E-Petition

Conrad

It wont be passed into law.

I want you to imagine a newspaper headline like this;

2 YEAR OLD TWINS THROWN ON THE STREET, REDUCED TO BEGGING BECAUSE !!!!LESS MUM AGED 17 WAS A RIOTER.


I am a right winger, but this is just idocy of the very worst Daily Mail kind.

FTBFun

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We should have a petition to stop lefties being able to type the above type of posts aswell....where every word is questioned, instead of just being able to figure out that just because it says london, it does not exclude everywhere else and its likely the petition was created before riots spread.

Just a drop of common sense answers both your questions.

Because, obviously, you never do that yourself, eh?

Graham_Devon

FTBFun wrote: »

Because, obviously, you never do that yourself, eh?

No, I can categorically say that I don't question every word when it's plain common sense.

You won't be able to find any evidence of me doing so either, but it's a good (if not a little bitter) soundbite.

Jennifer_Jane

LydiaJ wrote: »

What, in your opinion, makes these rioters deserving of harsher treatment than any other criminals - for example those who commit murder or rape? I've no sympathy for the rioters, but this petition is typical of the kind of knee-jerk reaction that pre-empts any detailed debate about what might be a fair and effective way to combat this kind of thing.

Absolutely agree - ALL convicted criminals should have benefits removed, not just London looters.

Yes, it was knee-jerk reaction, but it does seem that local authorities are considering removing social housing to these people.

Being on benefits doesn't seem to have stopped gangs forming, in fact a woman on TV this morning was demanding that Cameron go into her area, and live on benefits without seeming to realise that getting money for nothing should be considered a privilege and something representative of an essentially caring society. She said he would soon be on drugs and drink.

Jennifer_Jane

Conrad wrote: »

It wont be passed into law.

I want you to imagine a newspaper headline like this;

2 YEAR OLD TWINS THROWN ON THE STREET, REDUCED TO BEGGING BECAUSE !!!!LESS MUM AGED 17 WAS A RIOTER.


I am a right winger, but this is just idocy of the very worst Daily Mail kind.

Nonsense, they would be taken into care, which is probably a better life than growing up with a f e c kless single mother aged 17 who doesn't have the sense she was born with.

Loughton_Monkey

Yes, I'm afraid this is another extremely poorly thought-out petition. A national benefits system to be amended to cope with London crime and not regional crime? I think not.

However valid and rational the concept appears, it simply cannot work. Otherwise we would already have a system that dealt with criminals, those who simply will not work, or those who are pure 'economic asylum seekers'.

You only have to look at previous 'tub thumping'... Headline 'radical' changes to the benefits system to take away job seekers allowance after a period of time and/or if the claimant is not looking for work... Pure tommy-rot since all that happens is that they convert from JSA to Income Support. Give me £60 a week for nothing, and I don't care what you call it! Taking it away would simply be deemed a breech of 'Human Rights'.

Most people 'work'. This means getting up in the morning, going to some other place, putting in some effort, taking a bit of 'stress', and getting home early evening. For this, we are given an amount of money.

Personally, I would make virtually all benefits [excluding major disbility etc.] conditional only on similar 'pain'. In other words, at the very least, the individual should have physically to attend - for a full 8 hours - before being handed the daily benefit. Only in this way will they realise that it would be far better to put in a little bit of effort and take home much more money. Even more preferable would be a situation in which they had to attend and clean up litter, clean up canals.... but I'm afraid the Human Rights idiots would start calling this an abuse of so-called 'Human Rights' and people would liken this to workhouses.

There are literally hundreds of empty warehouses, premises, sheds etc. that could be used for the purpose. No frills. Just pack in 350 chairs. You want benefits? Fine! Get here at 8 a.m. Sit down. Behave yourself. Read, talk, or scratch your @rse for 8 hours. No Internet or mobile phones. Then you qualify for today's benefits.

You want more benefits? OK. Then do 8 hours of weeding in the local park, or 8 hours of sweeping the streets... and you get a bit more than basic subsistence benefits.

Even Cameron talks about this sort of thing, but will never have the b4lls to do it.

Jennifer_Jane

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Yes, I'm afraid this is another extremely poorly thought-out petition. A national benefits system to be amended to cope with London crime and not regional crime? I think not.

However valid and rational the concept appears, it simply cannot work. Otherwise we would already have a system that dealt with criminals, those who simply will not work, or those who are pure 'economic asylum seekers'.

You only have to look at previous 'tub thumping'... Headline 'radical' changes to the benefits system to take away job seekers allowance after a period of time and/or if the claimant is not looking for work... Pure tommy-rot since all that happens is that they convert from JSA to Income Support. Give me £60 a week for nothing, and I don't care what you call it! Taking it away would simply be deemed a breech of 'Human Rights'.

Most people 'work'. This means getting up in the morning, going to some other place, putting in some effort, taking a bit of 'stress', and getting home early evening. For this, we are given an amount of money.

Personally, I would make virtually all benefits [excluding major disbility etc.] conditional only on similar 'pain'. In other words, at the very least, the individual should have physically to attend - for a full 8 hours - before being handed the daily benefit. Only in this way will they realise that it would be far better to put in a little bit of effort and take home much more money. Even more preferable would be a situation in which they had to attend and clean up litter, clean up canals.... but I'm afraid the Human Rights idiots would start calling this an abuse of so-called 'Human Rights' and people would liken this to workhouses.

There are literally hundreds of empty warehouses, premises, sheds etc. that could be used for the purpose. No frills. Just pack in 350 chairs. You want benefits? Fine! Get here at 8 a.m. Sit down. Behave yourself. Read, talk, or scratch your @rse for 8 hours. No Internet or mobile phones. Then you qualify for today's benefits.

You want more benefits? OK. Then do 8 hours of weeding in the local park, or 8 hours of sweeping the streets... and you get a bit more than basic subsistence benefits.

Even Cameron talks about this sort of thing, but will never have the b4lls to do it.

Gosh! More right-wing that me! Great idea, of course it wouldn't work, there would be riots in the warehouses. But agree with the principle. The whole culture of these people needs to be examined and I hope this is a wake-up for this to happen. Cameron says he will be asking overseas people about how they resolved gang culture (Boston was mentioned).

chewmylegoff

i think the rioters should all be forced to buy all of their electrical goods from currys digital in the future - the punishment being that they will be forced to purchase the ludicrously priced extended warranties on every purchase.

retrospectively changing the law to increase the punishment for criminal offences that have already happened is a stupid idea, although i'm not adverse to a debate on how the legal deterrent might be beefed up to prevent future occurences - but before you have that debate you need to see (i) how many people the police eventually arrest and (ii) what the courts do with these people.

Conrad

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Nonsense, they would be taken into care, which is probably a better life than growing up with a f e c kless single mother aged 17 who doesn't have the sense she was born with.

Care is immensly costly, I thought you wanted to save on benefits?

Also care homes are pretty guaranteed to churn out unhinged people.

The left wing press and BBC would have a field day with stories of young kids thrown out of thier parents home.

Conrad

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Personally, I would make virtually all benefits [excluding major disbility etc.] conditional only on similar 'pain'. In other words, at the very least, the individual should have physically to attend - for a full 8 hours - before being handed the daily benefit. Only in this way will they realise that it would be far better to put in a little bit of effort and take home much more money.

This is the wort of thing I'm argueing for in the Discussion Time part of the forum (many more lefties there).

For the sake of children, we must in the main make a link between benefits and contributing to the local community. This would do more to open the minds of kids growing up in workless households than any interventionist refuge lefty education programme.