Benefits Street

zarf2007

Nicklt wrote: »

Not read the whole thread and no doubt i will get flammed for this, but im quite shocked by the ignorant comments that are coming out here.

You do realise that shows like Benefits Street are just poverty !!!!!!, they are sensationlist TV meant to draw in viewers with a very narrow view on people on benefits.

Shows like this serve nothing more than to feed a baying mob of angry people looking to blame someone for the UK economic misfortune.

Now some on this show are lazy and chose to have the benefits lifestyle, however this show just poors scourn onto those genuine people on benefits (who are the vast majority). This show just feeds into the conservatives right wing agenda.

Seriously people that go so worked up and angry "literally shouting at the TV screen" need to get out and see what it's like for genuine people on benefits it's not all flat screen TV's and fags.

I would love to see a show highlighting the billions lost in tax evasion (primarily commited by the super rich). The £1 trillion+ that the banks needed to be bailed out - but this doesn't make good TV does it, easier to blame and attack those in a less fortunate position isn't it, those who are 'weaker than you'.

Yes get angry at those paying the system, but get angry at all those playing the system, the rich and poor.

Final thought, 0.7% of the benefits bills is lost through fraud, not sure of the exact figure but it's less than £2bn - over £20 billion is lost through tax evasion, do the math then put the Daily Mail down for a bit.

so by definition we should ignore the random lunatic stabbing to death one person a week if there is a serial killer on the loose with a higher body count?

I agree with what you say about tax avoidance and the banks etc but while there is a tory government in power this will never be addressed as the same MP's leading the country also have their fingers stuck in the same pies which they would protect at all costs....

on the other hand, voting for labour means more soft policies on immigration and benefits which would keep the country down...

and forget the lib dems as they are a waste of space....

dont get me wrong, as a previous labour voter I support protecting rights in the workplace (which the tories have eroded) and other basic rights but Labour are too broken in their current state to do anything....

I think unless a new party is created that tackles immigration, benefits, tax avoidance, the corrupt banking system while protecting workers and peoples rights the whole political system in this country is not worth voting for....

SnooksNJ

Glen_Clark wrote: »

And if they were not friends or relatives and you were the government in charge of benefits. Would you put women and children out on the street?
These are the difficult questions that can't be answered with meaningless political spin like the populist comment about the nanny state.

(By the way how do you know the TV reporter didn't pay for the beer? How else would he get invited into their homes and get the pictures he wanted?)

If a reporter showed up at my door with beer for an interview on immigrant's I would close the door and call the cops. That's what the "Mother of the Street" should have done and encouraged other's to do the same.

ruggedtoast

I saw this programme for the first time the other day.

I think it's a shame the OP resorted to calling the people on the show 'scum' who should be fenced off.

I mostly felt sorry for them. Alcoholism, drug abuse, anti depressants to get through day after dreary day. Their lives look horrific and I can only guess how early in life they became unemployable .

Pretty much every one of them would be better off in work, so I wonder where we have gone wrong as a society that 'Benefits Streets' exist in the first place.

zarf2007

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I saw this programme for the first time the other day.

I think it's a shame the OP resorted to calling the people on the show 'scum' who should be fenced off.

I mostly felt sorry for them. Alcoholism, drug abuse, anti depressants to get through day after dreary day. Their lives look horrific and I can only guess how early in life they became unemployable .

Pretty much every one of them would be better off in work, so I wonder where we have gone wrong as a society that 'Benefits Streets' exist in the first place.

While I'm sure there are some decent people in the street, if you have ever lived next to the anti social behaviour of the druggies/thieves/drunks who have made your life hell you may have less sympathy for these 'poor folks'.....

i lived in a council house as part of a single parent family when younger, i didnt go around drinking/annoying the neighbours like these chavs.....and so called 'matriarch' white dee, she was allegedly fired from her job in the council for stealing money destined for people who needed it, so much for her upstanding character....

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

I gave you a *very* straight answer and told you *exactly* what I'd do. If you don't like my answer, or don't understand it, then perhaps we just need to move on.

OK I should have said what should the Government do rather than what would you do. But since this is a thread on benefits, and you personally cannot take in millions of benefit claimants, I thought it pretty obvious thats what I meant. You are obviously an intelligent person so I think you are being deliberately obtuse and avoiding the difficult questions by saying meaningless populist platitudes, just like politicians do.

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

I gave you a *very* straight answer and told you *exactly* what I'd do. If you don't like my answer, or don't understand it, then perhaps we just need to move on.



The government's current approach is to hook these people up to the magic money tree, rain benefits on their heads with no strings attached, and make no attempt to get them back on their feet.

Have they actually thought that one through?

So you answer a question with another (irrelevant) question
.Just like a politician

Glen_Clark

springdreams wrote: »

I would put them up in a hostel, which provides a basic breakfast and healthy dinners.

They would be required to help keep the hostel clean, and help out in the kitchen and garden to pay for their keep.

They would also be required to do voluntary work whilst the kids are at nursery and/or school so that they can acquire the skills needed to find paid work once their youngest child goes to school full time.

Obviously somebody understood this difficult question and made an honest attempt to answer it. Respect for that.
Not a new idea though, the Victorians had a similar idea with the workhouse........

makeyourdaddyproud

The next big benefits change is means testing the state pension, so expect any savings or private pensions to reduce your state provision by its value. You've been warned.

springdreams

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

The next big benefits change is means testing the state pension, so expect any savings or private pensions to reduce your state provision by its value. You've been warned.

Now this I find very annoying.

I am many years away from retirement, and do indeed have a private pension plan.

My gripe with this is that many will not make any effort whatsoever to provide for their old age, yet it will be those of us that do that will be punished for doing so.

roger196

springdreams wrote: »

Now this I find very annoying.

I am many years away from retirement, and do indeed have a private pension plan.

My gripe with this is that many will not make any effort whatsoever to provide for their old age, yet it will be those of us that do that will be punished for doing so.

Some form of means testing of pensions already exists for pension credit and for age allowance for income tax. If you have a private pension, you lose out on HB and CTB.