'Policing benefit bashing in the forum: valid debate or hate crime?' blog discussion

YANA

Kronkston wrote: »

How can anyone suggesting staving vulnerable people to death not be deemed offensive?

Staving them would at least be quicker than starving them!
It worked on Dracula.

John_Pierpoint

Oh I have access to the new "Abuse" button functionality.:T
If I was not taking the tablets for my dishlex.... word blindness, I might not notice the difference between starve and stave and get very upset about this black humour.

[Can everyone use "Firefox" with the spell checker plug in please. Postings full of funny spellings are very distracting especially to dyslectics - such postings are an abuse of the English language on a par with "text speak".]

cit_k

Kronkston wrote: »

Yes Martin for one.

That may not be true, as he has said he does not like those sort of comments If I recall, however, it does seem to be true that he does not find it offensive enough to warrent comments of those nature being dealt with by abuse, therefore, it could safely be said he does not find it abusive, or recognise that others could find it it abusive.

BLT_2

JDPower wrote: »

You just had a long rant about everything you hate about the forum and the then tell people if they don't like it, turn it off. You don't see the irony?

Very valid point , damn I just got hoisted by my own petard.

However I should point out that I do turn it off if it irritates me. I guess the main thrust of my post should have been that this forum is supposed to be about money saving and tips for financial management, whereas much of it appears to be about debt avoidance and benefit claims.

Love the grabbit and freebies board though (although some of those freebies are seriously weak)

BLT_2

Kronkston wrote: »

What the hell are our troops doing in Afghanistan is we tolerating calls to starve to death our sick and disabled back in the UK?

Is that what we fought two world wars for?

I thought they were there because America asked Bliar to assist and he was a renowned butt kisser of American presidents.

Oh dear, I see your point, you think it is about liberty, truth and justice and the obligation of the west to impose their own particular brand of democracy on the rest of the world

Britain is one of the greatest countries in the world, its occupants spend much of their time bemoaning the state of their country, the crime, the lack of parental control etc etc, and then send their troops to war to ensure this state of nirvana is inflicted on other countries :rotfl:

And before I get a rant about not supporting the troops, they are great and are doing the job they are paid to do very well. Sadly they have a (proven) corrupt political leadership who work to their own agendas. I believe that a British Army should be there to defend Britain, not as paid mercenaries for our colonial cousins, or to to ensure we get a fair crack of oil revenues and reconstruction contracts.

althestan

cit_k wrote: »

That may not be true, as he has said he does not like those sort of comments If I recall, however, it does seem to be true that he does not find it offensive enough to warrent comments of those nature being dealt with by abuse, therefore, it could safely be said he does not find it abusive, or recognise that others could find it it abusive.

I really do not understand why, if you find the so called benefit bashing and the implied approval of this by MSE, to be so offensive/abusive/personal harassment, you do not take some action.


http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/a-guide-to-the-un-disability-convention/part-2-know-your-rights/article-16-freedom-from-exploitation-violence-and-abuse/index.html

You may get some help here http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-job/advice-from-our-helpline/

Please post to let us Know how you get on?

althestan

Kronkston wrote: »

How can anyone suggesting starving vulnerable people to death not be deemed offensive?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=35493557&postcount=108

Ames

I'm just surprised that Martin doesn't know the difference between social services and social security. Mixing the two up doesn't help the debate, as one is about helping vulnerable people through a hard time, and the other is about money. I don't think many people bash social services without very good reason (eg for well known mistakes, or based on personal experience), unlike social security. It also gives the impression that the benefit (security) bashing is only about those on disability benefits, rather than the wider scope of tax credits, single parent benefits, child benefits, etc.

Kronkston_2

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Oh I have access to the new "Abuse" button functionality.:T
If I was not taking the tablets for my dishlex.... word blindness, I might not notice the difference between starve and stave and get very upset about this black humour.

[Can everyone use "Firefox" with the spell checker plug in please. Postings full of funny spellings are very distracting especially to dyslectics - such postings are an abuse of the English language on a par with "text speak".]

I have firefox however it can be counter productive.
I probably misspelt starve and stave was top of the list, smetimes it is better
to leave the misspelt word as most people can automatcally resolve misspelt words and the spell check can lead you to seleting the incorrect word if you are not careful,
Most people jsut scan the post without looking at every letter, i certainly does

Arg

Vader123 wrote: »

Martin? Are you reading this?

The problem with the "benefits" board is :

1) the advice on how to commit fraud
2) the ethics involved.

The board has become a magnet for people who want to know how to get out of "new deal" or how to inflate their illness on a form to get benefits.

We have had recent examples of people wanting to move out of living with their terminally ill mother because it gets them £50 a week more. Other examples of how people can do most things we all do (evident from their post history) and then claim they have "stress" to get out of job interviews, and ask advice over it.

Whenever this is pointed out the usual accusations come.

I called the lady who wanted to move out of her mothers (who she cares for, loves and wants to be with her) but is moving for £50 a week, a "vulgar" decision. I got "carded" for this.

The point is, and what infuriates the regular knoweldgable helpers on those board, for free, to make MSE the success it is, is that fraud or advice on how to commit fraud is largely left alone. Yes there is the abuse email, but because the board is busy and a success usually people get the advice on fraud before the thread is closed/deleted.

As an example there is a person who regularly posts there (regulars know the user as Bootybabe etc) who regularly registers new accounts and posts. Whats happening with this?

I see you Martin on TV, hear you on radio giving excellent advice on moneysaving, highlighting peoples rights and the bad practice of banks etc, then I come to your forum and see people also getting advice on how to claim "single" benefits whilst having partners. This all goes allowed, its only a matter of time before you are challenged on this on-air or otherwise.

So while the regulars will fall into line no doubt, lets rememeber thats its the duty of everyone to challenge fraud wherever it happens, even MSE. I am sure that the law of the land outstrips the rules of MSE if its done in an appropriate way.

Vader

Have to laugh at you calling anything you don't like fraud not that you're the only one to do it