MSE News: 'I'm on benefits but I'm no scrounger'

AnnGran_2

Just to agree with the 'misses'. I can't believe how small minded a lot of these contributors have been. Get yourself worked up over the real scroungers and the tax-dodgers and the people who vote themselves huge increases in non taxable expenses etc., You misunderstood the whole point of the original appeal. Admit it and bow out. I myself am lucky enough to have a job and a life. I'll be getting on with both so wont be around on this again. Just hope if i ever contribute to any more discussions, I chat with those who can understand another's point of view (apart from 'I work and I'm paying for You' - we all do this guys and one day we'll need a bit of help ourselves). Best of luck to Ross and family. I'm sure the vast majority of us would say this.

Mupette

Dognobs wrote: »

Nope just the fact she feels hard done by because she only has the basic package on sky, Only gets a holiday every now and then and has to put fuel in her brand new fully maintained fully insured car.

I don't feel hard done by, i don't want the all singing dancing sky.

I have the basic package as it works out cheaper for my internet and phone..

Flyboy152 wrote: »

No, her post was not about feeling hard done-by, because she has the basic package from SKY, or that she has an occasional holiday, not even that she has to put fuel in her car. She was answering the assumption that she had life "so good," being disabled and on benefits.

I suggest you read the post again, but this time, take off the green spectacles of envy, don't make silly assumptions and don't compare it with your own, relatively, very lucky life. Or would you swap with her tomorrow?

Thanks, you explained it better than my brain can.
I'm happy to put fuel in my car, i actually feel grateful for the car, it helps me keep my independence

I take it dognobs won't be taking up my offer of swapping roles


Oh just to point out dognobs, the car isn't fully maintained, most of the car is covered in the service but there are things like windscreen wipers that are not covered, just as an example, just so you know

thedrsmisses

I give up, i havent got the energy or the emotional ability to carry on. Thank-you for reading the article, im sorry it didnt change your perception of Benefit claimants for most it did as they could see past the money and get to the heart of the article. maybe he should have left the figure out but if he had no doubt we would have been bombarded with questions as to how much less we get, it would seem we live in a culture led by money and not compassion.

Derivative

AnnGran wrote: »

Just to agree with the 'misses'. I can't believe how small minded a lot of these contributors have been. Get yourself worked up over the real scroungers and the tax-dodgers and the people who vote themselves huge increases in non taxable expenses etc., You misunderstood the whole point of the original appeal. Admit it and bow out. I myself am lucky enough to have a job and a life. I'll be getting on with both so wont be around on this again. Just hope if i ever contribute to any more discussions, I chat with those who can understand another's point of view (apart from 'I work and I'm paying for You' - we all do this guys and one day we'll need a bit of help ourselves). Best of luck to Ross and family. I'm sure the vast majority of us would say this.

What is the point to the original appeal?
That not all benefit claimants are scroungers?

No benefit claimants are scroungers.
They get an entitlement from the Government and claim it. It would be nonsensical and stupid not to do so.

Anyone that thinks benefit claimants are scroungers is a moron. Simple as. They are name calling to make themselves feel better, looking down on people.

So if that is the point of the article, it is blatantly obvious. There is nothing to discuss, what would you like? Hundreds of posts patting the guy on the back? I'd find that more than a little patronising.

The whole reason benefits are in the news as of late is because the payments have been judged to be too high by the Government. So the debate centres around whether or not they actually are. When people deliberately try to misinform by stating half of their income, what else do you expect?

im sorry it didnt change your perception of Benefit claimants for most it did as they could see past the money and get to the heart of the article.

The article didn't change my perception of benefit claimants because I don't feel any ill will towards them in the first place.

We don't "see past the money" because the entire and only real issue with the benefit system in this country is the amount being paid out, which many percieve to be more than is required.

Again, I would like you to tell me what else there is to discuss? Would you like a big pat on the back and a cuddly toy?

goodcommonsense

thedrsmisses wrote: »

I give up, i havent got the energy or the emotional ability to carry on. Thank-you for reading the article, im sorry it didnt change your perception of Benefit claimants for most it did as they could see past the money and get to the heart of the article. maybe he should have left the figure out but if he had no doubt we would have been bombarded with questions as to how much less we get, it would seem we live in a culture led by money and not compassion.

Have you considered that some of us are benefit claimants?

Edinburghlass_2

goodcommonsense wrote: »

I came to this thread to try to help you, but your resistance to this (or any other questions) does make me doubt the value of your/ his story.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

and I'm not fooled by your desire to be helpful

goodcommonsense

Edinburghlass wrote: »

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

and I'm not fooled by your desire to be helpful

Would you not offer to help someone if you knew they were not claiming their full entitlement?

thedrsmisses

goodcommonsense wrote: »

Have you considered that some of us are benefit claimants?

no i hadn't but then i dont judge people on what they earn or what they claim, i wouldnt dream of making an assumption about someone based on a post on a public forum unlike so many others seem to. im just trying to stick up for my family and i thank the ones on here who have also done the same. to the rest i just hope they never have to go through what we have. i thank those that have offered to asses our benefits for us but we are not stupid and have spoken to the dwp and the CAB about what we are getting

rellarips

goodcommonsense wrote: »

Would you not offer to help someone if you knew they were not claiming their full entitlement?

Depends on your motives really. I've made my own mind up about that one, and it appears I'm not the only one who's reached a certain conclusion.

You didn't say what your line of work is by the way other than some indication that you might be a benefits advisor... hmmmm.....

goodcommonsense

thedrsmisses wrote: »

no i hadn't but then i dont judge people on what they earn or what they claim, i wouldnt dream of making an assumption about someone based on a post on a public forum unlike so many others seem to. im just trying to stick up for my family and i thank the ones on here who have also done the same. to the rest i just hope they never have to go through what we have. i thank those that have offered to asses our benefits for us but we are not stupid and have spoken to the dwp and the CAB about what we are getting

I can state for a fact that a family of four with a disabled parent should be receiving more than £11,000 including housing costs. But if you don't want to be helped ...