how far can i actually take this?

michelle1506

I was not suggesting anything of the sort. I would prefer it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I am just pointing out that I have had first hand experience of such matters. It would be very difficult if not impossible to stick to rigid preset guidelines for every single individual so it goes without saying that there MUST be an element of decision making allowed for each decision maker.

Honestly, people come onto these boards for help, but rarely ever get anything but judgement!! It will be a heck of a long time before I ask another question on these boards regarding benefts! I prefer to do my own research!

2gorgeousgirls wrote: »

michelle1506 wrote: »

I used to work for both the DWP and the Benefits Agency, and there is a certain amount of discretion allowed by the decision maker! Some of those people are complete jobsworths I can tell you, and they really believe it is 'their money'!



Technically speaking it is their money, and your money and my money. It is the taxpayers money. But that has nothing to do with this.

There has to be restrictions on benefits otherwise, as other posters have stated, everyone would be claiming for everything.


Government has set out guidelines and DWP staff are administering them. What do you suggest? Should we throw out the guidelines and just give everyone benefit whether they are available for work or not?[/QUOTE]

2gorgeousgirls

michelle1506 wrote: »

I was not suggesting anything of the sort. I would prefer it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I am just pointing out that I have had first hand experience of such matters. It would be very difficult if not impossible to stick to rigid preset guidelines for every single individual so it goes without saying that there MUST be an element of decision making allowed for each decision maker.

Honestly, people come onto these boards for help, but rarely ever get anything but judgement!! It will be a heck of a long time before I ask another question on these boards regarding benefts! I prefer to do my own research!


Since you don't know anything about me, how do you know that I don't have first hand experience also?

I'm not judging anyone, just expressing my opinion which I believe in a free society, I have the right to do. People have differing opinions, everyone has the right to them and to express them.

My view of the OP's situation is obvously not the same as yours.

michelle1506

How can I possibly know if you have not advised me???

Your right I don't know anything about you and nor do I want to particularly. I am guessing that you don't particularly like being referred to as 'judgemental'. Well I will call it as I find it I'm afraid! I find the 'ignore' button quite helpful at these times..

2gorgeousgirls wrote: »

michelle1506 wrote: »

I was not suggesting anything of the sort. I would prefer it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I am just pointing out that I have had first hand experience of such matters. It would be very difficult if not impossible to stick to rigid preset guidelines for every single individual so it goes without saying that there MUST be an element of decision making allowed for each decision maker.

Honestly, people come onto these boards for help, but rarely ever get anything but judgement!! It will be a heck of a long time before I ask another question on these boards regarding benefts! I prefer to do my own research!


Since you don't know anything about me, how do you know that I don't have first hand experience also?

I'm not judging anyone, just expressing my opinion which I believe in a free society, I have the right to do. People have differing opinions, everyone has the right to them and to express them.

My view of the OP's situation is obvously not the same as yours.

ekkygirl

Marco86 wrote: »

No, if the kid is broughtup in a household which relies on benefits, they will likely merely endup becoming another parents whos incapable of looking after their own kids themself,
and so instead relies on handouts from single childless people to pay.


People can have as many kids as they choose, however THEY should then have to pay for those kids themself.

That way people would focus more on getting their lives to a stage where they are capable of supporting a child before having 1.

I must be one of them then! That will be why I have two university educated "kids" one ex Royal Navy Engineer "kid" and one construction Manager "kid"

All because I was brought up by parents on benefits.

Just imagine what could have been!!

custardy

ekkygirl wrote: »

I must be one of them then! That will be why I have two university educated "kids" one ex Royal Navy Engineer "kid" and one construction Manager "kid"

All because I was brought up by parents on benefits.

Just imagine what could have been!!

do you all live next door to each other in council houses?

MissMoneypenny

AimeesMum wrote: »

By supporting a child you mean going out to work to pay for them? How do you propose that people do this on their own when childcare is (in my area) £38 per day. I don't think anyone could have expected the cost of being a working parent to rise so much.

Then why not become a childminder yourself? There seems to be an opening for more childminders in your area if they can charge that much and you won't have to pay childminding fees for your own children either.

sunnyone

AnxiousMum wrote: »

NAF simply stated that the rules don't specifically mention a product, let alone a branded product (especially since Coca Cola, Dr Pepper etc were certainly not around when the doctrines were put into place) - NAF has simply stated that it pertains to all things containing addictive additives - ie, caffeine, nicotine, tannin (teas). It's the same belief that bans use of drugs, nicotine - they are all items that change the mindset, alter the body, and are addictive. If you would like to learn more about it rather than nit pic somebody's religious beliefs, maybe you can google 'mormons' and 'word of wisdom'. No, I am not a Mormon - but certainly not ignorant of other people's religious viewpoints.

NAF didnt state what you have posted above, that may be your take on it but that dosnt make it true, he did say that they didnt believe in the doctrine of the coke company which is relevant to Dr Pepper as it the same firm, I dont give a damn about anyones religious beliefs but people certainly shouldnt use religion as an excuse for posts that contradict each other.

2gorgeousgirls

michelle1506 wrote: »

How can I possibly know if you have not advised me???

Your right I don't know anything about you and nor do I want to particularly. I am guessing that you don't particularly like being referred to as 'judgemental'. Well I will call it as I find it I'm afraid! I find the 'ignore' button quite helpful at these times..


Never been called judgemental before. Nice one.

However, reading your posts, I would say that you are the judgemental one.

My original post was meant to put across that the DM has to be certain that the OP meets the criteria for JSA. It seems to have really hit a nerve with you.

You seem to be getting more aggressive as your posts go on so, at this point I am going to bow out.

AnxiousMum

Naf wrote: »

There is no literature that specifies 'NO CAFFEINE', we object to the misuse of habit forming substances. Caffeine is one, and yes there are lots of others in lots of other places; misuse of paracetamol would fall under the same heading too.

Hmmm, the above reads as 'no caffeine' but then he clarifies it with 'misuse of habit forming substances'.......
pretty similar to what I put in my post isn't it Sunnyone?

Naf

sunnyone wrote: »

NAF didnt state what you have posted above, that may be your take on it but that dosnt make it true, he did say that they didnt believe in the doctrine of the coke company which is relevant to Dr Pepper as it the same firm, I dont give a damn about anyones religious beliefs but people certainly shouldnt use religion as an excuse for posts that contradict each other.

Not quite sure where I said that:

Naf wrote: »

I don't drink cola, but thats as much because I can't stand the stuff, or the company. There's no 'rules' directly against chocolate (hot or no) or cola (or dr pepper etc.), its primarily the caffeine content we object to as the dependence on its effects can have really damaging effects on people both physically and in terms of the addiction...

Now, as to everyone else who're up in arms about people claiming benefits to be able to survive and support their kids, tell me: are you being paid a 'living wage'? Could the income you have support you, a partner even, let alone a child too? How many people do you know that are paid enough to do that, because in my experience in most high-street companied and typical jobs its not 'till you work up to area management that you're paid that; even store/restaurant managers aren't paid enough to support a family. Does this mean that they shouldn't be allowed to have children, just because this country's economy isn't geared up to pay everyone that kind of money? This is why this country has a benefit system in the first place. I have two wonderful kids and my amazing wife to support, and for the time being at least (until the youngest is at least finished breast-feeding) it's only my income coming in, and at only 14kpa it doesn't go very far on its own so I am forced to rely on some benefits to get by. I don't feel bad about this, and nobody is about to make me; but I work hard both to make as much as I can, and to improve my future prospects to, hopefully, not have to rely on these payments for any longer than necessary. Unfortunately not all those on benefits view it this way (although its clear that the OP does) and it is this that causes such a heavy burden on the taxpayer, and causes this general opinion that all benefit claimants are trying to cheat their way through. I absolutely agree that the OP ought to be able to get JSA in their situation, but that's not from a position of knowing the rules in great detail, simply that they're looking and available which really are the basic criteria.