ForumGarden

oscar;1414676 wrote: Or alternatively, we could still have the country held to ransom by the unions, stagnant property market, negative equity, banks not lending, record numbers of unemployed, no outside Investment, the dead unburied, three day working weeks, blackouts, power failures, rotting rubbish and rats piled high In the streets, sewers and drains over-flowing In the streets, bread and milk queues, minimum wage for those lucky enough to be In employment. Oh and don't forget the terrorists blowing up children and attempting to hold our government to ransom.

Baroness Thatcher wherever you are... Happy New Year Maam and long may you thrive.


I have to laugh, we still have half your list up there going on now :wah:

Betty Boop;1414679 wrote: I have to laugh, we still have half your list up there going on now :wah:


Depends what slanted way you look at It.

Yes, we have terrorism and the banks are slow at the moment but we have over-sea's Investment and the property market Is on the up and unemployment Is actually down. There Is Investment In Inner cities. We don't have strikes, three day working weeks, power cuts, refuse uncollected, dead unburied or raw sewerage In the street. The IRA are not blowing up children on London Streets and we are not still In the middle of a Cold War with Russia. In the 70's, Britain was on the verge of economic meltdown.

oscar;1414689 wrote: Depends what slanted way you look at It.

Yes, we have terrorism and the banks are slow at the moment but we have over-sea's Investment and the property market Is on the up and unemployment Is actually down. There Is Investment In Inner cities. We don't have strikes, three day working weeks, power cuts, refuse uncollected, dead unburied or raw sewerage In the street. The IRA are not blowing up children on London Streets and we are not still In the middle of a Cold War with Russia. In the 70's, Britain was on the verge of economic meltdown.


And it's not on an economic meltdown now, what's this depression every one speaks of? Not only a depression but a double dip one at that!

Unemployment is down because the figures have been fiddled, something every single government does, move people around on certain benefits to get the figures down they promised they would.

Three day weeks is relevant, over half the nation are stuck in part time employment because there are no full time jobs available.

Food prices are going up and up, the UK's farms have been killed off and we have no choice but to rely on imports, add to that the floods that have damaged the precious little home grown food products we do have, the prices of milk, bread and potatoes are about to rocket.

We are still involved in wars, the world lives under the threat of terrorists and quite frankly the UK is in a mess right now and I'm pretty sure that is not just my 'slant' on it.

Betty Boop;1414692 wrote: Three day weeks is relevant


The last national three day working week I can bring to mind was Ted Heath's. I programmed by the light of candles that year.

Betty Boop;1414692 wrote: And it's not on an economic meltdown now, what's this depression every one speaks of? Not only a depression but a double dip one at that!

Unemployment is down because the figures have been fiddled, something every single government does, move people around on certain benefits to get the figures down they promised they would.

Three day weeks is relevant, over half the nation are stuck in part time employment because there are no full time jobs available.

Food prices are going up and up, the UK's farms have been killed off and we have no choice but to rely on imports, add to that the floods that have damaged the precious little home grown food products we do have, the prices of milk, bread and potatoes are about to rocket.

We are still involved in wars, the world lives under the threat of terrorists and quite frankly the UK is in a mess right now and I'm pretty sure that is not just my 'slant' on it.


Do you actually understand the term and meaning of ' Three day week' relevant to the 70's as discussed here?

We are not talking about part time employment.... It refers to workers only being able to work three days due to Industrial action and strikes Imposed by the unions, not, lack of jobs.

Depends how you view the stats:

But unemployment rates In 1984 ( Thatcher's era) were 12.0

Present unemployment rates are 7.80

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate



Sorry Betty.. your point doesn't stack up. There Is far less unemployment now.

oscar;1414710 wrote: Do you actually understand the term and meaning of ' Three day week' relevant to the 70's as discussed here?

We are not talking about part time employment.... It refers to workers only being able to work three days due to Industrial action and strikes Imposed by the unions, not, lack of jobs.


I do, an enforced work situation, just as part time work now is another imposed situation due to the current economic situation.

Betty Boop;1414723 wrote: I do, an enforced work situation, just as part time work now is another imposed situation due to the current economic situation.


Sorry but I don't think you understand at all.

There's a world of difference between what happened 1970 and 1974 and today.

In the 70's the three day week was enforced by the government as one of the measures to ration electricity. It was brought about by severe disruption to the country thanks to continual Industrial action by the coal miners; In 1974 commercial users of electricity were limited to three days usage only and no-one was allowed to work longer hours, Only essential services such as supermarkets and hospitals were exempt.

There's a world of difference between the government restricting full time workers to three days a week all over the country to preserve electricity and some-one today In a part time job, the main difference being, If a full time job arose, they are free to apply for It.

oscar;1414738 wrote: Sorry but I don't think you understand at all.

There's a world of difference between what happened 1970 and 1974 and today.

In the 70's the three day week was enforced by the government as one of the measures to ration electricity. It was brought about by severe disruption to the country thanks to continual Industrial action by the coal miners; In 1974 commercial users of electricity were limited to three days usage only and no-one was allowed to work longer hours, Only essential services such as supermarkets and hospitals were exempt.

There's a world of difference between the government restricting full time workers to three days a week all over the country to preserve electricity and some-one today In a part time job, the main difference being, If a full time job arose, they are free to apply for It.


Sorry you're sorry then. There are not many full time jobs anymore, companies hire part timers to keep their costs down. Not once did I say the two situations were 'identical', more 'similar' in that people still cannot work the hours they would rather.

Just an afterthought, did you really write all that post yourself?

Betty Boop;1414773 wrote: Sorry you're sorry then. There are not many full time jobs anymore, companies hire part timers to keep their costs down. Not once did I say the two situations were 'identical', more 'similar' in that people still cannot work the hours they would rather.

Just an afterthought, did you really write all that post yourself?


Well, If you don't think I wrote It, which Is baiting Isn't It ? then try and find where I have taken It from and prove I have... If you can't then apologise.

There Is work out there Betty but there Is a fundamental difference between the 70's and today. One being that today the country Is a service Industry and If you're not qualified In IT and banking, then there Is less manual work. Back In the 70's we had Industries such as coal and textiles where more unskilled labour was available.

However, society has changed also and we are In the grip of the self-serving me me me generation who think that a job should be there for them to suit their qualifications, the times of the day they want to work and on their doorstep so they don't have to travel.

When Peter had his accident, I found work, Yes, It was out of my comfort zone and I found 2 jobs within weeks. One of which I have to get up at 5 In the morning for.

People make choices In their lives and they make lifestyle choices. Before you even think It, no this Is not a personal attack on you but women have children by choice and then complain because the jobs that are available don't suit the school run or tea time. My neighbour Is one who thinks jobs are tailor made to suit her personal needs and then whines when what's available doesn't suit. If anyone Is willing to step outside their comfort zone In times of need, travel, work odd hours and get their hands dirty, there IS work out there. The government Is not there to pander to anyone's personal needs If they won't make the effort.

By the way... I live In a tiny village In a rural area...

Two weeks ago I took a third job which I had to travel a round trip of 38 miles for, mucking out stables for £20 a day... but then, I wanted the money.

Futhermore re: Thatcher and the Unions....

Whilst It's Thatcher that's credited with the destruction of the miners and the Unions, the process had begun long before under Labour and Harold Wilson In 1974.

During that year the Labour Government used the ' In place of Strife' law to control the militant coal miners, a paper written by Barbara Castle to contain the countries concern at what appeared to be militant, Industrial anarchy.

At It's failure Wilson's government changed tact to adopt more of a negotiation style based on government concessions In exchange for a reduction In Industrial action such as the forming of ACAS. Far from Thatcher being the root cause of the detriment of the miners, the process was already In action 5 years before she came to power.

Yes, I did write that !!!!

oscar;1414788 wrote: By the way... I live In a tiny village In a rural area...

Two weeks ago I took a third job which I had to travel a round trip of 38 miles for, mucking out stables for £20 a day... but then, I wanted the money.


If it really was £20 a day that's less than the minimum wage so you are allowing yourself to be exploited by an unscrupulous employer who probably isn't paying national insurance on his employees or even showing them as employees and perhaps it was undeclared income on your part as well. You are exactly the kind of benefit scrounger that the daily mail loves to pillory. Talk about double standards - you are a benefit scrounger I am doing my best to get by and I needed the money.

gmc;1414855 wrote: If it really was £20 a day that's less than the minimum wage so you are allowing yourself to be exploited by an unscrupulous employer who probably isn't paying national insurance on his employees or even showing them as employees and perhaps it was undeclared income on your part as well. You are exactly the kind of benefit scrounger that the daily mail loves to pillory. Talk about double standards - you are a benefit scrounger I am doing my best to get by and I needed the money. ERRR excuse me !!! Benefit scrounger ???? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Where have I said I needed the money? I wanted the money or extra's for Christmas. The stables I mucked out was a registered charity disabled riding school and all above board.

My husband receives the majority of private pension... That's after both of us have worked all our adult lives paying our way like anyone else. At 69 he's entitled to his pension after working all his life as I have. I do not claim anything... Every piece of work I do Is accounted for and as I'm a fair bit younger than him, I pay tax on what I earn.

I do not need to get by as you put It and certainly not on benefit. By the way, given Peter's health, we could claim for all manner of disability extra's If we wished... we don't.

oscar;1414857 wrote: ERRR excuse me !!! Benefit scrounger ???? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Where have I said I needed the money? I wanted the money or extra's for Christmas. The stables I mucked out was a registered charity disabled riding school and all above board.

My husband receives the majority of private pension... That's after both of us have worked all our adult lives paying our way like anyone else. At 69 he's entitled to his pension after working all his life as I have. I do not claim anything... Every piece of work I do Is accounted for and as I'm a fair bit younger than him, I pay tax on what I earn.

I do not need to get by as you put It and certainly not on benefit. By the way, given Peter's health, we could claim for all manner of disability extra's If we wished... we don't.


I don't actually want to know your circumstances. You never stated it was for a charity - many employers do pay less than the minimum age given half the chance. I also know people who work for riding for the disabled they give of their time freely and don't get paid although they do have full time paid staff the volunteers get nothing except tea and a biscuit.

Like many daily mail readers you seem to assume everybody on benefits is fiddling the system. Thanks to the daily mail and it's ilk banging on about disabled people claiming benefits when they are not disabled many now find themselves facing increasing hostility from the public who assume they must be playing the system. The motability scheme and disabled sticker in particular is one that is abused and many now assume anyone using it is being dishonest. I have been harangued by idiots that had difficulty understanding that while I am not disabled I can use the space when driving a disabled person about or collecting them from the hospital.

Every time i hear someone going on about the benefit culture I want to hit them. In some areas of the country there are simply not enough jobs to go round. In London and the south east I would agree with you anyone unemployed is that way from choice. Having worked in London I can tell you most Londoners have no idea what unemployment really is. Some people do play the system even more do not and many are too proud to even take the help when they can. If you have been self employed you get absolutely nothing if your business fails - just ask any former plumber or joiner that used to have a thriving business.

gmc;1414965 wrote: I don't actually want to know your circumstances. You never stated it was for a charity - many employers do pay less than the minimum age given half the chance. I also know people who work for riding for the disabled they give of their time freely and don't get paid although they do have full time paid staff the volunteers get nothing except tea and a biscuit.

Like many daily mail readers you seem to assume everybody on benefits is fiddling the system. Thanks to the daily mail and it's ilk banging on about disabled people claiming benefits when they are not disabled many now find themselves facing increasing hostility from the public who assume they must be playing the system. The motability scheme and disabled sticker in particular is one that is abused and many now assume anyone using it is being dishonest. I have been harangued by idiots that had difficulty understanding that while I am not disabled I can use the space when driving a disabled person about or collecting them from the hospital.

Every time i hear someone going on about the benefit culture I want to hit them. In some areas of the country there are simply not enough jobs to go round. In London and the south east I would agree with you anyone unemployed is that way from choice. Having worked in London I can tell you most Londoners have no idea what unemployment really is. Some people do play the system even more do not and many are too proud to even take the help when they can. If you have been self employed you get absolutely nothing if your business fails - just ask any former plumber or joiner that used to have a thriving business.


Listen pal... If anyone has lost their job... that's not my fault... so excuse me for getting off my arsse and finding extra work when my husband had his accident.... you may not wish to hear my circumstances but you're quick to assume I'm on benefit.

Now, point me In the direction where I actually said ' everyone on benefits Is fiddling the system'.

Now go back to the OP which was about the fact that benefit had risen by 20 % and wages by 12 %

edit...

Acutally gmc I'll share something with you about people assuming everyone Is on benefits...

About a year ago before my husband had his accident, someone saw him him helping his Turkish pal out delivering food. He got a phone call from works and pensions saying they wanted to see him. When we got there, the very nice man said the DSS had received an anon tip off he was defrauding the benefit system but it had been passed to works and pensions because there was never any claim for benefit... We know who It was and the police had a pretty good Idea also as they were Investigating a problem of harrassment against us at the time... anyway.... not being on benefits.. we asked why he wanted to see my husband. he said he'd looked at all our details and was concerned that my husband It appeared was not claiming for things he was entitled to given his age and his health... we walked out of there £ 40 a week better off and pissed ourselves laughing all the way home... moral ? If you want to be a nasty fecker then get your facts right first.

oscar;1415025 wrote: Listen pal... If anyone has lost their job... that's not my fault... so excuse me for getting off my arsse and finding extra work when my husband had his accident.... you may not wish to hear my circumstances but you're quick to assume I'm on benefit.

Now, point me In the direction where I actually said ' everyone on benefits Is fiddling the system'.

Now go back to the OP which was about the fact that benefit had risen by 20 % and wages by 12 %

edit...

Acutally gmc I'll share something with you about people assuming everyone Is on benefits...

About a year ago before my husband had his accident, someone saw him him helping his Turkish pal out delivering food. He got a phone call from works and pensions saying they wanted to see him. When we got there, the very nice man said the DSS had received an anon tip off he was defrauding the benefit system but it had been passed to works and pensions because there was never any claim for benefit... We know who It was and the police had a pretty good Idea also as they were Investigating a problem of harrassment against us at the time... anyway.... not being on benefits.. we asked why he wanted to see my husband. he said he'd looked at all our details and was concerned that my husband It appeared was not claiming for things he was entitled to given his age and his health... we walked out of there £ 40 a week better off and pissed ourselves laughing all the way home... moral ? If you want to be a nasty fecker then get your facts right first.


In this thread and the one you started about the UK's benefit culture you are quite clearly one of those who assumes everybody is on the fiddle and unemployed from choice. The reality of our benefit system (and I'll concede it was under labour) is there is a real disincentive to get a job as you lose benefit pro rata. Many part time and temporary jobs do not pay enough to support a family and losing benefits if you take a job is a major problem.

gmc;1415044 wrote: In this thread and the one you started about the UK's benefit culture you are quite clearly one of those who assumes everybody is on the fiddle and unemployed from choice. The reality of our benefit system (and I'll concede it was under labour) is there is a real disincentive to get a job as you lose benefit pro rata. Many part time and temporary jobs do not pay enough to support a family and losing benefits if you take a job is a major problem. Then you're wrong... you're assuming I'm assuming everyone on benefit Is on the fiddle...

But when benefits have risen 20 % and wages 12% where Is the Incentive to find work? And frankly I don't blame some people especially women who see a third of their wages go out In child care.



The Issue Is not how people view those on benefits and there are some scroungers out there but the Issue of why wages are 8% below benefit payments and how to address that and get more people back Into work...

oscar;1415049 wrote: Then you're wrong... you're assuming I'm assuming everyone on benefit Is on the fiddle...

But when benefits have risen 20 % and wages 12% where Is the Incentive to find work? And frankly I don't blame some people especially women who see a third of their wages go out In child care.



The Issue Is not how people view those on benefits and there are some scroungers out there but the Issue of why wages are 8% below benefit payments and how to address that and get more people back Into work...


The issue is you are a canting hypocrite.

Did that damnfool waste of oxygen just write that "wages are 8% below benefit payments"? What utter unjustifiable tripe, what meaningless idiocy, what a complete waste of bandwidth.

I'm quite sure she knows full well the extent to which she's insulting other members with this hare-brained diatribe. I for one am in receipt of benefits, and I guarantee that if I didn't have the wretch on ignore she'd be getting right up my nose.

The average wage earner takes home, on average, at least three times and probably five times as much money as the average person on Jobseekers Allowance.



eta: If anyone wants a figure, the average wage after taxation in the UK is around £20,000.

Týr;1415252 wrote: Did that damnfool waste of oxygen just write that "wages are 8% below benefit payments"? What utter unjustifiable tripe, what meaningless idiocy, what a complete waste of bandwidth.

I'm quite sure she knows full well the extent to which she's insulting other members with this hare-brained diatribe. I for one am in receipt of benefits, and I guarantee that if I didn't have the wretch on ignore she'd be getting right up my nose.

The average wage earner takes home, on average, at least three times and probably five times as much money as the average person on Jobseekers Allowance.


Logic might not be her strong point but that does not give you reason for a personal attack - go for the ideas not the person.

Bryn Mawr;1415255 wrote: Logic might not be her strong point but that does not give you reason for a personal attack - go for the ideas not the person.


The idea was beyond twaddle, I could happily walk past it. The poster, on the other hand, has an agenda the size of Manhattan.

Týr;1415257 wrote: The idea was beyond twaddle, I could happily walk past it. The poster, on the other hand, has an agenda the size of Manhattan.


Then expose the agenda, don't insult the poster.

Bryn Mawr;1415267 wrote: Then expose the agenda, don't insult the poster.


I have known curdled milk with more social cachet than oscar.

Týr;1415252 wrote: Did that damnfool waste of oxygen just write that "wages are 8% below benefit payments"? What utter unjustifiable tripe, what meaningless idiocy, what a complete waste of bandwidth.

I'm quite sure she knows full well the extent to which she's insulting other members with this hare-brained diatribe. I for one am in receipt of benefits, and I guarantee that if I didn't have the wretch on ignore she'd be getting right up my nose.

The average wage earner takes home, on average, at least three times and probably five times as much money as the average person on Jobseekers Allowance.



eta: If anyone wants a figure, the average wage after taxation in the UK is around £20,000.


:yh_rotfl You made me laugh out loud.. Up your nose with a rubber hose. I knew you were a closet "Welcome back Kotter" watcher..

Týr;1415252 wrote: Did that damnfool waste of oxygen just write that "wages are 8% below benefit payments"? What utter unjustifiable tripe, what meaningless idiocy, what a complete waste of bandwidth.

I'm quite sure she knows full well the extent to which she's insulting other members with this hare-brained diatribe. I for one am in receipt of benefits, and I guarantee that if I didn't have the wretch on ignore she'd be getting right up my nose.

The average wage earner takes home, on average, at least three times and probably five times as much money as the average person on Jobseekers Allowance.



eta: If anyone wants a figure, the average wage after taxation in the UK is around £20,000. Dear dear dear. what a funny little chap you are.... :wah::wah::wah:

You whine periodically that you were forced to close your Spot account due to my bullying you. You make a post to bruv only very recently that you were forced to put me on Ignore In this account and yet there I was wondering why you had posted In my new thread ' Can you speak English please' last night as surely, If someone Irks you to that extent, you wouldn't want to open their threads would you?

It sounds and appears that you seem to prefer the drama and are In fact actually missing the spats that you so often Instigated and then bitterly complained of. Rather than heed warnings regarding your personal attacks, you seem to believe yous still possess some sort of Impunity here. It appears that the Ignore function has just become all too much for you and you just can't help yourself. But then, of course, I forced you to write that post by bullying you right ? Dear dear dear, such anger....

Rather than respond to your personal attack, I shall wish you well In seeking new employment In the future.

gmc;1415245 wrote: The issue is you are a canting hypocrite.
As you seem to be struggling with the concept of free enterprise let me put It this way ;

have you ever paid a neighbour to babysit your children ? How many people do you think do that ? So they are all hypocrites because by paying the neighbour or a young girl to babysit, they are doing a registered qualified child minder out of a job?

Why would most working people wanting a night out use the local babysitter at £20 a night rather than call In a qualified registered child minder at £20 PER HOUR ?

You're being ridiculous... price wars are part of free enterprise.... supermarkets are In price wars, steel works are In price wars, local shops are In price wars and so are small business's. Without them there would be no growth, no diversity In trade and In fact, a slump where average people can't pay the prices some qualified tradesmen ask for.

I've been out to price jobs where they've had previous quotes and been amazed at what some small business's are asking for... all they do, is price themselves out o the market... tough !!!!

In relation to Tyr's ridiculous calculations, In this country, If you have savings under £6,000 and are In rented accomodation, the benefit system pays your rent and council tax... add this In to what anyone receives for utilities and food and there Is a difference to what Tyr claims... It does depend on some circumstances though.

If you have a mortgage, the benefit system pays the Interest on your mortgage.

oscar;1415283 wrote: In relation to Tyr's ridiculous calculations, In this country, If you have savings under £6,000 and are In rented accomodation, the benefit system pays your rent and council tax... add this In to what anyone receives for utilities and food and there Is a difference to what Tyr claims... It does depend on some circumstances though.

If you have a mortgage, the benefit system pays the Interest on your mortgage.


That is as maybe but I fear the ridiculous calculations are yours.

That benefits have increased by 20% whereas wages have only increased by 12% does not mean that wages are 8% below benefit payments.

Bryn Mawr;1415289 wrote: That is as maybe but I fear the ridiculous calculations are yours.

That benefits have increased by 20% whereas wages have only increased by 12% does not mean that wages are 8% below benefit payments.


I was tired last night.... a moment of acute numptiness Bryn.... apologies....

Just pointing out that should anyone qualify, after rent and council tax are paid by the benefit system, even mortgage Interest payment, benefit recipients can end up with more for utilities and food than some wage earners...

oscar;1415276 wrote: Rather than respond to your personal attack, I shall wish you well In seeking new employment In the future. :)You cannot seriously be so ill-mannered as to speculate on the nature of my benefit, surely. I'm self-employed, it would be practically impossible for me to claim a jobseekers allowance.

oscar;1415278 wrote: As you seem to be struggling with the concept of free enterprise let me put It this way ;

have you ever paid a neighbour to babysit your children ? How many people do you think do that ? So they are all hypocrites because by paying the neighbour or a young girl to babysit, they are doing a registered qualified child minder out of a job?

Why would most working people wanting a night out use the local babysitter at £20 a night rather than call In a qualified registered child minder at £20 PER HOUR ?

You're being ridiculous... price wars are part of free enterprise.... supermarkets are In price wars, steel works are In price wars, local shops are In price wars and so are small business's. Without them there would be no growth, no diversity In trade and In fact, a slump where average people can't pay the prices some qualified tradesmen ask for.

I've been out to price jobs where they've had previous quotes and been amazed at what some small business's are asking for... all they do, is price themselves out o the market... tough !!!!


The difference is I don't post umpteen threads about the benefit culture and welfare scroungers while boasting about how you abuse the system. Babysitters is a bad example most people ill ask relatives or a family friend. The qualified registered childminders has had to pay for her qualifications, have her premises inspected and carry insurance in case of accidents. Would you trust your kids to someone that wasn't a registered childminders or a close relative? Similarly the tradesman has to have indemnity insurance and also pay VAT so has no chance against the benefit scrounger working on the side. It's not price warfare it's you playing the system and using unqualified tradesmen who are also taking benefits. I won;t use a tradesman who tells me he can do the job for less if I pay him cash in hand for the simple reason if he mucks it up I have no comeback against him. I got my roof done recently -cost me £1500. My neighbour used a fellow who came to his door, took great delight in telling me his only cost £800 I know this cost to be true because the same man approached me telling me he was working on my neighbours roof quoting £1200 but if I paid him cash £800 and if he could do it today since he was in the area with all his tools. Trouble is it cost my neighbour another £2,500 to get it fixed by a real tradesman - the guy that did mine as it happens.

You weren't paying a competing small business you were offering to pay someone you knew was fiddling the system and claiming unemployment benefit. I trust you pay VAT and charge it (if applicable) and carry indemnity insurance in case you damage somebody's property

Just pointing out that should anyone qualify, after rent and council tax are paid by the benefit system, even mortgage Interest payment, benefit recipients can end up with more for utilities and food than some wage earners...


Mortgage interest payment is only for a short period and then stops - you end up being forced to sell your house if you can't get a good enough job to sustain it. The self employed are not eligible for any automatic benefits they only get living allowance and the like if they are without savings or income. People losing their businesses tend to have used savings trying to make end meet. The number of people playing the system in minuscule compared to the number who actually really do need help. I've seen it from both sides let's just say you and i are always going to be on opposite sides come the revolution.

Incidentally most people in this country are within three pay cheques of not being able to pay their bills. lenders can start repossession procedures after two months almost straight away in practice most will wait three months or so by six all will have started taking action. They need top be careful as bad publicity is something they want to avoid seeing as how they have been bailed oyt and have caused this mess in the first place. . You are delusional if you think you can sit in your house doing nothing while the state pays everything most will be out the house within a year, if they can't get a job quickly, hoping to get on the waiting list for the social housing that no longer exists. Mortgage interest benefit can be applied for after three months it used to be nine.

Course you can always make a living getting backhanders fixing patios - let's face it if you were a legit tradesman you have no chance in a competitive market unless you do - offhand I can think of two tilers and one joiner who can testify to that.

The A to Z of repossession - Telegraph

But getting a possession order is not the same as actual eviction, said the HSBC spokesman. "Many of these orders are not executed – often because the borrower sells the home," he added. "Repossession is the very worst thing that can happen to homeowners so they will do everything they can to avoid it. We execute the order only when it's clear that there's no way for the borrower to get back on track."

As a result, another three months may pass between the order being granted and the lender taking possession of the property. "It's taking between 160 and 185 days from the start of proceedings before customers in default are losing their homes," the spokesman said. "A lot comes down to how busy the courts are – if the number of repossessions rises, the delay could increase."

As a result, between nine and 12 months can elapse between a borrower first getting into difficulty and the property being repossessed.

gmc;1415302 wrote: The difference is I don't post umpteen threads about the benefit culture and welfare scroungers while boasting about how you abuse the system. [/url]


Let's concentrate on this first:

How exactly am I abusing the system ?

I was not and am not on benefits.

When my husband had his accident and I wanted extra money, I advertised as a gardener, something I happen to have knowledge of.

I wasn't defrauding the system, I was simply replacing my husbands part time job with something else while he recovered.

As work came In, I registered with a company name and Informed the Inland Revenue. I didn't need to Inform anyone else except the VAT man because I had no claims for anything.

I undertake a gardening job and an old man has had seperate quotes for the patio, up to £250.... which he can't pay....

He has enough confidence to let me do It for a fraction of the price.....

If I hadn't have done It, he would not have had the work done because he couldn't afford those prices.... therefore... no qualified tradesman was done out of work because he wasn't going to use them at their prices.

He pays me for a good job and I pay tax on It...

Now how exactly Is that defrauding the system?

If I was claiming benefit and then pocketed £100... yes, that's abusing the system.... If qualified tradesmen over price a job and thus put themselves out of work.... tough !!! Or haven't you noticed this country has Free Enterprise...

gmc;1415302 wrote: The difference is I don't post umpteen threads about the benefit culture and welfare scroungers while boasting about how you abuse the system. Babysitters is a bad example most people ill ask relatives or a family friend. The qualified registered childminders has had to pay for her qualifications, have her premises inspected and carry insurance in case of accidents. Would you trust your kids to someone that wasn't a registered childminders or a close relative? Similarly the tradesman has to have indemnity insurance and also pay VAT so has no chance against the benefit scrounger working on the side. It's not price warfare it's you playing the system and using unqualified tradesmen who are also taking benefits.


I do have Indemnity Insurance.... believe me... I'm not going anywhere near someone else's property without Insurance and that was the one thing I thought of first.

Now... what part of we do not and were not claiming benefit do you not understand? My husband Is 69 years old... common sense should tell you that he Is pensionable age.

Yes, of course there are people who do work on the side while claiming benefit but I find your comments Insulting and I suspect you are either being deliberatly Insulting or this Is just a case of sour grapes. When my husband had his accident, I had the choice of getting my hands dirty or running to the benefit office to see what I could claim.

The benefit system should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice and sorry but there are some who see It as the latter..

This Is one of many :

There you go gmc... this Is what a qualified tradesmen does.

cowboy builder from hell - YouTube

oscar;1415304 wrote: Let's concentrate on this first:

How exactly am I abusing the system ?

I was not and am not on benefits.

When my husband had his accident and I wanted extra money, I advertised as a gardener, something I happen to have knowledge of.

I wasn't defrauding the system, I was simply replacing my husbands part time job with something else while he recovered.

As work came In, I registered with a company name and Informed the Inland Revenue. I didn't need to Inform anyone else except the VAT man because I had no claims for anything.

I undertake a gardening job and an old man has had seperate quotes for the patio, up to £250.... which he can't pay....

He has enough confidence to let me do It for a fraction of the price.....

If I hadn't have done It, he would not have had the work done because he couldn't afford those prices.... therefore... no qualified tradesman was done out of work because he wasn't going to use them at their prices.

He pays me for a good job and I pay tax on It...

Now how exactly Is that defrauding the system?

If I was claiming benefit and then pocketed £100... yes, that's abusing the system.... If qualified tradesmen over price a job and thus put themselves out of work.... tough !!! Or haven't you noticed this country has Free Enterprise...


I have no objection to you getting a business going, good luck to you. You offered to pay someone you know is on benefits to do a job for you on the side. In oscar speak you offered a benefit scrounger a backhander to work for you. Don't complain about people fiddling their benefits while working if you endorse their action by encouraging it.

gmc;1415314 wrote: I have no objection to you getting a business going, good luck to you. You offered to pay someone you know is on benefits to do a job for you on the side. In oscar speak you offered a benefit scrounger a backhander to work for you. Don't complain about people fiddling their benefits while working if you endorse their action by encouraging it. But as I said prior... If he'd have done the job and done It well, I may have been able to advertise pointing and get him more work... everyone needs a leg up sometimes you know.

oscar;1415317 wrote: But as I said prior... If he'd have done the job and done It well, I may have been able to advertise pointing and get him more work... everyone needs a leg up sometimes you know.


and do doubt you would encourage him to declare all the income and come off benefits - or would you report him for fiddling the system and claiming benefits while actually working or do you favour refusing the benefits by the amount he earns. What about all those weeks when he has no work should he sign on? Or like tghe daily mail do you just rant and not actually have any constructive suggestions to make?

gmc;1415342 wrote: and do doubt you would encourage him to declare all the income and come off benefits - or would you report him for fiddling the system and claiming benefits while actually working or do you favour refusing the benefits by the amount he earns. What about all those weeks when he has no work should he sign on? Or like tghe daily mail do you just rant and not actually have any constructive suggestions to make? Stop being so ridiculous... you know as well as I do that the benefit system does not suddenly stop all benefits, stop paying your rent just because you've done an afternoon's work.... anyone In that position can declare what they've earned and have their benefit adjusted accordingly... If that were the case then millions of people on part time wages being topped up by Income support would be starving and on the streets...

oscar;1415343 wrote: Stop being so ridiculous... you know as well as I do that the benefit system does not suddenly stop all benefits, stop paying your rent just because you've done an afternoon's work.... anyone In that position can declare what they've earned and have their benefit adjusted accordingly... If that were the case then millions of people on part time wages being topped up by Income support would be starving and on the streets...


According to the right wing press they shouldn't be getting income support at all as it encourages people to remain on benefits or play the system and just earn enough so they keep their benefits and don't actually have to work for a living. You cite one or two examples and think you have made a case that people on benefits are just lazy and not looking hard enough. So you have three jobs, lucky you that can do that in some parts of the country there really are no jobs even part time to be had. I used to work in retail when we opened a store in scotland and advertised for staff there were three thousand applications the first week. It's not actually that much better. The managers from london who had come up to help just couldn't believe it - in London they struggled to get staff

Was talking to a chap on Thursday wearing a neck brace. Temporary worker fell while at work delivering parcels broke his neck, luckily not paralysing him but he will take years to recover and be able to work again. No compensation as the employers insurance only covered him if he was injured in the van. Can't sue anyone as he slipped on an icy path so who to sue with any chance of success, the council, the house-owner? He's applying for long term disability benefit and will be joining the ranks of the feckless long term disabled scrounger living on the state. At least he has paid in to it for thirty years or so lots of different jobs worked all his life owns his own house brought up two kids no decent pension now worried sick about the future. We live in a country where we have a welfare state something created at the behest of ordinary working people if we're not careful people like Cameron et al will destroy something they can't appreciate because they are rich enough to always choose and never have to face the visceral fear of being unemployed and poor.

You're right there are people who are lazy and don't want to work but for every one of those there are dozens struggling to get by. Quite frankly I despise the Tories the right wing press like the daily mail and smug gits like you that ignore the real causes of the present crisis and focus on an easy target. The bankers should be going to jail Tony Blair is a liar and a war criminal it angers he has made himself a millionaire on the misery he has caused. At least the tories are consistent bastards labour are worse they're hypocrites. It's a toss up who was worse for the country, on balance I would blame labour most for the last two decades and Gordon Brown at the top of the list. A plague on all their houses.

I do get het up about these issue, more people should that would scare the **** out of the government. The riots had many causes but at the root is a growing anger and despair that thing is changing. You know there are demonstrations and riots all over europe and in the US as well. You have to go on-line to find out about it though.

When my husband retired officially, we had an option of him claiming for me which he was entitled to do under state pension although I was younger than him. I could have put my feet up for the rest of my days.

Half of the country losing jobs and facing hardship are genuine and I have the utmost sympathy for them. My own family has had redundancies through no fault of their own but I am not responsible for the rest of the country.

This was the same when we had bailout... Yes, people are having cars and homes repossessed but many of those people are the feckless, reckless morons who have chosen to live totally beyond their means. They mortgage themselves to the hilt, re-mortgage the moment they get equity, put 4 new cars In the drive, all beyond their limits, use the credit cards to the max, borrow more money from the bank and then when It goes tits up, first they blame the government then they are down the courts declaring themselves bankrupt only to start the borrowing process again 8 years later when they are legally off the hook. The banks and lenders created a false economy by lending to people to live lives totally beyond their means... that's why we had bail out.

I don't live beyond my means and I go to bed at night knowing that I don't owe one single person one bloody penny. That Is not through privalige, It's because I work and work hard paying my bills before I even think about buying food. If I have a heavy month with bills then we don't buy luxury food that week. So If you think I give a toss about some feckless pratt who Is losing his car or home because he's borrowed far more money than he can afford to repay, then you'll be a long time waiting. Why should I or anyone else be responsible or be on a guilt trip because some of us live within our means, save for our cars and buy them outright Instead of whacking the credit with ridiculous Interest rates.? Why should I be on a guilt trip because I've worked and been responsible for my money when feckless morons make lifestyle choices that see them end up in the bankrupcy courts? So excuse me for choosing to work, budget my Income, be responsible, not borrow money and save for hard climes.... silly me...

I post no more threads on the benefit culture which In case you haven't noticed, Is political news right now. No more pushing an agenda than the gun debates here or the Inclination to take threads off onto the subject of religion or US drones killing people.