MSE News: George Osborne to make £10bn welfare cuts

princessdon

edited to PM as easier and not relevant to public viewing

princessdon

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

I didn't know you teach the freedom programme, i'm heavily involved in it, I'll pm you if that's ok and explain how..

The worker wanted me to get the DLA to pay for nursery when I got turned down I had to find a childminder..
She has not mentioned CAF at all, when i've mentioned it they talk of the social services, which obviously I won't go down that route..

I'm going to ask again, if you have any further info it would be gratefully received..

I had already Pm'd you

Ellejmorgan

princessdon wrote: »

I had already Pm'd you

Thanks pm'd you too

Morlock

leveller2911 wrote: »

You have a book on "usual suspects"?:eek:.

Yes, you're in it, along with a few others. People who are guaranteed to come in to this forum criticising benefits claimants in threads where people are asking for help. They often spout some exaggerated anecdote about people on benefits living a millionaire's lifestyle at their expense.

leveller2911 wrote: »

My uncle passed away a few years ago after suffering from MS.On a number of occasions he asked me,my sister and my mother to put his "cash" (benefit money") into our bank accounts so that he didn't go over the savings limits.We all declined because we believed it was wrong.When he died we had to go through every single book in his house finding £20-50 notes between pages.He had thousands of pounds stashed away because he was "entitled" to that money.

The question is where do we draw the line at which benefit income is a liveable income.I wouldn't want any genuine disabled person financially struggling from one day to the next but theres a big difference between having enough to live on and people like my uncle who had thousands stashed away in his house,a gun collection (paid for from benefits)worth about £6k and a 30ft pond with Koi carp in.All of this and more was paid for through the benefits system and before you ask no he didn't have much in the way of saving before being diagnosed with MS.

Another example was a friend of mine who lost both his legs, he didn't sit around moping saying how hard his life was, he was in constant pain/discomfort but he worked for nearly all of his adult life in a printing works.He put to shame his neighbour who gave up work because he had a bad back.He regularly gets in his Ford Focus motorbility car ,travel to the nearby rivers ,open the car boot and take out his 65kg of fishing equipment and walk 2 miles up the river bank to fish.

All of the above is a 100% true there are benefit cheats and genuine but from reading your posts you seem to be very defensive as soon as the subject is mentioned.Just out of interest,in your opinion how many of the 1,000,000 people who were in receipt of IB were genuine?.

Considering that Incapacity Benefit fraud was estimated at 0.3% by the DWP at the beginning of this year, I would say around 997,000 were genuine. The government just redefined what incapacity means to save money on welfare payments.

chinagirl

Cerisa wrote: »

Dunroamin: I liked it because a parent's income has nothing to do with their offspring's income. Again, you might reasonably assume that a wealthy parent will help their struggling offspring out; doesn't always happen.

My parents were quite well off when I was unemployed. That didn't mean that they paid my rent or bills.

*************************************

What I meant by mentioning the parents income, was to set the scene, that there was no financial issues forcing the young son to move out when he was unable to fund the move into independent living by himself, eg, his parents were not placed in financial hardship by him living with them and the house was plenty big enough for all of them, so no pressing need for him to move to alleviate an overcrowding issue.
The move was purely a lifestyle choice on his behalf which was possible as he would get all the rent paid for by housing benefit. Whereas, other youngsters in similar family situations who work are not able to afford to rent a flat, due to not earning enough.
The fact that rents are very expensive makes it near-on impossible for young people earning a modest income to afford to live alone.
My point was how can this be considered fair and proper in today's economic society? It sends out a message to say the state will reward you for not working by paying for your own pad!

rogerblack

In the above case of son moving out, someone committed fraud.
Probably both the parents and the son.
The only way he could have gotten a place would be to declare that he was homeless.
The parents, if not actually willing to throw him out on the street, if they loed and said that they would/had made him homeless were a party to this fraud.
_all_ of the housing benefit may be repayable, as well as a criminal conviction.

Anny_2

Morlock wrote: »

Yes, you're in it, along with a few others. People who are guaranteed to come in to this forum criticising benefits claimants in threads where people are asking for help. They often spout some exaggerated anecdote about people on benefits living a millionaire's lifestyle at their expense.


I also have a 'mental list' of the 'usual suspects' for the same reasons as above, they are so obvious. It consists of roughly 8 - 9 people, although one or two appear to have disappeared, unless they are back under AE's...must admit there have been posts from supposedly 'new' members that bear a marked resemblance to the spoutings of the 'usual suspects'. I have no problem with constructive criticism, but what they spout is usually destructive criticism - that is judgmental, narrow minded, bigoted and self-righteous, delivered in a way that is often called mobbing by anti-bullying associations, they scapegoat and victimise in most of their posts and they demean, ridicule and make very disparaging remarks to their target - without doubt what they do is bullying.

There is of course a, Queen Bee, in all of this, and the other 'usual suspects' fawn around her, complimenting her and thanking her on almost every post. I believe this is because they fear becoming the next target - and they do from time to time turn on one of their own, usually a new member of their 'gang' - and usually because of that person/or a member of their family having had a successful benefit claim.

I believe, because of their behaviour, that each one of them feels and probably is in some way inadequate in their own real lives and they are trying to somehow claw the control and power back on here, although I doubt they display their lovely charms in real life to claimants because, quite honestly, I reckon most of them would have been the recipient of a good slap or two... an obvious example is calling a woman a bad or inadequate mum - usually due to them being on benefits...I have worked in areas and with women in which much, much more than a slap would have been given for that one.

I further believe that all of them would have their hand in the pot (some already do) if they were given the opportunity - I wonder how much their not having the opportunity or being denied benefits or being too old for certain benefits - is actually behind their many nasty and vicious postings, despite statements form one or two of 'we are entitled but choose not to claim' - I really do not believe that for one minute.

FBaby

Anny wrote: »

I believe, because of their behaviour, that each one of them feels and probably is in some way inadequate in their own real lives and they are trying to somehow claw the control and power back on here, although I doubt they display their lovely charms in real life to claimants because, quite honestly, I reckon most of them would have been the recipient of a good slap or two... an obvious example is calling a woman a bad or inadequate mum - usually due to them being on benefits...I have worked in areas and with women in which much, much more than a slap would have been given for that one.

I'm quite speechless with this response....isn't that doing the exact thing you are accusing some of doing? I don't know if I am on the 'usual suspects' list, although I assume I am as I do express my opinion that I don't think ALL benefits (not benefit claimants....) are awarded fairly, but I have never accused anyone of being jealous, bitter, of having no life, or being inadequate, or all the frankly quite aggressive statements in this post.

I was going to reply to your previous email in a debate sort of format, pointing why I don't agree with some of your comments (and why I agree with some others), but reading that latest post, I really can't be bothered as it won't be read as a statement of my points of view opened for debate but as an automatic attack resulting in personal judgmental comments back.

FBaby

Anny wrote: »

despite statements form one or two of 'we are entitled but choose not to claim' - I really do not believe that for one minute.

Justone point on this particular comment: You do not believe one minute that those entitled but choose not to claim are genuine, however, clearly don't accept that some might not believe those who state that they would do anything to be able to work rather than claim benefits (even if they might end up worse off financially).

I happen not to believe in either as a general rule although I totally accept that they are thankfully exceptions in both situations.

Dunroamin

Anny wrote: »

despite statements form one or two of 'we are entitled but choose not to claim' - I really do not believe that for one minute.

As I'm sure that this accusation is aimed at me, I'm going to answer it.

I really wonder why you should find this so hard to believe - presumably because in this day and age you think that everybody will take whatever they can get, whether they need it or whether they agree with the reasons it's given or not.

My husband is in the later stages of emphysema ( less than 20% lung capacity), on oxygen 24/7, virtually housebound and with many of the complications (like osteoporosis) which go with the condition. However, we have occupational pensions, not because we're lucky but because we spent most of our lives in poorly paid public sector employment. One of the advantages of this situation is that it allows you to be independent, something that not everybody is so fortunate to have.

What would we do with DLA/AA that we don't do now? I look after my husband, I don't call it care because (although it fits the criteria for care as defined by benefits) I don't agree with that definition.There is no way he would have paid carers coming in and no reason for them to do so.

Do you really think that people should apply for a benefit they disagree with unless they are so totally strapped financially they have no choice? Do you have so low an opinion of the people in the UK that you think nobody has any morals any more where money is concerned?

If we were to claim any benefits they'd simply be saved or used to repay the mortgage, which I'll be repaying until I'm 69. Do you honestly think that this is what they're there for or that we'd be right to do so, because I certainly don't.

You may not agree with some of the opinions I hold but at least I actually offer help and information to people where I can, something that I see very little of from you.