Online petition for IDS

[SocketRocket]

This petition is a load of utter nonsense. Did anyone ever ask any of the last Labour government (who contributed to this mess) to live on benefit amounts? No. Why? Were benefits too generous? I should remind anyone who is even contemplating signing this tosh that IDS has been unemployed twice. Before he became a politician. Yes, he even had a proper job once. Unlike most politicians these days.

Thats correct.

Many are also forgetting not long ago that Labour wanted to force old people out of their homes so they could be freed up for younger people They referred to Older people as 'Empty Nesters' who should be taxed out of their family homes to free up space for younger generations. Now they seem to be against the idea, I wonder why?

 

[sydney greenstreet]

I have a solution to unemployment and the 'benefits' culture and it is very simple.

Make all those people on benefits work for them. There are loads of things they could be doing to contribute towards society such as litter picking, cleaning off graffiti, assisting the elderly etc. And for those with trades, how about renovating properties

Then why not make them jobs then ? you would rather see someone work 40 hrs for about £70 a week ? Then Employers would start laying everyone off and getting those on benefits to do the jobs at a fraction of the price , oh wait the Condems have already started doing that.

 

[Luulox]

So what you are saying is that if someone has a different opinion than you then the best way to debate the subject is with personal insults. Regarding your misquotation in what I said about Phillpot, where did I say the death of six kids was a justification? I said the way he used the beneffit system for his own greed was disgusting. You really are a bit of a sensationalist who twists things to suit your own left wing beliefs.

It was a direct quote about philpott from your post not a misquote. the quote saying "using the death of six kids to
as justification" were my words. Cant see where i got personal either. What was sensationalist about quoting your exact words? sensationalist, would that not be a personal insult?The government and your type of person are trying to justify attacking the weakest in society for the mistakes the strongest in society made and is moral bankrupcy and selfishness Thats not a personal insult, just the truth. Plus your wrong about me being left wing, i just have a bit of empathy and compassion even if it costs me a tiny bit of cash. Thats where we differ. Cannot see point of continuing this, we will never agree so i wont be adding anything more

 

[SocketRocket]

Then why not make them jobs then ? you would rather see someone work 40 hrs for about £70 a week ? Then Employers would start laying everyone off and getting those on benefits to do the jobs at a fraction of the price , oh wait the Condems have already started doing that.

He didnt mean that. He was talking of people doing community service, this would be more of a way for people that had not taken out insurance (National Insurance that is) by paying into the pot to contribute towards their state payouts. Surely its better for someone who has not worked to get up in the morning and do something useful rather than festering at home watching television or playing computer games. Some of this work could be for charities or helping old people and the infirm.

 

[scratch]

He didnt mean that. He was talking of people doing community service, this would be more of a way for people that had not taken out insurance (National Insurance that is) by paying into the pot to contribute towards their state payouts. Surely its better for someone who has not worked to get up in the morning and do something useful rather than festering at home watching television or playing computer games. Some of this work could be for charities or helping old people and the infirm.

Correct, exactly what I meant.

It's not a case of slave labour but an opportunity for the unemployed to contribute something back to society by earning their benefits. And the benefits to the country are enormous, 2.5m people helping make Britain a better place to live. Surely that has to be a good thing?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

He didnt mean that. He was talking of people doing community service, this would be more of a way for people that had not taken out insurance (National Insurance that is) by paying into the pot to contribute towards their state payouts. Surely its better for someone who has not worked to get up in the morning and do something useful rather than festering at home watching television or playing computer games. Some of this work could be for charities or helping old people and the infirm.

That has been tried but cannot be compulsory. A young graduate who was doing a great voluntary job in a library was told to give it up and work for free with Poundland. She sued the government that it infringed her human rights and won..

 

[SocketRocket]

That has been tried but cannot be compulsory. A young graduate who was doing a great voluntary job in a library was told to give it up and work for free with Poundland. She sued the government that it infringed her human rights and won..

Yuman Rights, what a joke. That particular case showed what a mockery it is, too posh to do work experience but OK to keep recieving benefits. The sooner that stupid convention is tossed out and replaced with something sensible the better.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Yuman Rights, what a joke. That particular case showed what a mockery it is, too posh to do work experience but OK to keep recieving benefits. The sooner that stupid convention is tossed out and replaced with something sensible the better.

The only joke with this case was, IIRC, that she had previously applied and been turned down for work at Poundland who were then only too keen to snap her up when they could get her labour for free. This scheme, while well-intentioned I believe, was a farce.

 

[SocketRocket]

The only joke with this case was, IIRC, that she had previously applied and been turned down for work at Poundland who were then only too keen to snap her up when they could get her labour for free. This scheme, while well-intentioned I believe, was a farce.

My recolection of the case was not that. I dont believe she had ever applied to Poundland for a job. I would be interested in seeing some evidence of that.

 

[FairwayDodger]

My recolection of the case was not that. I dont believe she had ever applied to Poundland for a job. I would be interested in seeing some evidence of that.

I definitely heard of this w.r.t the scheme but might have been getting mixed up with another individual. Don't remember exactly....

 

[stevie_r]

Yuman Rights, what a joke. That particular case showed what a mockery it is, too posh to do work experience but OK to keep recieving benefits. The sooner that stupid convention is tossed out and replaced with something sensible the better.

How did it show that? The person concerned was working voluntarily in a library; I'm sure that even you would agree that that was of more public benefit than being free labour for a commercial enterprise.

 

[SocketRocket]

How did it show that? The person concerned was working voluntarily in a library; I'm sure that even you would agree that that was of more public benefit than being free labour for a commercial enterprise.

To be accurate she was doing voluntary work in a museum. It did not say how many hours she was doing, it may well have been 40 but it could have been 5.

I am not convinced that the public would benifit more by her work. The appeal didnt say that what she was asked to do was wrong only that their was an infringement of her rights if her benefits were stopped and that Parliament needed to introduce appropriate law to cover this.

IMHO someone of her age with a degree who cannot find paid work seems very wrong. I think it was more about her being very selectve on what work she does; Is that really a suitable reason for someone to be drawing benefits?

 

[stevie_r]

To be accurate she was doing voluntary work in a museum. It did not say how many hours she was doing, it may well have been 40 but it could have been 5.

I am not convinced that the public would benifit more by her work. The appeal didnt say that what she was asked to do was wrong only that their was an infringement of her rights if her benefits were stopped and that Parliament needed to introduce appropriate law to cover this.

IMHO someone of her age with a degree who cannot find paid work seems very wrong. I think it was more about her being very selectve on what work she does; Is that really a suitable reason for someone to be drawing benefits?

What I suggest you do is just for a few days step out of your ridiculous little bubble and try and catch up with 21st century Britain.

There are thousands of graduates in Britain who are unable to find employment appropriate to their educational qualifications.

 

[SocketRocket]

What I suggest you do is just for a few days step out of your ridiculous little bubble and try and catch up with 21st century Britain.

There are thousands of graduates in Britain who are unable to find employment appropriate to their educational qualifications.
.

Another cheap shot. Try to debate the case and facts rather than immature comments like that please.

I know a number of graduates that have to taken work not associated to their degree. Thats another issue where so many go to University taking degrees in subjects highly unlikely to produce work. I think she did Geology.

I have experienced a great deal of life in this country and have formed my opinions based on it. It would be so easy to reply by character attacks of you but I will not do that as although I disagree with you I believe you have the right to your opinion.

 

[stevie_r]

Another cheap shot. Try to debate the case and facts rather than immature comments like that please.

I know a number of graduates that have to taken work not associated to their degree. Thats another issue where so many go to University taking degrees in subjects highly unlikely to produce work. I think she did Geology.

I have experienced a great deal of life in this country and have formed my opinions based on it. It would be so easy to reply by character attacks of you but I will not do that as although I disagree with you I believe you have the right to your opinion.

Countless times now on this thread you have failed to answer simple questions, have constantly changed your opinion on certain matters and have continually shown a complete lack of empathy for those who genuinely need help.
Your ridiculous assertion that the reduction in housing benefit is a means to overcrowding reduction - it isn't.
Your belief that individuals should be forced to move home into something smaller if they undergo circumstances that mean they are claiming housing benefit.
Your failure to recognise a difference between the career scrounger and those who are temporarily down on their luck.
Your quote that it is unfortunate but tough measures are necessary (or words to that effect - I can't be bothered reading back through it all), presumably this necessity includes for example disabled war veterans?
Your failure to understand that unfortunately where there are jobs doesn't coincide with the peak areas of unemployment; as highlighted by your post regarding fruit picking. I don't think there are many fruit picking jobs in what are the areas most savagely affected by unemployment ie what was our former industrial heartlands.
I agree that graduates frequently take work unrelated to their degree, it shouldn't however include slave labour for a commercial concern. As another poster has already alluded, this is a dangerous strategy which will result in certain unscrupulous organisations cutting their labour costs and therefore yet again reducing the pool of available employment opportunities. Work in the public interest then yes, totally agree.

I asked much earlier in this thread whether you had been unfortunate enough to suffer redundancy during this recession, I take your lack of response to this as a no.

Please feel free to attack my character, however, ensure you put a bit more thought into it than you have to your posts in this thread.

 

[SocketRocket]

Countless times now on this thread you have failed to answer simple questions, have constantly changed your opinion on certain matters and have continually shown a complete lack of empathy for those who genuinely need help.
Your ridiculous assertion that the reduction in housing benefit is a means to overcrowding reduction - it isn't.
Your belief that individuals should be forced to move home into something smaller if they undergo circumstances that mean they are claiming housing benefit.
Your failure to recognise a difference between the career scrounger and those who are temporarily down on their luck.
Your quote that it is unfortunate but tough measures are necessary (or words to that effect - I can't be bothered reading back through it all), presumably this necessity includes for example disabled war veterans?
Your failure to understand that unfortunately where there are jobs doesn't coincide with the peak areas of unemployment; as highlighted by your post regarding fruit picking. I don't think there are many fruit picking jobs in what are the areas most savagely affected by unemployment ie what was our former industrial heartlands.
I agree that graduates frequently take work unrelated to their degree, it shouldn't however include slave labour for a commercial concern. As another poster has already alluded, this is a dangerous strategy which will result in certain unscrupulous organisations cutting their labour costs and therefore yet again reducing the pool of available employment opportunities. Work in the public interest then yes, totally agree.

I asked much earlier in this thread whether you had been unfortunate enough to suffer redundancy during this recession, I take your lack of response to this as a no.

Please feel free to attack my character, however, ensure you put a bit more thought into it than you have to your posts in this thread.

maybe you do need to read through my posts as you have just produced a number of fabrications and references that are completely out of context.

I did explain earlier that I have previously lost everything and started again without any assistance from the state. I did actually become redundant in 2008 but have taken on a few jobs earning much less that I was previously paid but through hard work and long hours I am on the way back, even though I am in my sixties.

I fail to see where I have changed my opinion, it has remained very consistant.

The jobs in areas like fruit picking was in another thread about immigration and how many Polish people had taken on jobs that British people ar not prepared to do. Your quote on war veterans is a very cheap exaggeration, as an ex military person myself I resent that implication. You also seem to have completely misunderstood what I said about the bedroom tax, I didn't say anywhere that people should be forced to leave their houses, the only implication is that they will have a reduction in their benefits if they are not working and that there were a number of exceptions in cases of special needs.

Please try to get the facts right before going off half cocked with your fabricated and emotive accusations.

 

[stevie_r]

I did explain earlier that I have previously lost everything and started again without any assistance from the state. I did actually become redundant in 2008 but have taken on a few jobs earning much less that I was previously paid but through hard work and long hours I am on the way back, even though I am in my sixties.

I fail to see where I have changed my opinion, it has remained very consistant.

The jobs in areas like fruit picking was in another thread about immigration and how many Polish people had taken on jobs that British people ar not prepared to do. Your quote on war veterans is a very cheap exaggeration, as an ex military person myself I resent that implication. You also seem to have completely misunderstood what I said about the bedroom tax, I didn't say anywhere that people should be forced to leave their houses, the only implication is that they will have a reduction in their benefits if they are not working and that there were a number of exceptions in cases of special needs.

Please try to get the facts right before going off half cocked with your fabricated and emotive accusations.

I see your point and it can be hard for someone living in a house for many years to give it up when their children move out, but what about a family with two children living in a one bedroomed flat when there is a three bedroomed next door with one person in it. We must also remember this accommodation is tax payer subsidised.

If people having their rent paid by benefit and the house is too big then moving people with bigger families into their homes will release smaller properties for them to live in.

Yes! That's the objective to ease overcrowding and help reduce the overall benefit bill. These things will be unpopular and tough but the fact is we are broke.

doesn't seem to be any fabrication there to be honest

 

[SocketRocket]

doesn't seem to be any fabrication there to be honest

But you have plucked these quotes out of context to the conversation they were part of, where did I say people should be 'Forced' to leave their houses, those quotes are only explaining how the scheme benefits families living in overcrowded conditions, I did explain a number of times that they can stay but those on benefits will lose some of their housing allowance and there are many exceptions for special cases, you seem to want to ignore that. You also made a number of accusations that I replied to but have chosen to ignore.