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

13468913

Replies

  • The problem is often to do with the written word, there is a basic problem with communicating within this environment. There was research done on emails, which I think one can safely say applies to forum posts as well.

    You have a 50-50 chance of reading the intended tone of any email correctly, but you will be convinced you have read it correctly 90% of the time. That is to say, people read things into emails that were never intended.

    More by googling "secret cause of flamewars" and going to the wired article, which I would have linked to but for not having permission.

    Combine this with a difference of opinion and disharmony rules the day.
    I generally post and run. You probably wont be able to engage me in conversation as I probably wont be around to read replies....
  • Such as:
    'if you are living with your lover and have a baby together you should not be claiming single person Benefits'.
    'If you have over £16k in savings you will not be entitled to means-tested Benefits'
    'If you come into £50k from an inheritance and then give it away/hide it/ spend it on non-essentials/swing it from the chandeliers you will come under the deprivation of capital rules and will not be entitled to means-tested Benefits and will have to pay your own Council Tax'.
    'There is no organised Government conspiracy to unlawfuly cheat people out of sickness and disability Benefits'.
    You missed out one of my favourite threads:

    If I reduce my hours will I get more benefits (tax credits) to look after my dog.
    *SIGH*
    :D
  • edited 4 August 2010 at 12:26PM
    seven-day-weekendseven-day-weekend Forumite
    36.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 4 August 2010 at 12:26PM
    DX2 wrote: »
    You missed out one of my favourite threads:

    If I reduce my hours will I get more benefits (tax credits) to look after my dog.

    Oh yes, that was one of my favourites too. :)
    (AKA HRH_MUngo)
    Member #10 of £2 savers club
    Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton
  • AnxiousMumAnxiousMum Forumite
    2.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Oh yes, that was one of my favourites too. :)

    Yes you guys - that was one of the funniest 'sit on the hands' threads going.
  • edited 4 August 2010 at 4:53PM
    John_PierpointJohn_Pierpoint Forumite
    8.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 4 August 2010 at 4:53PM
    "Why do you need attendance allowance?"

    - I've got to be able to pay someone to walk my dog!

    That was a neighbour of mine - she actually was more of less chair bound and dying of cancer and definitely did need attendance allowance, she just needed a bit of coaching with interview techniques and bodily functions.

    Re Flame Wars:

    http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179

    PS When she did get attendance allowance, she did indeed pay the woman with hairy legs, who the council send to help, a bit extra to feed, water and walk the dog.
    The woman got on so well with the dog that she "inherited" it upon the demise of her client.
  • RuthnJasperRuthnJasper Forumite
    4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    robpw2 wrote: »
    i think that as long as people do not get personal then , debating should be allowed , i appereciate not everyone agrees but often amongts the different views is often some great help

    I agree with Rob. Sometimes, allowing people to read rational (inoffensive and, as Rob states, non-personally critical) debates can help them appreciate a different side to their own individual viewpoint and understand why an alternative opinion exists. Sometimes, all people have to base their own views on is what they have constantly heard from ignorant or bigoted relatives/friends - if they can read differing opinions, and the reasonings behind them, it may spur the reader on to consider the different views for themselves and make a more rational decision.

    I have, however, particularly on one of the recent threads in the Benefits area of the Forum, read insulting posts (directed at an individual requesting fairly basic advice) that were nothing short of downright cruel. Those are the sorts of posts and posters that need weeding-out.
    x
  • edited 12 August 2010 at 5:56PM
    rapidorapido Forumite
    392 Posts
    edited 12 August 2010 at 5:56PM
    . .
  • jamesdjamesd Forumite
    25.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    'If you come into £50k from an inheritance and then give it away/hide it/ spend it on non-essentials/swing it from the chandeliers you will come under the deprivation of capital rules and will not be entitled to means-tested Benefits and will have to pay your own Council Tax'.
    Deed of variation, placing the money into a discretionary trust instead of receiving it as a lump sum bequest. Or buy part or all of a home as a legitimate purchase for an essential need, housing, then claim benefits for any remaining rental part and for council tax.

    Some will view that negatively, some positively. Some may view it positively if the property purchase is used and negatively if the trust is used. In any case, it's within the rights of the person to seek to maximise their lawful benefit and part of what the forum is for.
  • JimmyTheWigJimmyTheWig Forumite
    12.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Martin, any comments on my earlier suggestion? Is there money in the budget to spend more on dealing with "abuse" reports?
    While I don't think that the site _needs_ to do this, it seems to be the one place that could use improvement and if there money's there it would seem sensible to me...
  • Martin, where did I state you are complicit in a hate crime because you allow benefits to be discussed on a forum.

    No where have I stated the problem is down to benefits being discussed.

    Its down to abuse that occurs when benefits are being discussed - its down to the level of hatred / discrimination / nastiness that occurs in some posts, you have either worded your blog post badly by accident, or you have done so on purpose, either way, it is inaccurate if you were referring to me.

    It has never been simply because benefits are discussed.

    If it had been, I would have stated that, which I did not.
    [greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
    [/greenhighlight][redtitle]
    The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
    and we should be deeply worried about that
    [/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides