Tests claim few benefit claimants 'unfit to work'

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

Levels of genuine mental illness are likely to be much the same across the world. I would imagine that for many suffering from stress and depression the 'treatment' is to sit on a park bench with a bottle of whisky when they can get one and wish the world away.

Pretty much my thinking.

As anyone would realise, there are very few ways of 'treating' the park bench occupant.

Throwing money at him, as we know, simply accelerates the demise since it does not reform him and ultimately speeds up his demise.

A 'kick up the 4rse' will 'cure' a few of them. Deprivation of money (and park benches) will work much better if coupled with the pointing out of 'another way' [such as 'work']

How about.... er.... putting them on a boat for Australia? The ozzies would sort them out!

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Pretty much my thinking.

As anyone would realise, there are very few ways of 'treating' the park bench occupant.

Throwing money at him, as we know, simply accelerates the demise since it does not reform him and ultimately speeds up his demise.

A 'kick up the 4rse' will 'cure' a few of them. Deprivation of money (and park benches) will work much better if coupled with the pointing out of 'another way' [such as 'work']

How about.... er.... putting them on a boat for Australia? The ozzies would sort them out!

There are doubtless many that are milking the system. What better than to claim a benefit where they don't hassle you to get a job and even pay you extra!

However, mental illness is a serious and genuine problem.

Over here we give crazy people a mullet and get them to play AFL!

heathcote123

Long overdue, finally some common sense.

peakoil_2

Percy1983 wrote: »

True they can jsut start breeding for a living, I do bleive child based benefits should be the next on the chopping block.

Pay for the first 3 children only.

why have child benefit at all? if people cant afford to have kids then they shouldnt have em. end of.

Percy1983

peakoil wrote: »

why have child benefit at all? if people cant afford to have kids then they shouldnt have em. end of.

Well I do agree with this, but at least give people a chance, with that as I say to keep paying for child after child has left us with professional breeders.

I do say 3 children as there is no reason why anybody in this country should have more than 3 (maybe even 2).

The_White_Horse

there is nothing wrong with Barry's back. He is just a sponger. I work with someone who has an awful back problem. Continually has operations. He is away from time to time but by and large, he works. I doubt many people would have a worse back.

I read today that some pc was off "sick" and was seen on bbc's Wipeout show. she was off because of stress. she found it harrowing. what a joke. who goes into the police and doesn't realise you will be dealing with accidents, problems and generally society's dregs and sickos. if you can't handle that, then leave. you should be entitled to nothing. NOTHING. this filth is suing the police now for not giving her enought support and the tragic thing is, the ET will probably find in her favour.

tragic.

Really2

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

The sad thing about Labour is that these were "their people" but they did little about it until 2008 (note that these tests started under Labour in 2008 and was not a new Tory idea).

Just a shame it took the proverbial to hit the fan for them to realise how badly it had been overseen.
Had it been run properly under their time in government they would not have had to do the tests at all.

dtsazza

peakoil wrote: »

why have child benefit at all? if people cant afford to have kids then they shouldnt have em. end of.

I agree entirely with the sentiment - the sad problem though is that it's the kids' lives too, who haven't done anything wrong themselves.

It's an incredibly tricky situation - I would strongly support some way of removing the financial incentive to have more children, but at the same time once a child's born I don't want it to have a terrible life because its parents are spongers.

The problem is, once the child's born, it's born. The only real solution to this is some sort of controlled breeding/parenthood licenses, which is just :eek:.


(Mind you, if the child's growing up in that sort of environment it's likely to have a poor life anyway. And removing all child-related benefits would mean there's no incentive to have kids solely for cash - which will undoubtedly reduce those births to some extent, which is exactly the desired effect. As for the ones that are born, it's trickier, but then they are the parents' responsibility...)

pqrdef

olly300 wrote: »

Problem is "fit for work" doesn't equal "fit for employment" whether that employment is as a employee or some form of self-employment.

Employers are quite happy to sack cancer sufferers or others with conditions they got whilst in their employment, so they are hardly going to take on someone with a varying disability.

Yes. What happens when people deemed fit for work are less fit than people being retired on health grounds by employers because they really aren't up to holding down a job?

Percy1983

Well as said the idea of not paying for children will mean many won't have them so to say there would be all these children in poverty would be wrong. As I say I don't mind paying to help with a few children but past that you should be able to support them.

If they have more than said number of children and the child suffers as a consequence that is then classed as child abuse, people say it isn't but if I bring a child into this world knowing I can't support them then what is it?

Ideally we should say limit it to 2 children as this will then mean a couple dies and leaves 2 behind, that mixed with the fact not everybody has children will lead a slow decrease in the population which is exactly what we need.

I will add this countries idea of a child in poverty is having less than average, so if they don't have an xbox 360 and a 32inch LCD TV to play it on they are living in poverty.