What actually happens to people who'll lose benefits?

[Mich the Tester]

Because:

1) It often turns common sense on its head by putting the human rights of criminals, terrosrists etc above those of those who stand to be victims of said individuals.

2) It is anti democratic since it is often used to overturn decisions made at a national level by our DEMOCRATICALLY elected government.

1) please give evidence showing that the ECHR 'often' puts criminals' rights above victims. Preferably evidence that it does that more often than protecting the rights of the innocent.

2) The European Court of Human Rights (to which I think you're referring) enacts the European Convention of Human Rights, which was recognised and ratified by the democratically elected government of the UK in 1953, under the government of a Mr W Churchill, who had instigated the creation of a supranational legal framework to defend human rights in Europe having learned the lessons of the preceding years. The UK government could leave the convention if it so wished, but that might be a lengthy political process. The whole point of a supranational legal framework is that democratically elected governments had committed atrocities that were not prevented by the normal national democratic process, and that a system whereby democratically elected governments can be judged by their peers might help to prevent the worst excesses. Given the last 57 years of European history, I think Mr Churchill was right; one could certainly criticise the workings of the ECHR in some cases, but that doesn't negate the necessity of such an organisation.

My final question to those (really to those in positions of power) who would like to leave or change the ECHR is; what, precisely do you wish to do, to whom, which contravenes the ECHR as it stands right now, and which passages of the convention do you want to see altered?

[RichardCranium]

2) It is anti democratic since it is often used to overturn decisions made at a national level by our DEMOCRATICALLY elected government.

Good. It's a shame it didn't exist in the late 1930s and prevent the genocide in Germany.

[Boudica]

There are people in council housing who earn well over the 'average' wage, surely council housing should only be for people in need, rather than 'for life'.... and housing benefit should be capped, the only thing giving market rate rental subsidies does is make rent more expensive for everyone else, ie those who do work. If you can't afford to pay rent in central london then there is some disadvantage to being on benefits...

[Green Mango]

Yeah, Austrian chap; failed art student I think.

Regular leftie socialist of the National variety.
A Labour mp became one of his biggest supporters in the UK.

[EternalOptimist]

EO

I see the point that there is always a minority that will abuse it but the majority will comply.

At least mine & Vectraman's suggestins mean Landlords & suppliers get paid evictions and government interventions reduce and we could make some savings using buying power. Its better than just giving everyone less money and hoping it doesn't turn to tulip. None of the offences are created, fraud and tax evasion legislation exists and can and are used today.

So what should we do?

What should we do ?

well I just dont know. All I have said is that there are two types of doleites, those who are in need and mean to get back to work, and those who are in need but have no intention of working.
I have also pointed out that both groups (in my experience) are quite ingenious at fiddling the system.
So therefore, creating an ingenious system is not part of the solution.

I also believe that once you make provisions for handouts, it becomes a real problem to retrench, because of the new problems that have been created.

For example, there never used to be many single parent mums when I was a youngster. One of the main reasons for this was that young girls knew that if they had a baby whilst unsupported by a husband, they were in for a world of sh!te. It was a deterrant. Providing them with a home and more welfare was an extremely humanitarian thing to do, but the consequence is clear, many young girls do not have a deterrant, they have an incentive to have kids, and we see generations of problem families.
Now if we cut the welfare for young girls, its the kids that suffer. So what was a very morally good thing to implement, has created an evil, and the measure becomes morally repugnant to reverse.

So what to do ? Its what is known as a 'wicked problem'. as opposed to what we do in IT which are 'good problems'.
I have never met anyone who was any good at solving wicked problems. maybe you will be the first


I did lol at the notion that a bloke can work all his life, pay his taxes for 44 years, then get made redundant. his wife leaves him, he loses the house. Then Vetran comes around with his voucher and looks this hardworking man up and down and says 'here you go, unfortunately you cant go for a pint till you get a fkng job you idle bastid'

[Peoplesoft bloke]

It's hilarious that people call socialism the politics of envy. A lot of people seem to seriously envy those living on benefits - that seems odd to me. Surely that's just as pointless as me envying Sir Philip Green for his wealth and ability not to pay taxes? Isn't the real question whether you're Ok with your own lot rather than spending all your time judging yourself in terms of others?

[shaunbhoy]

So therefore, creating an ingenious system is not part of the solution.

Utter bollox. Creating a decent system is very MUCH a part of the solution. Just because some devious nerk might find a way round it is no reason not to implement something that will deter the overwhelming majority.
Once your decent system gets the numbers down to manageable levels, THEN you can afford to target your resources on the inventive benefit cheats.
There is no silver bullet to this epidemic, but that is not a reason to give up and accept it.

[AtW]

There is no silver bullet to this epidemic, but that is not a reason to give up and accept it.

Lead bullets much cheaper

[MrMark]

Tories seem to think that all these 'benefit scroungers' that they will cleverly trip up will think "fair cop, good while it lasted, I'll just have to go and get a job in an Investment Bank now".

The reality is that the vast majority of people on benefits aren't there by choice but as a result of circumstance. If you take away their sources of shelter and food then you get angry desperate communities that erupt in crime and violence at the slightest provocation. As for a precedent for this then you only have to look back to the early Eighties when Thatcher tried 'sticking it' to the poorer end of society to create a market for the rich to get richer.

This current situation must be a dream come true for the Tories as they can justify any of their insane social fantasies under the guise of everybody needing to suck up their bit of the pain (funny thing is I can't see any pain that Cameron and his two fags are going to have to suck up apart from losing a bit of child benefit).

Now, interestingly, had the Falklands War not happened in 1982 then Thatcher and the Tories would almost certainly have been booted out in the General Election of 1983 (probably would have been 84 in the event) and regarded as one of the most damaging terms of office held in the 20th Century.

What sort of person thinks along the lines that it's a good idea to make half a million people unemployed at the same time as reducing police funding, denying thousands access to vital financial assistance and reducing investment in University education? I notice that the health budget is intact but, then, even Tories get sick from time to time.

Next time Osborne's up here I'll be there with a box of eggs to chuck and they'll be Ostrich ones if I can get my hands on them the ruddy faced, smug tw*t!

My word, a poster with intelligence. Why aren't you banned already?

[EternalOptimist]

Utter bollox. Creating a decent system is very MUCH a part of the solution. Just because some devious nerk might find a way round it is no reason not to implement something that will deter the overwhelming majority.
Once your decent system gets the numbers down to manageable levels, THEN you can afford to target your resources on the inventive benefit cheats.
There is no silver bullet to this epidemic, but that is not a reason to give up and accept it.

so you think that a clever system that stops people spending their money on ale is both possible and will bring the numbers on the dole down to manageable levels
and you accuse ME of talking utter bollox

No one is suggesting that we give up and accept it, dont put words in my mouth