Kicked off A4e and then wrestled out of job center.

wishface

JoeBreakdown wrote: »

Maybe people should be educated to think more carefully about having children, so as not to bring them up in poverty?

Well of course people should be educated. That doesn't mean they aren't. This country isn't drowning under a wave of single mother poverty.

Nor does it mean that such people shouldn't receive welfare where needed. But if you think people become single mothers just to 'get on the social'; well you need to stop watching Shameless and reading the News of the Screws.

JoeBreakdown wrote: »

Our country, and the planet as a whole is massively over populated and natural resources are streteched to an absolute maximum. While I don't agree that people have children just to get a free house and live on benefits, I think children are a privilage and not a right. People should consider whether they have a means to support a child (or children), before they consider having them.

Probably not very relevent here, but there you are!

Children are neither a right nor a privilege they are the outcome of biology and evolution. Would you propose we sterilise people at birth? That's the sort of nonsense idiots like James Whale come up with, just to stir the !!!! on his dreadful radio show.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what your point is in relation to the debate about welfare.

JoeBreakdown wrote: »

Most people out of work are not scroungers, and it is awful when everyone gets tarred with the same brush. However, there are exceptions. My partner and I overheard a young mother talking to her friend on Saturday, telling her how to get out of being sent to interviews etc at the job centre. Stupid thiings like, 'just make sure you're late. Let them see you having a fag beforehand, it's easy!! Made me a little sad.

Nothing to do with the OP's original post though! I do think the heavy handed approach at the job centre was unacceptable, and a lack of communication caused things to get a lot worse than they should have been!

There are exceptions to the nature of people in all walks of life, but the papers aren't filled with the misdeeds perpetrated by office workers stealing stationery, sales reps abusing corporate junkets and expenses, retail workers who help themselves to stock or anyone anywhere.

As for basing your opinions on what you overheard some complete stranger saying...well honestly, you're as bad as Carole Malone if that's how you think. The world needs less people like her (if youre worried about overcrowding there's a place to start).

glossgal

wishface wrote: »

We are lucky in this country, but that isn't really much of an argument in favour of making a system more harsh. I'm not entirely sure why you would want it to be more harsh; it's only in the fevered imaginations of the press and the right wing that the treasury is in the grip of benefit fraudsters and immigrants.
You've unwittingly fallen into the same trap as all these people - your argument again shines the light onto the claimants and the people who receive benefits. As if they are the problem. They aren't; this is a rich country the benefits bill isn't a problem; yet people are more concerned about this than they are the billions that are lost to the treasury through creative corporate fraud and tax evasion.
The notion that people pop out legions of kids just to have an easy life (as if!) and get a free house off the social is a complete myth. The only reason single mothers get housing so we don't allow kids to starve to death in the gutters. The idea tht people go out and have kids to get houses is complete !!!!!!!! invented by the likes of The Sun and people like Carole Malone and Kelvine Mackenzie. Why no rhetoric about their hatemongering?

We live in a materialistic wealthy capitalist society that brainwashes people into consumerism because that's how capitalism works. In fact the system depends on unemployment as a means to keep wages low - as I said it's an industry. You can't really blame people then for doing a bit of work on the side while claiming the pittance they get off the dole. In other circles that would be call entrepreneurship and get rewarded. Such double standards. Benefit fraud is at negligable levels - despite what the TV ads with their scary voice might say. Unfortunately they captialise on the bitterness that people have in general about their lot. Bitterness that shoudl be directed toward the state and the elite who control the wealth, the power and make (and break) the rules.

What society should be doing is investing in deprived areas, educating the families there and deepening the culture so as to inspire and broaden the minds. Until then it's really no use complaining about the vulnerable and the poor; people need to direct their anger toward the real spongers and not bemoan some poor sod on a council estate whose only real joy is spending a few quid on cans of lager because life stinks.

Believe me I base my opinions entirely on fact and personal and professional experience-not what some right wing rag/media/Jeremy Kyle episode tells me. The bottom line is the only people who are against a tightening up of the welfare system are the people who abuse it.

Yes, the amout of benefit fraudsters is probably about 10% for arguements sake-but I'm not talking about them, Im referring to peole who use the system to suit their circumstances ie aren't on benefit because their lives depend on it but because it's convenient and that percentage I'd guess is about 40%. So combined I'd say that was cause for concern on the old public purse. The arguement that corporate crime goes on is flimsy and irrelevant-like saying who cares about rape when there's murder being commited. The two are equally bad.

As for kids 'starving in the gutter', if you are poor and keep having kids then you perpetuate poverty and deserve whatever misery you get from it. You aren't a victim, you are a purpetraitor. Real poverty is a world removed from what goes on in this country, I don't see kids here begging for food or crawling on rubbish dumps eating waste, try a visit to a south american slum if you really want something to carp about.

wishface

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The trouble is, if you did that for everyone all your salary would go on it.

Unless someone's old, disabled or has small children, an 8km walk is no big deal.

an 8km walk is a big deal for plenty of people whom you might not otherwise assume to be incapable of doing so on the mere basis of sight.

sharski

JC staff are NOT ALLOWED to help filling in forms.... it is something to do with the legalities of it.

Yet again.. more JC staff bashing.... ho-hum

lufcgirl

sharski wrote: »

JC staff are NOT ALLOWED to help filling in forms.... it is something to do with the legalities of it.

Yet again.. more JC staff bashing.... ho-hum

Yet they filled in a rapid reclaim form for me with me sitting opposite them. There's even a section asking you to sign if someone else has filled it in on behalf of you. Not that I couldn't do it myself, they just offered.

wishface

sharski wrote: »

JC staff are NOT ALLOWED to help filling in forms.... it is something to do with the legalities of it.

Yet again.. more JC staff bashing.... ho-hum

Probably true. They aren't allowed to speak on the phones in the jobcentres either.

Their attitude doesn't endear them to any sympathy in my experience either.

wishface

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I think that you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "modest income". You're also totally ignoring the money people get for housing.

I don't think you understand the benefits system, the people on it or the consequences of your opinions or words. I think you are a sad and rather cruel individual and as such your opinions are best ignored. I'm sure there's a seat for you at the Jeremy Kyle show; that way you can wave around your copy of the Daily Mail and rant and rave about damaged people to your hearts content.

wishface

glossgal wrote: »

Believe me I base my opinions entirely on fact and personal and professional experience-not what some right wing rag/media/Jeremy Kyle episode tells me. The bottom line is the only people who are against a tightening up of the welfare system are the people who abuse it.

Yes, the amout of benefit fraudsters is probably about 10% for arguements sake-but I'm not talking about them, Im referring to peole who use the system to suit their circumstances ie aren't on benefit because their lives depend on it but because it's convenient and that percentage I'd guess is about 40%. So combined I'd say that was cause for concern on the old public purse. The arguement that corporate crime goes on is flimsy and irrelevant-like saying who cares about rape when there's murder being commited. The two are equally bad.

As for kids 'starving in the gutter', if you are poor and keep having kids then you perpetuate poverty and deserve whatever misery you get from it. You aren't a victim, you are a purpetraitor. Real poverty is a world removed from what goes on in this country, I don't see kids here begging for food or crawling on rubbish dumps eating waste, try a visit to a south american slum if you really want something to carp about.

really there is little point debating with you as you are hellbent on shifting the goalposts of your argument by resorting to hypoerbole, hearsay and guesswork.

You are not talking about fraudsters per se you claim. Well then who are you talking about because the rest are people who aren't doing anything wrong and are claiming what they are legally entitled to (unlike MP's who made their own rules I might add). Then you wildly pluck some figure out of the air about these non-fraudsters (people who, despite not doing anything wrong, are still...doing something wrong in your eyes). You then decide there is a cause for conern before totally avoiding the whole issue of corporate fraud/ tax fraud and legal tax avoidance all of which cost this country billions.

Do you not think you are being a bit silly?

As for real povery; you must be very naive if you don't think there is poverty in the UK. It might not be the sort of poverty you are familiar with. The difference between third world countries and here is that we are a rich country that can easily deal with and avoid such problems. That makes them all the more sad.

seven-day-weekend

red_devil wrote: »

This shows how little you know about the jobmarket Zapster. Voluntary work counts for nothing and dosent guarantee a job. I know someone who volunteered on a reception and then went for a paid job on a reception they were told at interview that the voluntary work they were doing was not enough.

The job goes to someone who has been in PAID employment and has alot of experience. Those who keep in paid work without breaks have the advantage even then its competitive.

Haven't read all the thread but just wanted to say I got a job(full-time) with the Council due to some voluntary work I'd done for a Church.

Of course it didn't GUARANTEE me the job. Why should it? I still had to demonstrate I had the necessary skills and abilities to do the job the Council wanted me to. However, the transferable skills gained from doing the voluntary work in the church were able to be applied to the Council job - therefor I got the Council job.

Maybe your friend who did the voluntary Reception job hadn't gained enough transferable skills for the job she applied for - maybe it needed product knowledge, or geographical knowledge or whatever, that her voluntary position had not given her.

wishface

zappster1966 wrote: »

I think you need to be calming yourself down.

There's no need for abuse like that. If you can't argue your corner without resorting to such language then go take a break and return when you're a little less het up.

we're in an ideological war against welfare. good people can't let up for a moment. in the words of mark thomas, if you aren't angry you aren't paying attention. people who resort to belittling people as the poster in question has done must be challenged always and with as much force as can be mustered.