Reply to: Great unwashed to do manual work for benefits

[MarillionFan]

There is nothing wrong with splitting infinitives in English. It is only bad practice when parsing between Latin and English. To knowingly, wilfully and intentionally - and with legitimacy in English, as here I demonstrate - infinitive split, exemplified.

To get back on-topic, at some point in the past few years they've changed the rules about JSA. I was expected to provide evidence of having applied for jobs. I now have to also provide a timesheet showing I am carrying out at least 40 hours of job-seeking related activity every week. (Which is more hours than the Job Centre staff have to do.) So you don't get JSA for watching telly. But you only get that fr 6 months and then you're onto income support (or some such). All the other benefits, however, are another matter... as far as I can see you get them for doing nothing.

Except getting preggers. The government still pays you for getting up the duff. So the chavs are being paid to shag without protection.

Personally, I think child benefit should be scrapped. If you can't afford kids, you shouldn't be having them.

Do you get it for posting on CUK?

[RichardCranium]

I think SY01 is genuinely confusing me with RC (quite a compliment to me) because it was he posting a couple of weeks back about this, and he also admitted he used an umbrella.

Of course they will, simply because there is no incentive to not be on benefits.

split infinitive

There is nothing wrong with splitting infinitives in English. It is only bad practice when parsing between Latin and English. To knowingly, wilfully and intentionally - and with legitimacy in English, as here I demonstrate - infinitive split, exemplified.

To get back on-topic, at some point in the past few years they've changed the rules about JSA. I was expected to provide evidence of having applied for jobs. I now have to also provide a timesheet showing I am carrying out at least 40 hours of job-seeking related activity every week. (Which is more hours than the Job Centre staff have to do.) So you don't get JSA for watching telly. But you only get that fr 6 months and then you're onto income support (or some such). All the other benefits, however, are another matter... as far as I can see you get them for doing nothing.

Except getting preggers. The government still pays you for getting up the duff. So the chavs are being paid to shag without protection.

Personally, I think child benefit should be scrapped. If you can't afford kids, you shouldn't be having them.

[vetran]

Admiral or Banker
pour encourager les autres

[Jog On]

The May Day 'demonstrations' are going to be interesting next year.... that is if the crusties aren't all too busy digging holes and picking up litter

[suityou01]

Of course they will, simply because there is no incentive to not be on benefits.

How many whinging chavs do you see on he news items about benefits maintaining they cannot get a job as they are better off claiming dole and they won't earn enough as a worker.

Making people realise they cannot get summat for nowt can't happen soon enough.

split infinitive

[Mich the Tester]

Making people realise they cannot get summat for nowt can't happen soon enough.


Pity that the Bankers with their massive bailouts seem to have ignored your advice - ah wait though - they were been rewarded for reckless incompetence - so that is something rather than nowt ... so thats fine then.

Mr Pruffock has a point here, but I don't think ALL bankers can be included. I certainly feel, however, that some banks should have been allowed to go bankrupt, so that Directors who took huge bonusses while being warned that trouble was coming could be taken to bankruptcy court; limited liability does not mean 'no liability' in the case of a Ltd, and it shouldn't mean 'no liability' in the case of a PLC. If any of us were to take money out of our Ltds, or borrow through the Ltd for personal gain, then if the Ltd went bankrupt, we'd be taken to the cleaners. That's what being a director is all about; acting responsibly in the interests of the business, even if it's a one person business. If you don't in practice have the legal responsibility ogf a director, then in my books you aren't a director; you're a salaried manager and should be satisfied with a sensible salary.

I'd be surprised if such bankruptcies would cost more to the public than the government bail-outs; account holders would have to be compensated, but in effect, they were by the taxpayer.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Making people realise they cannot get summat for nowt can't happen soon enough.


Pity that the Bankers with their massive bailouts seem to have ignored your advice - ah wait though - they were been rewarded for reckless incompetence - so that is something rather than nowt ... so thats fine then.

[vetran]

Why not turn a crank? Link it up to a generator & free energy! If you see some of the stupid things I have to do on a daily basis the rotation of the crank makes more sense.

Seriously the point about the workhouse is that it discourages idleness. All that has been suggested is that people receiving benefits perform some sort of work. As many of the people I know on benefits are or have been working illegally it would stop that. It would also turn benefits into the last resort rather than a lifestyle.

There is plenty that needs doing without displacing current workers, all the manual work we export to developing countries such as recycling could be done by claimants. All the things we can't afford to do such as rebuilding stone walls, clearing hedgerows of rubbish etc are perfect fodder.

We cannot continue to pay for such a large number of people to remain idle when we compete with countries quite happy to let their poor die if they have no job. If we don't do it now then many more will be affected long term we have no right to a share of global business we have to fight for it.

Welfare to work is effective as you can see from the chart I posted. Possibly it seems unfair but tell that to those earning £15K and getting up at 5 am to go to work when their neighbour sits in bed all day and gets more disposable income.

[norrahe]

I agree with most of that.

However, I see myself as a lazy workshy gutbucket - I just got lucky.

Realistcally, are lazy workshy gutbuckets going to be able to convince anyone to give 'em a job -and if they can - won't they just get fired for being lazy workshy gutbuckets?

Of course they will, simply because there is no incentive to not be on benefits.

How many whinging chavs do you see on he news items about benefits maintaining they cannot get a job as they are better off claiming dole and they won't earn enough as a worker.

Making people realise they cannot get summat for nowt can't happen soon enough.

[BoredBloke]

It's about time being on benefits became the new ginger.

Christ don't go that far!

[MarillionFan]

I agree with most of that.

However, I see myself as a lazy workshy gutbucket - I just got lucky.

Realistcally, are lazy workshy gutbuckets going to be able to convince anyone to give 'em a job -and if they can - won't they just get fired for being lazy workshy gutbuckets?

Hence the reason for government schemes that make people get off their arse or lose their benefits. We have created a social underclass in Britain where it is acceptable to sit on your arse all day, eat fatty food, watch Jeremy Kyle and generally procreate to ensure your DNA is spread about while we draft in immigrants to clean your house, empty your bins and serve KFC.

It's about time being on benefits became the new ginger.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I agree. Seemed like a good idea until you realise that the cost of counterfeiting/black market/swapping it for 'crack' would still go on. Plus, then do you turn it into a Tesco Clubcard scheme!

Claiming benefits though(like teenage pregnancy) should have a stigma attached. It should be 'Im just claiming until I get back on my feet' as opposed to 'It's better on benefits I'll sit on my arse all day'. There needs to be an insentive. It really should be that you get £Benefit for X Months and a method of accumulating 'bank' hours in some kind of scheme. Those who are really looking, really want to work would help out in the 'big society'. It's the lazy, workshy gutbuckets that need a kick up the arse.

I agree with most of that.

However, I see myself as a lazy workshy gutbucket - I just got lucky.

Realistcally, are lazy workshy gutbuckets going to be able to convince anyone to give 'em a job -and if they can - won't they just get fired for being lazy workshy gutbuckets?

[MarillionFan]

A reasonable assertion, but the question arises how one could prevent such a thing. If you do the vouchers thing they'll end up getting traded at lower value for crack etc. One might argue that it's worse to do that than just hand over the cash. I'm also not comfortable with the idea that I (or anyone else) get to micro manage expenditure in this way.

I agree. Seemed like a good idea until you realise that the cost of counterfeiting/black market/swapping it for 'crack' would still go on. Plus, then do you turn it into a Tesco Clubcard scheme!

Claiming benefits though(like teenage pregnancy) should have a stigma attached. It should be 'Im just claiming until I get back on my feet' as opposed to 'It's better on benefits I'll sit on my arse all day'. There needs to be an insentive. It really should be that you get £Benefit for X Months and a method of accumulating 'bank' hours in some kind of scheme. Those who are really looking, really want to work would help out in the 'big society'. It's the lazy, workshy gutbuckets that need a kick up the arse.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Not sure about the workhouse approach, but should those who don't work be allowed to spend their benefits on smoking and alcohol (a point raised earlier).

No. They shouldn't.

I would personally advocate benefits working along the lines of a voucher scheme. Clothes, food, fuel, accomodation. But I'll be damned if I'm paying for booze, cigarettes, play stations, the latest trainers and a bit of blow 'cause I'm stressed. Show bloody willing.

A reasonable assertion, but the question arises how one could prevent such a thing. If you do the vouchers thing they'll end up getting traded at lower value for crack etc. One might argue that it's worse to do that than just hand over the cash. I'm also not comfortable with the idea that I (or anyone else) get to micro manage expenditure in this way.

[MarillionFan]

The people I take issue with here the most are those who do seem to advocating a return to the workhouse (albeit updated a bit). It is one of my abiding memories of a time I was profoundly despairing of some aspects of humanity when I found that some people in Victorian workhouses were made to turn hand cranks all day. The cranks didn't do anything except prevent people being "idle" - that kind of dogmatic attitude doesn't seem so far off amongst some on here.

Not sure about the workhouse approach, but should those who don't work be allowed to spend their benefits on smoking and alcohol (a point raised earlier).

No. They shouldn't.

I would personally advocate benefits working along the lines of a voucher scheme. Clothes, food, fuel, accomodation. But I'll be damned if I'm paying for booze, cigarettes, play stations, the latest trainers and a bit of blow 'cause I'm stressed. Show bloody willing.