Are these children victims of the Tory welfare cap or sheer parental stupidity?
I am a supporter of a society that looks after the less fortunate or those down on their luck.
What should we do with people like this ?
What should we do with them ?
What should we do with them ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
What should we do with them ?
As a society we need to make a choice. Are we prepared to see anyone within the borders of our country sleep rough or be malnourished for any reason other than a personal deliberate informed decision to sleep rough or be malnourished. There are some countries, like India and America for example, where some people are forced to sleep rough or eat inadequately as a consequence of unavoidable mischance or wayward fecklessness. Britain chose, after the war, to provide a social safety net to support people in that situation. The present British government appears to be abandoning that part of the social contract.
Have I got anything wrong yet, before I write any more?
Have I got anything wrong yet, before I write any more?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What should we do with them ?
The initial question is actually 3 opposing questions seeking a single answer.
The first question - Are the children victims?
Of course they are. None of them could possibly be held to blame for the actions of their parents or the system in general.
Are the parents irresponsible for having more children than they could afford?
That's not quite as straightforward as the story might initially have you believe, as the Father was working to start with. It's only when he was made redundant that the real problems started. So at first, they didn't have more children than they could afford at the time. Their irresponsibility was in not making sufficient provision for a potential future when things weren't so rosy.
Is it the Welfare Cuts that are responsible?
To a great extent, yes. In this case, when read without the extreme bias that it is portraying, it has been shown that they are not the welfare scroungers it makes them out to be. He has recently been working & made redundant. As for the Nikon camera - how long has she had it? As for realism - just how much do you seriously expect to get for a £500 camera on eBay? £500? More like £50, if you're lucky. They have been paying their taxes & their National Insurance. If the policy was a private one & the Insurance Company reneged by changing its pay out terms come the time of claiming there would be legal hell to pay, but because of Austerity Cuts, it's perfectly acceptable. Plus, another Private Landlord gets to put up his rents for the next tenant.
The article is an extremely biased report on just one case brought about by the welfare cap. Here's another one:
https://sweetswayresists.wordpress.com/
The first question - Are the children victims?
Of course they are. None of them could possibly be held to blame for the actions of their parents or the system in general.
Are the parents irresponsible for having more children than they could afford?
That's not quite as straightforward as the story might initially have you believe, as the Father was working to start with. It's only when he was made redundant that the real problems started. So at first, they didn't have more children than they could afford at the time. Their irresponsibility was in not making sufficient provision for a potential future when things weren't so rosy.
Is it the Welfare Cuts that are responsible?
To a great extent, yes. In this case, when read without the extreme bias that it is portraying, it has been shown that they are not the welfare scroungers it makes them out to be. He has recently been working & made redundant. As for the Nikon camera - how long has she had it? As for realism - just how much do you seriously expect to get for a £500 camera on eBay? £500? More like £50, if you're lucky. They have been paying their taxes & their National Insurance. If the policy was a private one & the Insurance Company reneged by changing its pay out terms come the time of claiming there would be legal hell to pay, but because of Austerity Cuts, it's perfectly acceptable. Plus, another Private Landlord gets to put up his rents for the next tenant.
The article is an extremely biased report on just one case brought about by the welfare cap. Here's another one:
https://sweetswayresists.wordpress.com/
What should we do with them ?
Bruv;1479986 wrote: Are these children victims of the Tory welfare cap or sheer parental stupidity?
I am a supporter of a society that looks after the less fortunate or those down on their luck.
What should we do with people like this ?
Try and help them through the bad times. If that chap with the large family took a minimum, or near minimum wage job,with no state support, how will he avoid having to go to the food-bank to feed his family? Or pay a private landlord's exorbitant rent? Successive governments have managed to create an "underclass" of low-paid workers, and pilloried the unemployed, whilst offering masses and masses of work abroad. It's no good creating jobs if you cannot survive on the money they pay.
Bootless spin propagated by a quietly authoritarian brat-pack of book-learned, anile, selfish, greedy popinjays!!
Viva la Revolucion!!!
I am a supporter of a society that looks after the less fortunate or those down on their luck.
What should we do with people like this ?
Try and help them through the bad times. If that chap with the large family took a minimum, or near minimum wage job,with no state support, how will he avoid having to go to the food-bank to feed his family? Or pay a private landlord's exorbitant rent? Successive governments have managed to create an "underclass" of low-paid workers, and pilloried the unemployed, whilst offering masses and masses of work abroad. It's no good creating jobs if you cannot survive on the money they pay.
Bootless spin propagated by a quietly authoritarian brat-pack of book-learned, anile, selfish, greedy popinjays!!
Viva la Revolucion!!!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
What should we do with them ?
As the article says the system is supposed to be a safety net, but over the years many have adapted or got used to it as a life style choice.
If you were to offer a helping hand to somebody, to shelter them in your home sleeping on your sofa and feed them twice a day at your convenience, many will hurry and sort themselves out of such a situation, while others will adapt settle in ,and demand the TV remote rights as well.
I have framed it so it is personal, eating your food and encroaching on your good will.
I work part time in a local supermarket as a handyman, I have been told that the amount of people who work full time could be counted on one hand, and that the majority have their poor wages subsidised by benefits, many will not work more hours as it affects these benefits.
The question remains, how do you wean people off the so called dependency culture ?
If you were to offer a helping hand to somebody, to shelter them in your home sleeping on your sofa and feed them twice a day at your convenience, many will hurry and sort themselves out of such a situation, while others will adapt settle in ,and demand the TV remote rights as well.
I have framed it so it is personal, eating your food and encroaching on your good will.
I work part time in a local supermarket as a handyman, I have been told that the amount of people who work full time could be counted on one hand, and that the majority have their poor wages subsidised by benefits, many will not work more hours as it affects these benefits.
The question remains, how do you wean people off the so called dependency culture ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
What should we do with them ?
Bruv;1480009 wrote: As the article says the system is supposed to be a safety net, but over the years many have adapted or got used to it as a life style choice.
If you were to offer a helping hand to somebody, to shelter them in your home sleeping on your sofa and feed them twice a day at your convenience, many will hurry and sort themselves out of such a situation, while others will adapt settle in ,and demand the TV remote rights as well.
I have framed it so it is personal, eating your food and encroaching on your good will.
I work part time in a local supermarket as a handyman, I have been told that the amount of people who work full time could be counted on one hand, and that the majority have their poor wages subsidised by benefits, many will not work more hours as it affects these benefits.
The question remains, how do you wean people off the so called dependency culture ?
By offering a proper incentive (higher wages, full-time hours, overtime if desired, better interest rates) would be a start. And by offering the part-timers a bigger cash leeway for earnings before benefit is deducted, otherwise the status quo will continue, and nothing will change. And that will be the peoples fault too, after all it couldn't possibly be serial government mis-management, could it?
If you were to offer a helping hand to somebody, to shelter them in your home sleeping on your sofa and feed them twice a day at your convenience, many will hurry and sort themselves out of such a situation, while others will adapt settle in ,and demand the TV remote rights as well.
I have framed it so it is personal, eating your food and encroaching on your good will.
I work part time in a local supermarket as a handyman, I have been told that the amount of people who work full time could be counted on one hand, and that the majority have their poor wages subsidised by benefits, many will not work more hours as it affects these benefits.
The question remains, how do you wean people off the so called dependency culture ?
By offering a proper incentive (higher wages, full-time hours, overtime if desired, better interest rates) would be a start. And by offering the part-timers a bigger cash leeway for earnings before benefit is deducted, otherwise the status quo will continue, and nothing will change. And that will be the peoples fault too, after all it couldn't possibly be serial government mis-management, could it?
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
What should we do with them ?
Smaug;1480011 wrote: By offering a proper incentive (higher wages, full-time hours, overtime if desired, better interest rates) would be a start. And by offering the part-timers a bigger cash leeway for earnings before benefit is deducted, otherwise the status quo will continue, and nothing will change. And that will be the peoples fault too, after all it couldn't possibly be serial government mis-management, could it?
I think they call it social engineering, because I see this as starting from way back when Maggy sold off the housing stock.
A lot of that housing slipped into private landlord's hands, because they came onto the market cheaply as the economy slumped.
Now those same ex-council houses are being rented back to the same people at inflated open market prices. The price is inflated because the tenants are high risk and the rent is or was paid on top of any other benefits and directly to the council.
Now.......because the greedy landlords could ask what ever they wanted, and because the money went directly to them with no risk of being used by the benefit user elsewhere, the rents went up and up, until the politicians felt the need to put a stop to it with a cap......and bugger me they put the tenant back in charge of paying it to the landlord.
I think that is the mechanics of how it has worked over the years, so NOW all of a sudden.......all the problems can be laid at the feet of bad, lazy and incompetent parents.
And to make it complicated there are some really lazy incompetent bad parents out there who believe they are entitled to everything they can claim for without raising a finger.
I think they call it social engineering, because I see this as starting from way back when Maggy sold off the housing stock.
A lot of that housing slipped into private landlord's hands, because they came onto the market cheaply as the economy slumped.
Now those same ex-council houses are being rented back to the same people at inflated open market prices. The price is inflated because the tenants are high risk and the rent is or was paid on top of any other benefits and directly to the council.
Now.......because the greedy landlords could ask what ever they wanted, and because the money went directly to them with no risk of being used by the benefit user elsewhere, the rents went up and up, until the politicians felt the need to put a stop to it with a cap......and bugger me they put the tenant back in charge of paying it to the landlord.
I think that is the mechanics of how it has worked over the years, so NOW all of a sudden.......all the problems can be laid at the feet of bad, lazy and incompetent parents.
And to make it complicated there are some really lazy incompetent bad parents out there who believe they are entitled to everything they can claim for without raising a finger.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
What should we do with them ?
Bit of both I would say. As to the large family nothing is said about their religion maybe it's one of those that ban the use of contraceptives are you saying they should be penalised because of their faith? Trouble is it's couples like this that get all the headlines because they can be pillories as feckles and irresponsible.
The £950-a-month rent was paid in full by the taxpayer.
That is more than most people pay on their mortgage. I know several couples both in work trapped in rented accomodation because thye don't havee nough disposable income to save for a deposit. We have politicians who seem to beklieve most children will just borrow from mum and dad. Most people in this country are threee months away from not being able to pay their bills if they lose their jobs or become ill and can't work in that regard this uis a typical family. How long will your savings last?
2013 I knew of one couple both of whom worked for the bank of scotland who lost their jobs just before christmas the sad reality being if you work in a bank there is actually little else you are qualified to do and Tesco just don't pay that well.
The benefit system is actrually subsidising employers who choose to pay low wages and enjoy the flexibility of a part time work force (albiet totally demotivated) on minimum wage but forced to accept what's on offer. 63% of the electoirate do not want tory governments and more austerity but we're stuck with it. This crisis was not caused by the poor and thise on welfare but by bankers and a ruling establishment so far up the backside of the bankers they speak with one voice.
The £950-a-month rent was paid in full by the taxpayer.
That is more than most people pay on their mortgage. I know several couples both in work trapped in rented accomodation because thye don't havee nough disposable income to save for a deposit. We have politicians who seem to beklieve most children will just borrow from mum and dad. Most people in this country are threee months away from not being able to pay their bills if they lose their jobs or become ill and can't work in that regard this uis a typical family. How long will your savings last?
2013 I knew of one couple both of whom worked for the bank of scotland who lost their jobs just before christmas the sad reality being if you work in a bank there is actually little else you are qualified to do and Tesco just don't pay that well.
The benefit system is actrually subsidising employers who choose to pay low wages and enjoy the flexibility of a part time work force (albiet totally demotivated) on minimum wage but forced to accept what's on offer. 63% of the electoirate do not want tory governments and more austerity but we're stuck with it. This crisis was not caused by the poor and thise on welfare but by bankers and a ruling establishment so far up the backside of the bankers they speak with one voice.
What should we do with them ?
According to this site the £950 / month is slightly less than average for a THREE bedroomed house in Colchester. I imagine their property has more than 3 bedrooms.
Home.co.uk: Colchester Market Rent Summary
Home.co.uk: Colchester Market Rent Summary
What should we do with them ?
FourPart;1480045 wrote: According to this site the £950 / month is slightly less than average for a THREE bedroomed house in Colchester. I imagine their property has more than 3 bedrooms.
Home.co.uk: Colchester Market Rent Summary
Outside of london and the soputh east £950 a month will get you a big house
Home.co.uk: Colchester Market Rent Summary
Outside of london and the soputh east £950 a month will get you a big house
What should we do with them ?
"Social engineering", to borrow Bruv's statement (I know it's a real term, Spot; Bruv didn't invent it...:wah:), or nascent industrial dictatorship?
You decide.
You decide.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
What should we do with them ?
Smaug;1480081 wrote: "Social engineering", to borrow Bruv's statement (I know it's a real term, Spot; Bruv didn't invent it...:wah:), or nascent industrial dictatorship?
You decide.
When the lft do it it's calle social engineering when thatchr and the tories do it it's called giving people a choice. The tories are idealogically opposed to any kind of socialist policies be it the NHS or sicial housing, there's nothing nice about what theyb re doing and any impression that it is for the good of ordinary people is just that an impression and a false one at that.
This Government was elected by just 24 per cent of the UK’s adult population. Now David Cameron intends to ban strikes unless the ballot has a minimum 50 per cent turnout and the strike is backed by at least 40 per cent of those entitled to vote. It means that a strike could be declared illegal even with the backing of 80 per cent of those voting. Apply that principle to council and parliamentary elections and there would be scarcely be a single politician left standing. And of course, no such restrictions are planned for big companies that slash wages, raise prices or desert communities at the slightest sniff of an infringement on their profit margin that's if they don't decide to sue thegovernments concerned (see ttip treaty).
We seriously need a proper opposition to what is happening but neiher labour or tory want to do anything to change an elactioral system that favours their electoral prospects and once in power labour seem to be even more destructive than the tories - at least they (the tories) are proper self serving bastards and don't pretend otherwise
as opposed to the smarmy labour kind.
You decide.
When the lft do it it's calle social engineering when thatchr and the tories do it it's called giving people a choice. The tories are idealogically opposed to any kind of socialist policies be it the NHS or sicial housing, there's nothing nice about what theyb re doing and any impression that it is for the good of ordinary people is just that an impression and a false one at that.
This Government was elected by just 24 per cent of the UK’s adult population. Now David Cameron intends to ban strikes unless the ballot has a minimum 50 per cent turnout and the strike is backed by at least 40 per cent of those entitled to vote. It means that a strike could be declared illegal even with the backing of 80 per cent of those voting. Apply that principle to council and parliamentary elections and there would be scarcely be a single politician left standing. And of course, no such restrictions are planned for big companies that slash wages, raise prices or desert communities at the slightest sniff of an infringement on their profit margin that's if they don't decide to sue thegovernments concerned (see ttip treaty).
We seriously need a proper opposition to what is happening but neiher labour or tory want to do anything to change an elactioral system that favours their electoral prospects and once in power labour seem to be even more destructive than the tories - at least they (the tories) are proper self serving bastards and don't pretend otherwise
as opposed to the smarmy labour kind.
What should we do with them ?
gmc;1480085 wrote: When the lft do it it's calle social engineering when thatchr and the tories do it it's called giving people a choice. The tories are idealogically opposed to any kind of socialist policies be it the NHS or sicial housing, there's nothing nice about what theyb re doing and any impression that it is for the good of ordinary people is just that an impression and a false one at that.
This Government was elected by just 24 per cent of the UK’s adult population. Now David Cameron intends to ban strikes unless the ballot has a minimum 50 per cent turnout and the strike is backed by at least 40 per cent of those entitled to vote. It means that a strike could be declared illegal even with the backing of 80 per cent of those voting. Apply that principle to council and parliamentary elections and there would be scarcely be a single politician left standing. And of course, no such restrictions are planned for big companies that slash wages, raise prices or desert communities at the slightest sniff of an infringement on their profit margin that's if they don't decide to sue thegovernments concerned (see ttip treaty).
We seriously need a proper opposition to what is happening but neiher labour or tory want to do anything to change an elactioral system that favours their electoral prospects and once in power labour seem to be even more destructive than the tories - at least they (the tories) are proper self serving bastards and don't pretend otherwise
as opposed to the smarmy labour kind.
You've definitely "got the meat of it", GMC. Makes me hopping, hissing mad just thinking of the arrogant, out of touch, self-serving, immoral, amoral, lying, cheating, incompetent, heartless illegitimates!!!
This Government was elected by just 24 per cent of the UK’s adult population. Now David Cameron intends to ban strikes unless the ballot has a minimum 50 per cent turnout and the strike is backed by at least 40 per cent of those entitled to vote. It means that a strike could be declared illegal even with the backing of 80 per cent of those voting. Apply that principle to council and parliamentary elections and there would be scarcely be a single politician left standing. And of course, no such restrictions are planned for big companies that slash wages, raise prices or desert communities at the slightest sniff of an infringement on their profit margin that's if they don't decide to sue thegovernments concerned (see ttip treaty).
We seriously need a proper opposition to what is happening but neiher labour or tory want to do anything to change an elactioral system that favours their electoral prospects and once in power labour seem to be even more destructive than the tories - at least they (the tories) are proper self serving bastards and don't pretend otherwise
as opposed to the smarmy labour kind.
You've definitely "got the meat of it", GMC. Makes me hopping, hissing mad just thinking of the arrogant, out of touch, self-serving, immoral, amoral, lying, cheating, incompetent, heartless illegitimates!!!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
What should we do with them ?
Social Engineering, by whatever title you choose to give it is an evil invention of the Capitalists. Originally a family may well have been living within their means in the cheap LDRs (low Desirable Residencies - aka slums). Then come along other corporate projects nearby, gradually annexing nearby areas, steadily increasing the desirability for the properties as far as the market value goes. This, naturally, gets to be reflected in the rent for those properties. The properties themselves don't change - just the value of the land they're built on.
For example, I'm currently involved in a local Precinct Development Project, as part of a Resident's Committee. The former precint was a typica 60s design of a row of shops with flats above them. Then one day the walkway access to the doors of the flats suddenly fell away overnight, leaving the residents trapped & had to be rescued by the Fire & Rescue Services. It was then decided that it was not financially viable to repair it & the residents were rehoused (temporarily or permanently - the choice is being giving to the residents), the precinct demolished & a new, state of the art one being built in its place. Now it has come to light that the Market Value of the properties facing onto this precinct has suddenly rocketed as a consequence.
Another example of Social Engineering & the current trend for what is nothing less than Disguised Ethnic Cleansing is the ongoing disgrace of Sweets Way, where the residents are forcibly being evicted from their homes through no fault of their own whatsoever, simply because the Council wants to develop the area & make it so that they wouldn't be able to afford to live there any more.
London housing: the evicted children of Sweets Way | UK news | The Guardian
A related article to the above which, not surprisingly includes the following passage (Guy Hands - Tax Exile - being the major Property Investor concerned):
Hands, 55, and his wife, Julia, are together estimated to be worth £250m, according to the Sunday Times Rich List. The Guernsey-based investor is close to William Hague, the former Conservative party leader who was best man at Hands’s wedding
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... -evictions
For example, I'm currently involved in a local Precinct Development Project, as part of a Resident's Committee. The former precint was a typica 60s design of a row of shops with flats above them. Then one day the walkway access to the doors of the flats suddenly fell away overnight, leaving the residents trapped & had to be rescued by the Fire & Rescue Services. It was then decided that it was not financially viable to repair it & the residents were rehoused (temporarily or permanently - the choice is being giving to the residents), the precinct demolished & a new, state of the art one being built in its place. Now it has come to light that the Market Value of the properties facing onto this precinct has suddenly rocketed as a consequence.
Another example of Social Engineering & the current trend for what is nothing less than Disguised Ethnic Cleansing is the ongoing disgrace of Sweets Way, where the residents are forcibly being evicted from their homes through no fault of their own whatsoever, simply because the Council wants to develop the area & make it so that they wouldn't be able to afford to live there any more.
London housing: the evicted children of Sweets Way | UK news | The Guardian
A related article to the above which, not surprisingly includes the following passage (Guy Hands - Tax Exile - being the major Property Investor concerned):
Hands, 55, and his wife, Julia, are together estimated to be worth £250m, according to the Sunday Times Rich List. The Guernsey-based investor is close to William Hague, the former Conservative party leader who was best man at Hands’s wedding
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... -evictions