebel and object to their taxes being used in this manner. That's difficult for those on PAYE because they don't have much choice other than to choose a low paid job where they don't have to pay much tax. Those who are self employed can minimise their tax bills through expenses I suppose.

Oh, they can, can they?

Shall we get JD in to confirm this?

JD, can you minimise the tax you pay by getting fuel receipts from your family and saying you incurred those costs?   Or any other "canny" ways of stealing money from our mouths you'd like to share?

I mean legitimate expenses of course. A lot of self employed people don't claim everything they could apparently.

Taxing the rich too much is a bit silly as they could practise tax avoidance quite legally.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..that's just my point though HM, Sphinx joins in labelling folk as scroungers and saying they are fit for work when she really does not know that by looking at a picture, whilst claiming benefits herself, it's double standards HM, and I only highlighted Sphinx's situation to let her see what  she and others do with other people who are on benefits or have a disability, but Sphinx admits herself she can work.


Im just pointing out the stones and glass houses HM.

As demonstrated above Sphinx came to the same conclusion you did on the same evidence you did - only as far as you are concerned you are allowed to do so and I am not.

...of you look back at the posts Sphinx, you'll see one where you jumped into one of my posts where the start of your post goes something like...' You just don't fucking get it do you JD'...

I was just answering that and other posters questions and quotes.

The problem with taxation is like a lot of things to do with human behaviour it is counter intuitive. It seems logical that the higher taxation of people with more money would bring in the most money but time and time again results show that such an approach does not work. With high taxation all that happens is either the people with more money leave the area for somewhere with lower taxation and businesses stop doing things which bring in lots of money.

To a point lowering taxation brings in more money than increasing taxation - and this point can be calculated. The other thing that massively increases income from taxation is keeping the rules as simple and easily enforcible as possible.

So the real question has to be if it is possible to calculate the rate of taxation which maximizes taxation income why do governments not do that as a matter of course and instead raise and lower tax rates seeming at random when doing so reduces the income generated?

Raggamuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Oh, they can, can they?

Shall we get JD in to confirm this?

JD, can you minimise the tax you pay by getting fuel receipts from your family and saying you incurred those costs?   Or any other "canny" ways of stealing money from our mouths you'd like to share?

I mean legitimate expenses of course. A lot of self employed people don't claim everything they could apparently.

Taxing the rich too much is a bit silly as they could practise tax avoidance quite legally.

...tax the mega rich at 65%, not the plain rich, as they are not super rich! just the mega rich??tax them at 65%, then their will be more traces to cover things like NHS, schools and yes...some to cover unemployment benefit for the extreme poor.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

As demonstrated above Sphinx came to the same conclusion you did on the same evidence you did - only as far as you are concerned you are allowed to do so and I am not.

...of you look back at the posts Sphinx, you'll see one where you jumped into one of my posts where the start of your post goes something like...' You just don't fucking get it do you JD'...

I was just answering that and other posters questions and quotes.

Yes JD and if you read that post you will know full well that my rant was nothing to do with benefits but totally to do with all the people suffering depression or with friends/relatives suffering depression who are now faced with a world expecting them to behave like white Dee and just take a holiday - you do not get a holiday with depression and it is hard enough without some kindly little old lady telling you to take one because you will feel better.

You have not answered that post or any other - you have decided my problems with Dee are from benefits when I dont even think she is on benefits and remain oblivious to my issues with her causing extra suffering to those who do have depression.

sphinx wrote:The problem with taxation is like a lot of things to do with human behaviour it is counter intuitive.  It seems logical that the higher taxation of people with more money would bring in the most money but time and time again results show that such an approach does not work.  With high taxation all that happens is either the people with more money leave the area for somewhere with lower taxation and businesses stop doing things which bring in lots of money.

To a point lowering taxation brings in more money than increasing taxation - and this point can be calculated.  The other thing that massively increases income from taxation is keeping the rules as simple and easily enforcible as possible.

So the real question has to be if it is possible to calculate the rate of taxation which maximizes taxation income why do governments not do that as a matter of course and instead raise and lower tax rates seeming at random when doing so reduces the income generated?

Because it keeps them in a job - the uneducated like it - it looks good to them.

If Labour put up tax to 65% on the rich and didn't tax those on less than £20,000 they'd be in government.

Everybody would be stinking poor - sorry, that's not true - the country would be in more and more debt - but that wouldn't bother the uneducated, because... well... they are uneducated!

sphinx wrote:The problem with taxation is like a lot of things to do with human behaviour it is counter intuitive.  It seems logical that the higher taxation of people with more money would bring in the most money but time and time again results show that such an approach does not work.  With high taxation all that happens is either the people with more money leave the area for somewhere with lower taxation and businesses stop doing things which bring in lots of money.

To a point lowering taxation brings in more money than increasing taxation - and this point can be calculated.  The other thing that massively increases income from taxation is keeping the rules as simple and easily enforcible as possible.

So the real question has to be if it is possible to calculate the rate of taxation which maximizes taxation income why do governments not do that as a matter of course and instead raise and lower tax rates seeming at random when doing so reduces the income generated?

..then let them leave, as with allowing the rich to pay far lower taxes would be a loss for the country anyway, they either pay what the government says they pay or the can leave the uk if they are not happy...every country's government sets it's own figures on what people of different incomes pay...

It's the laws and rules of our lands.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean legitimate expenses of course. A lot of self employed people don't claim everything they could apparently.

Taxing the rich too much is a bit silly as they could practise tax avoidance quite legally.

...tax the mega rich at 65%, not the plain rich, as they are not super rich! just the mega rich??tax them at 65%, then their will be more traces to cover things like NHS, schools and yes...some to cover unemployment benefit for the extreme poor.

That is what you think would happen and what you think should happen but the reality is if you introduce a tax band for the mega rich at 65% it will not bring in a single penny and the tax income from the ordinary 45% will drop. This is because the mega rich who were paying 45% will leave the country and will then be paying 0% to us. Have a look at France.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:The problem with taxation is like a lot of things to do with human behaviour it is counter intuitive.  It seems logical that the higher taxation of people with more money would bring in the most money but time and time again results show that such an approach does not work.  With high taxation all that happens is either the people with more money leave the area for somewhere with lower taxation and businesses stop doing things which bring in lots of money.

To a point lowering taxation brings in more money than increasing taxation - and this point can be calculated.  The other thing that massively increases income from taxation is keeping the rules as simple and easily enforcible as possible.

So the real question has to be if it is possible to calculate the rate of taxation which maximizes taxation income why do governments not do that as a matter of course and instead raise and lower tax rates seeming at random when doing so reduces the income generated?

..then let them leave, as with allowing the rich to pay far lower taxes would be a loss for the country anyway, they either pay what the government says they pay or the can leave the uk if they are not happy...every country's government sets it's own figures on what people of different incomes pay...

It's the laws and rules of our lands.

Yes JD and then there would be no money to pay for anything if the rich leave the country.

Which brings in more 45% of £10 million or 0% of 0?

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..then let them leave, as with allowing the rich to pay far lower taxes would be a loss for the country anyway, they either pay what the government says they pay or the can leave the uk if they are not happy...every country's government sets it's own figures on what people of different incomes pay...

It's the laws and rules of our lands.

Yes JD and then there would be no money to pay for anything if the rich leave the country.

Which brings in more 45% of £10 million or 0% of 0?

I don't think he cares - it isn't about economics, it's about hatred and spite.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean legitimate expenses of course. A lot of self employed people don't claim everything they could apparently.

Taxing the rich too much is a bit silly as they could practise tax avoidance quite legally.

...tax the mega rich at 65%, not the plain rich, as they are not super rich! just the mega rich??tax them at 65%, then their will be more traces to cover things like NHS, schools and yes...some to cover unemployment benefit for the extreme poor.

They will just take their business elsewhere, or practise tax avoidance. Why should they pay for other people all the time?

BigAndy9 wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

I don't think you are fully understanding the symptoms of depression JD. What people are trying to tell you is, if you are truly ill and someone says hey you won a million pounds, it wouldn't make any difference. Hence, White Dee being told to act in a certain way wouldn't have worked.

And I have to tell you, had I met White Dee on my way to work at 5am this morning, and yesterday morning, waving a 500 pound bottle of bubbly around I would most likely have smacked her one let alone told her I disagree with her lifestyle!

That's just not correct harvesmom.

I don't think that's correct.I think someone with clinical depression would react quite positively to learning they had won a million pounds.

Depression is a neurosis.
There is insight to the problem but no detachment from reality ergo winning a million pounds would please someone who is clinically depressed.Not enough to stop them being depressed necessarily,depending on how severe their depression is,but suggesting it would have no impact whatsoever is nonsense.

FluffyBunny wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


That's just not correct harvesmom.

I don't think that's correct.I think someone with clinical depression would react quite positively to learning they had won a million pounds.

Depression is a neurosis.
There is insight to the problem but no detachment from reality ergo winning a million pounds would please someone who is clinically depressed.Not enough to stop them being depressed necessarily,depending on how severe their depression is,but suggesting it would have no impact whatsoever is nonsense.

It would totally depends what brought on the depression of course.

It would most probably cause a wave of euphoria no matter what, and unless the depression was brought on or antagonsed by money worries, a quick sinking back in to depression!

BigAndy9 wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I don't think that's correct.I think someone with clinical depression would react quite positively to learning they had won a million pounds.

Depression is a neurosis.
There is insight to the problem but no detachment from reality ergo winning a million pounds would please someone who is clinically depressed.Not enough to stop them being depressed necessarily,depending on how severe their depression is,but suggesting it would have no impact whatsoever is nonsense.

It would totally depends what brought on the depression of course.

It would most probably cause a wave of euphoria no matter what, and unless the depression was brought on or antagonsed by money worries, a quick sinking back in to depression!

That is true
There are two types of depression,one is reactive to external events and a lottery win would help that person.Obviously if they were mourning the death of a loved one (and that is the cause of their depression) it wouldn't be much comfort in the short term but it is still a positive experience and the depressed person would realise this.

The depression which comes from within and is not responsive to external stimulus is more serious and difficult to treat but I do believe something as monumental as winning a million pounds would again cause a positive response.But I could be wrong ..so pointless post   

For someone moderately to severely depressed it is just likely to result in a shrug of the shoulders and a "so what?"

I have seen someone depressed presented with a large chunk of money and while they did not remain oblivious they did not get euphoric either.

One of the problems with depression is the complete lack of motivation and energy - a doctor who had spent years treating patients with both depression and fibromyalgia said when people talked about differentiating them he applied a simple test. Tell the patient that a cure has been invented and it is one single pill - if the patient has fibro they will kill themselves trying to reach it if you put it on top of Everest - they will not let the pain and exhaustion stop them trying to reach it. If the patient has depression you can put the pill on the other side of the room and they will not get out of bed to take it.

A person with depression could be stressed to hell and back about money but they would not go and buy a lottery ticket in the first place and even if they did win the money they would not use it to pay their bills and clear their worries.

sphinx wrote:For someone moderately to severely depressed it is just likely to result in a shrug of the shoulders and a "so what?"

I have seen someone depressed presented with a large chunk of money and while they did not remain oblivious they did not get euphoric either.

One of the problems with depression is the complete lack of motivation and energy - a doctor who had spent years treating patients with both depression and fibromyalgia said when people talked about differentiating them he applied a simple test.  Tell the patient that a cure has been invented and it is one single pill - if the patient has fibro they will kill themselves trying to reach it if you put it on top of Everest - they will not let the pain and exhaustion stop them trying to reach it.  If the patient has depression you can put the pill on the other side of the room and they will not get out of bed to take it.

A person with depression could be stressed to hell and back about money but they would not go and buy a lottery ticket in the first place and even if they did win the money they would not use it to pay their bills and clear their worries.

But you are talking about someone who is depressed and not taking their medication here surely.

You cannot exist in that place for long,anti depressants have to be taken.And the symptoms are somewhat eased but not taken away completely.

sphinx wrote:For someone moderately to severely depressed it is just likely to result in a shrug of the shoulders and a "so what?"

I have seen someone depressed presented with a large chunk of money and while they did not remain oblivious they did not get euphoric either.

One of the problems with depression is the complete lack of motivation and energy - a doctor who had spent years treating patients with both depression and fibromyalgia said when people talked about differentiating them he applied a simple test.  Tell the patient that a cure has been invented and it is one single pill - if the patient has fibro they will kill themselves trying to reach it if you put it on top of Everest - they will not let the pain and exhaustion stop them trying to reach it.  If the patient has depression you can put the pill on the other side of the room and they will not get out of bed to take it.

A person with depression could be stressed to hell and back about money but they would not go and buy a lottery ticket in the first place and even if they did win the money they would not use it to pay their bills and clear their worries.

Even most of the pills can make you euphoric.

You can not describe every person with depression sphinx, and neither can the doctor.

One thing i am sure of, and it's the reason i started this thread, is that "White Dee" is a scrounger.

I also wanted to point out to our foreigners that nobody in England believes that everybody on benefits is a scrounger!

sphinx wrote:For someone moderately to severely depressed it is just likely to result in a shrug of the shoulders and a "so what?"

I have seen someone depressed presented with a large chunk of money and while they did not remain oblivious they did not get euphoric either.

One of the problems with depression is the complete lack of motivation and energy - a doctor who had spent years treating patients with both depression and fibromyalgia said when people talked about differentiating them he applied a simple test.  Tell the patient that a cure has been invented and it is one single pill - if the patient has fibro they will kill themselves trying to reach it if you put it on top of Everest - they will not let the pain and exhaustion stop them trying to reach it.  If the patient has depression you can put the pill on the other side of the room and they will not get out of bed to take it.

A person with depression could be stressed to hell and back about money but they would not go and buy a lottery ticket in the first place and even if they did win the money they would not use it to pay their bills and clear their worries.

Oh aye...so every single depressed person being told they have won a million pounds will just ignore it, stare blankly and not even realise what they were told.

For goodness sake.

FluffyBunny wrote:

sphinx wrote:For someone moderately to severely depressed it is just likely to result in a shrug of the shoulders and a "so what?"

I have seen someone depressed presented with a large chunk of money and while they did not remain oblivious they did not get euphoric either.

One of the problems with depression is the complete lack of motivation and energy - a doctor who had spent years treating patients with both depression and fibromyalgia said when people talked about differentiating them he applied a simple test.  Tell the patient that a cure has been invented and it is one single pill - if the patient has fibro they will kill themselves trying to reach it if you put it on top of Everest - they will not let the pain and exhaustion stop them trying to reach it.  If the patient has depression you can put the pill on the other side of the room and they will not get out of bed to take it.

A person with depression could be stressed to hell and back about money but they would not go and buy a lottery ticket in the first place and even if they did win the money they would not use it to pay their bills and clear their worries.

But you are talking about someone who is depressed and not taking their medication here surely.

You cannot exist in that place for long,anti depressants have to be taken.And the symptoms are somewhat eased but not taken away completely.

I have seen people be in that place for a long long time.

Firstly the medication does not work so well for every patient.
Secondly the side effects from the medication can be so horrible the patient prefers to go without - and thankfully we still live in a society where the majority of patients have that option.

There are actually a large number of psychiatrists who think that anti depressants are far far too over prescribed and nowhere near as beneficial as is commonly supposed. In blind tests their effect is only slightly better than placebos and that is only in the short term - in the long term they perform worse.

IMO (having seen damage done by unmonitored anti depressant use) they should only be used to prevent suicide and to provide cover until patients can be gotten into the treatments that are proven effective which are talking therapies. Use for longer than 6 months should be the exception not the rule and all use much more carefully monitored.

sphinx wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

But you are talking about someone who is depressed and not taking their medication here surely.

You cannot exist in that place for long,anti depressants have to be taken.And the symptoms are somewhat eased but not taken away completely.

I have seen people be in that place for a long long time.

Firstly the medication does not work so well for every patient.
Secondly the side effects from the medication can be so horrible the patient prefers to go without - and thankfully we still live in a society where the majority of patients have that option.

There are actually a large number of psychiatrists who think that anti depressants are far far too over prescribed and nowhere near as beneficial as is commonly supposed.  In blind tests their effect is only slightly better than placebos and that is only in the short term - in the long term they perform worse.  

IMO (having seen damage done by unmonitored anti depressant use) they should only be used to prevent suicide and to provide cover until patients can be gotten into the treatments that are proven effective which are talking therapies.  Use for longer than 6 months should be the exception not the rule and all use much more carefully monitored.

I think a lot of people assume that antidepressants are "happy pills", but they are slow to work and many people don't give them a chance. They're not like Valium where the effect is much quicker. Antidepressants do work in many people and give them hope for the future. Once they feel a bit better they can help themselves. Taking them off them too quickly may cause a relapse.

If antidepressants don't work, it's possible that the patient doesn't have clinical depression - they might have some form of anxiety which can mimic depression, and they will need different medication and/or counselling.

sphinx wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

But you are talking about someone who is depressed and not taking their medication here surely.

You cannot exist in that place for long,anti depressants have to be taken.And the symptoms are somewhat eased but not taken away completely.

I have seen people be in that place for a long long time.

Firstly the medication does not work so well for every patient.
Secondly the side effects from the medication can be so horrible the patient prefers to go without - and thankfully we still live in a society where the majority of patients have that option.

There are actually a large number of psychiatrists who think that anti depressants are far far too over prescribed and nowhere near as beneficial as is commonly supposed.  In blind tests their effect is only slightly better than placebos and that is only in the short term - in the long term they perform worse.  

IMO (having seen damage done by unmonitored anti depressant use) they should only be used to prevent suicide and to provide cover until patients can be gotten into the treatments that are proven effective which are talking therapies.  Use for longer than 6 months should be the exception not the rule and all use much more carefully monitored.

I think it's fair to say circumstances differ for each individual.