Work or be homeless!

MadSebW

For the person who said why should people who are jobless do community work.. Why shouldn't they?? They are being paid from everyone's taxes!! They should be doing their bit. If they don't want to do anything for the community, then they don't get the job seeker's allowance. Simple as really. Then they will soon have it registered in their heads that they need to work for an income instead of using their weekly money on cannabis, drinking and anything else they see fit to waste their money on. No not all people claiming benefits are the same. There are people temporarily on benefits whilst in between work and because of a temp sickness etc etc.. But this is aimed at the scroungers who are claiming for the pure sake of an easy life and for the ones claiming year after year after year!

Also to the person saying that people on job seekers HAVE to be looking for work and HAVE to prove this. Do you honestly think all fo them are really looking for a job. My Mum is the manager of a Subway store and she has had several people come to her asking for a letter to say they have applied for work but they didnt get the job and admitted they don't even want the job. One of my best friends works for Connextions and has hundreds of teenagers come and see her every week saying they can't be bothered and how do they get money? She has even had their PARENTS come in with the same attitude.

For every one person who is in genuine need of benefit, there is more than likely 3 who are not.

speedtwin

I think most people agree that we should have a welfare system.

speedtwin

I think most people agree that we should have a welfare system.

I also think it is a fact of life that there will always be single mums and young girls getting in the club. The problem is a lot of young women think it is the route to house, benifits, and not having to work and there is no stigma about it nowadays. I'm not saying the welfare system shouldnt look after them to a certain extent but if the only housing on offer was a hostel it would be a lot less attractive. After that the only way to better housing would be carear training and going back to work (yes i know childcare would have to be looked into)

The unemployed should be made to work for their benifits or lose it like in the states (you cant tell me they are looking for work 40 hrs a week) If they had to do a min say 20 work hours per week (which could be skill training) for their benifits it will give some a incentive to go back to work for more than they get on benifits.

Now i know the present system isnt much of a incentive cos you can be better off not to work and that is the goverments fault not the unemployed

affordmylife

In my opinion anyone who is not disabled or doesnt have an under five child at home should go to work.

No benefit - just get a job.

You have five years to be training/studying or working part time. Once child is in full time school you should go to work to support the child/children you have brought into the world.

I was a single parent with two small boys and was never out of work before during or after having each of them.

I was on my own with them through no fault of my own but I am too proud to allow someone else to foot the bill for bringing up my precious children (now aged 14 and 17).

lynzpower

FairyElephant wrote: »

OK - let's get radical & controversial here!

It's a fact that loads of teenage girls get pregnant pretty much just to get council flats (this is NOT an 'urban myth' - I know people who have done it years ago, and have recently heard it being discussed by a group of teenage girls on the bus!).

It's also a fact there are not enough babies available for adoption by all those who would wish to - most of whom have stable, loving homes waiting for said babies. There are lots of older kids wanting adoption - many of whom are the product of earlier mentioned teenage girls, who finally couldn't cope and had the kids taken away from them. People are less keen to adopt them as they often have more behavioral problems etc. than babies & younger kids. This I also know about from personal experiences and those of close friends.

….See where I am going here?....

So - how about - if an under 18 gets pregnant, she has three choices:
Don't have the child at all (not going to debate abortion here - too big a subject)
Show that she has a stable home & financial ability to bring up the child (whether with it's father, her parents, or on her own).
Or - Give up the child for adoption at birth.

Results - Less Council housing needed. Less children's homes/foster care needed
= Less of a drain on the poor old taxpayers! (and hopefully better brought-up & well-adjusted kids!)

Should I stand for Government or what?!?

FE
(Tongue almost-all-the-way in cheek!) 0

Stupidity.

1) removing a child from its parents, costs 10s of thousands.
2) there are not enough foster carers in the UK - there are plenty of applicants, but few meet the desired standard of quality therapeutic parenting that the service demands
3) there are a lack of adopters, not only that there are a lack of applicants, but again few meet the standard of theraputic parenting.
4) many of those in adoptive placements who grow up after being removed from parents develop poor attachment patterns, leading unfortunately to mental illhealth, poor attainment, criminality and so on. Have a search for articles about achievement of children rainsed in the care system & post adoptive response.
5) removing children due to economic reasons in the main is a flagrant clash with the most basic of human rights, and has been tested in court as illegal and quite rightly so IMHO
6) are you seriously askingh womens right to be completely violated telling which woman can and cannot have children or be forced into terminations because they cant get work. A cursory flick through most daily papers will tell you of a court case where a woman has been sacked for becomeing pregnant, so its not a one way street.

Ive also worked with women whove had ALL thier benefits stopped due to them doing temporary voluntary work to up thier skills & confidence- ( the poorly educated and unskilled, trying to get office experience etc to move on and work part/full time later once they have a reference, got used to working, skills etc. ) the reason? they cant be looking for work full time if they are volunteering part time. :wall:

I do think we can all be a bit short sighted. When I lived in Newcastle, I could only find temp work for 3 weeks , I took it of course I did, but after that nothing. If I was on benefits I would not have stopped my bens for 3 weeks! As this would have inevitably led to eviction and so on. In the end due to a serious lack of work ( and yes, I was looking for waitressing, factory work etc) I moved home to let my parents support me, as I simply couldnt pay the rent.

Someone i know in Norwich is looking for a FT job, ( anyone got anything to offer!??) they currently work PT mornings as a cleaner. He cant find FT anything, and cant find an afternoon or evening job to go with it. Hes under 25 so cant get TCs. So he is bringing home 20 hours at the minimum wage and has to pay everything out of that. He has a bike, but no car, so hes limited where he can work, if its not on a bus route ( and lots of farms etc are simply not) or its beyond where he can go, he was offered a job which is an hours drive or 2.5 hours bike ride each way, its not possible to be honest.

SquatNow

Could I perchance, suggest temporary chemical sterilisation for all unmarried women from the age of 13? That is, that they should all get the contraceptive injection every 6 months.

"Oh but wont somebody think of the children" I hear you cry. "THink of the damage the pill/the injection will do to their health"

Well compared to the risks of childbirth it's very low. Copared to the risks of childbirth at a young age it's minute.

affordmylife

Norwich is a massive city. There are probably hundreds of retail and office and cleaning jobs in Norwich available as we speak.Norwich is on any bus route you care to mention - its a city got about a million buses. There shouldnt be a problem at all.

Running_Horse

speedtwin wrote: »

I think most people agree that we should have a welfare system.

I agree, but was told I would have to wait 12 weeks before getting reduced benefits due to my redundancy payment, despite having paid NI all my life. Meanwhile, all around me in the job centre were people with no intention of even looking for work, starting fights, vandalising the jobphones, abusing staff, and they got given everything. As with council housing, the welfare system is designed to reward bad behaviour.

SquatNow

Running_Horse wrote: »

Meanwhile, all around me in the job centre were people with no intention of even looking for work, starting fights, vandalising the jobphones, abusing staff, and they got given everything. As with council housing, the welfare system is designed to reward bad behaviour.

You know what the obvious answer is then.... go in and smash up some phones and start a fight...

blue_monkey_2

When Dh signed on after losing his job we went to the jobcentre with him (do they call it that now) when he claimed as although I had a business it was not earning anything. They had a security guards there and when I had to go in the lift upstairs (I had the buggy) I had to be accompanied by one!!