Attitudes of the British people are hardening towards benefits and those claiming it.
Do Wiki members believe that benefits are too low and cause hardship or that they are too high and discourage work.

A can of worms await ....

the new universal credit system coming out in april is going to cause havoc.

I think benefits are too low for the genuine claimants but there are far too many who claim unjustly. I believe that it is the latter group which gets the headlines and spoils the claims of those really in need.It does appear too easy to make false claims and get away with it.I have no idea how we move the goalposts to allow needy folk to get help whilst discouraging those who claim unfairly.Sadly it is always the case that the "minority" spoil things for the rest.

i think they're fair as they stand, it's setting boundaries for things like DLA is where the issues arise. if someone is entitled to DLA, then fine, but i know (of) many people who have nothing wrong with them, physically or mentally, and have somehow wangled onto DLA and get a car paid for fully and other such nicities when they neither need nor deserve it.

The name of this topic gives us a hint where you're wanting to go with this.

Sorry should say "Benefit Scroungers?".

My opinion on this, is there are too many claimants sitting around on their fat arses, smoking their cigarettes, drinking their alcohol surrounded by cats and dogs, complaining they don't get enough benefits. These are the people who make the whole benefit system look a complete mess. Yes there are genuine people who need help with benefits but there are a lot more who work the system and drain whatever they can out of it without putting anything back in.

If anyone knows of a Benefit fraudster, why don't they do the decent thing and turn them in, or is it they don't have personal knowledge but rely on propaganda bandied about.

Just wanted to clear this statement up. They don't get a car paid for fully - if you need a car to help you get around, you have to have the high mobility component of DLA and you pay for the car out of that component.

This is the kind of thing that gets those of us who are disabled a bad name as people think we get everything handed to us on a plate. The likes of the Daily Fail, the ... & the Grauniad seem to take great pleasure in denigrating the disabled & others on benefits. The knock on effect is that their readers then take it as gospel & in turn, they denigrate those on benefits too.

I will probably get well & truly flamed for this but, in for a penny as they say. The people who breed for benefits sake, have more children when they cannot afford the one(s) they have, those who are on drugs or are alcoholics should not get as much as they do. Children are not a means to more money or a right! I see so many friends who have a few children constantly moaning because of childcare fees, before and after school club fees, hobby clubs/classes, cost of shoes/clothes/ipads/mobiles/xcubewiibox games etc and how they can't afford to go out as they have to find a babysitter, pay them etc. TOUGH!! Nobody forced you to have kids! You chose to have children, so suck it up sweethearts!!

If anyone wants to moan about the genuinely disabled getting a few extras, then they are more than welcome to have my disability for a week, and the few extra £'s that comes with it. Rest assured - you wouldn't last 48hrs!

Just for the record, I paid into the "system" for 23yrs before my accident and did not put a claim in for the resulting disability for 8 months - I lived on my savings! Once I am partially fixed, I will go back to work & pay back into the system - no doubt paying more in than I've taken out of the pot.

Those who have never paid in should perhaps have a cap on what they get - just a thought.

Rant over

P.S. - I don't drink or smoke but I do have my dog. I got her many years ago when I was on upwards of £26k a year. She is the best physio going. If it wasn't for her, I'd have given up many many years ago.

Difficult to say, as those who are not on or have not ever received benefits, dont know what people are entitled to receive. Plus,nobody on benefits ever let you know either with regard to the overheads and their total income from all scources. So, I suppose we all make a good guess and generally speaking, tend to point the finger', which is understandable from those who don't know.



Other things are questionable in my opinion. Those who are on low income benefits, disability benefits and old age pensions are all (providing they meet criteria) able to foster children, without their benefits/pensions being affected. Looking at the report below taken from an article printed a couple of years ago , fostering appears to be a pretty lucrative business(unless I've been left behind how much a living wage is now) which has to be questioned for obvious reasons, even though, there are many who provide an exceptional service for those children.
There are always the ones who will abuse a system for their own ends! Although my comment is bound to upset some, because they read it as they wish to see it, not as it is written.


Foster care
Linda is a foster carer who looks after Billy, 5, and Andrew, 14. They both live with Linda and her family full time. Linda gets a weekly allowance and fee for each of the boys. As the two boys are different ages, with different demands, this is reflected in the allowances and fees.

For the care of Billy, she is entitled to an allowance of £113.46, which covers maintenance, his clothing and his pocket money. She also receives £151.36 as a weekly fee for Billy. For the care of Andrew she receives an allowance of £145.19 and a £189.21 weekly fee.

In total, Linda receives £600.22 per week for caring for the two boys
.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2011/jan/17/edinburgh-foster-caring-pay-rates-myths

i think its important to define a "scrounger"? there are those that have fallen on hard times and rightly receive help, and there are those who have no intention of working or even trying to work! i despise the second group!

Agree with Salmons post, and the first para of Granny's .(her following paras are a whole new issue which deserve their own thread)
I think your first paragraph Granny sums up why I think the only way things could change , to stop the system being abused, is more of a Big Brother state. People claiming would have to be subject to far more personal invasive scrutiny - and that aint going to happen in these days of 'eweman rights' My mum was telling me that in her day , 'Parish benefits' were paid in the Welsh valleys, and they would come in and handle all your stuff and if you had any luxuries , you stood no chance of financial assistance. Dont think many of us would like those sort of days again , but certainly I for one would welcome more resources put into making sure the benefits went to the genuinely needy --and then the upside would be that there would be MORE money available for the right people then.
The main problem should be tackled first, and that is the abuse at the top - perpetrated , sorry, allowed, by the Govt in so much as they dont have a firm enough grip on the officialdom high up . Im talking about the ones who allow big companies to get away without paying their taxes via sneaky loopholes, the ones who wave through thousands of immigrants without the correct checks , and the rules that allow limited companies to go bankrupt and open up the next day in another name, leaving a trail of 'owed' people with ruined livelihoods who then are forced onto the benefits system etc etc etc.

Do you have the figures to back this statement up, or is it just what you would like to believe, in order to make sweeping generalizations?

I suggest you have a look at this link:

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/index.php?page=fraud_error

So, the DWP's own statistics estimate that 2.1% of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error, and interestingly, 0.8% was actually underpaid due to fraud and error!

With respect, that hardly backs up your hypothesis, & as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, perhaps the title gives away your agenda. Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?

The Chancellor has reasoned that the 50% tax rate is not justifiable because it is not feasible to collect it, as people find ways of avoiding their liability. Oh well Mr Osborne, that's alright then, turn a blind eye to your rich chums because it is a bit difficult to get them to pay their taxes, whilst at the same time demonizing the majority of legitimate benefits claimants by inferring they are in essence work-shy scroungers, who are therefore a reasonable target!

To me, benefit fraud is repugnant, as is tax avoidance / evasion, and yet whilst paying lip-service to the tax issue but little else, the Tories are happy to dismantle the benefits system in what is a naked ideological attack.

From society's perspective, telling people "we are all in this together", whilst depriving the poorest and most vulnerable of the means to adequate food warmth & shelter (i.e. the most basic requirements for living), will inevitably lead to social unrest, as when you have taken everything away from somebody, and then want even more, how on earth do you expect them to react?

I am not trying to agitate for disturbances, but this will surely be the inevitable consequence of an already unequal society being made even more so, and that is really going to cost a lot of money to address.

Rant over!

There should be different scales of benefit based on NI contributions, needless to say those that have never put in get the least out, unfortunately for the disabled the abusers have ruined the scheme for the genuine,Wench you defend disability payments quite rightly so, however you let yourself down by begrudging those that support children their rights, this is exactly what this odious government wants, blame all the ills of the economy on those least able to defend themselves, just like the Nazis did with the Jews the poor are the scapegoats, turn one against the other,god help us all if they are elected for another parliament, we will all feel the cold fingers of capitalism and conservatism choking the life out of us

My point is, Casper, that having children is not a right! Some of those that are on benefits have more and more children to try and beat the system and milk it (no pun intended). The examples I gave were acquaintances who have been on benefits ad infinitum, never paid into the system, yet continue to breed despite moaning about the cost of keeping said children.

These are the ones who contribute to everyone on benefits being tarred with the same brush.

Every single person in this country that is lucky enough to be in good health and employed are only one day away from being on benefits of some sort, or from becoming disabled. I am one of those people - all it took was one minute on one day to turn my life upside down. The catalogue of events & medical errors that followed have contributed to the mess I am in now.

As for the real scroungers - I think the MP's themselves surely top that list. The amount of money they are allowed in expenses for food, travel, hotels, second homes etc, on top of a very generous salary/wage is mindblowing! Surely if we are all in this together, they should be prepared to take cuts too. We all know that that won't happen though.

Funnily enough I do! It's quite simple. All you need to do is create new employment opportunities that pay livable wages. Then this largely mythical underclass, (of idle poor), won't want to claim benefits, they'll want to go to work and earn a good living as now they can spend the money they earn having a more enjoyable life than the miserable existence they're born into now.

If people are able to work, then they should be doing something for their handouts. People who pay their taxes are supplementing those lazy arses. I know people who are disabled, have learning difficulties and they are proud of their contributions, whether in manual paid or voluntary work.
For the women who keep having babies, its great that you supply the 'fodder' for industries, but are the men willing to provide maintenance until the kids are 18? - sometimes the men don't think until its too late. We used to be a proud nation - I just see us as turning into the begging bowl of deprivation. Yeah, help those in hardship, made reduntant, ill - but clamp down on the persistent scroungers of society.

Excellent point about the maintenance dodgers, Ponytail.

a family who is working have to think very hard before having another child . a woman in my road who is not working got paid for having her 5 child ever time she has a new baby her benefits go up

A guy where I used to work used to have bad knee's due to his weight, he was issued with various benefits including the vehicle one and got a brand new Quashqui a blue badge and all that comes with it-free parking/tunnel etc. He then paid privately for 2 new knees and got himself a fulltime job. All very well but my problem is this was 4 years ago and he still gets the benefits that allow him a new expensive car every 3 years along with free tunnel and parking etc! Can anyone explain this to me as it baffles me. I really am all for helping those in need (I wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't) but surely once the need is gone there shouldn't be a benefit for life!

Keep em on the dole I say, at least then us hard workers don't have to do their job when they get work with us, cos let's face it, they will mess around just to get sacked so they can go back to spending their dole on beers, weed and ciggies whilst sitting on their beanbags watching Jeremy Kyle everyday.
I'm ok and won't have to have any lazy muppets workin with me, but I'm speaking for the rest of you.
You know the score and you know I'm right.

As you were.

If you really want to know, go and ask him, there may be reasons you dont know about, so you think every disabled person should have obvious signs, and if there are none, then that person should not get benefits as they are healthy.

Go on then, I'll bite. I don't use this site very often, so am not sure what the title "wiki master" infers, but is this post planted here as a bomb, to try and generate more controversy, and therefore site traffic? I'm genuinely not sure if it is intended to be taken seriously.

I apologize Ste if you were simply playing devil's advocate, or alternatively positively lampooning lazy generalizations.

i have a nice house, 2 dogs, plasma tellys etc.
i am on benefits as i suffered a near breakdown after being made redundant. i worked for over 40years and thank goodness the benefit system is there to help those in real need.

Here's one for you people on the dole are called ...
And people in the armed forces are call heroes
Now the armed forces are kicking people out of there job
So are the people we called heroes yesterday today's ...

This might seem off topic, but it's my own personal belief that no British government wants to come out of Europe because they fear the total collapse of our Welfare State, and I include the Tories in that statement. And when I write about the Welfare State I'm not just talking about benefits, I'm talking about the whole infrastructure of our society: education; health; government employees; military and defence; the police and criminal justice system; roads; state pensions; whatever is tax payer funded include it. The whole lot cannot possibly be sustained from revenues collected, because we don't collect enough to fund that lot each year. And any serious downturn in our economy will mean even less taxes being collected if unemployment goes through the roof like it has in Spain.

Each year, £billions are borrowed from the international money lenders in order to keep our heads just above the water level.

No matter how patriotic people might feel about gaining our independence from Brussels, the huge danger is that if the money lenders see us as a big risk then nobody will lend to us a red-cent. Imagine the chaos that will ensue once we can no longer pay for all that we have become accustomed to these past sixty plus years?

There are whole swathes of the population who rely upon the benefits system for their very existance, housing, food, etc. People are complaining now, that they cannot afford to live, what will they do if that nightmare scenario comes about? I dread to think. Imagine the country going back to the living conditions of the 1930s. Or even the nineteenth century?

The benefits culture in this country, much of which is on a large scale in areas like Merseyside, came about because of the collapse of our local industries during the 1970s - the docks, the local shipyards etc. When they went people who relied upon them for income went onto the benefits system, remaining in the area and relying heavily upon tax payer funded local accomodation (housing benefits etc). In fact the local authorities increased their building projects to accomodate their families, the benefits culture continued to trap their children and so on. And here we are today in a bigger mess than ever.

I really fear for the future of the people of Merseyside. Lord knows where it is all going to end. But the benefits culture is only the tip of the iceberg.

Quote Shambo,s solution .

"Funnily enough I do! It's quite simple. All you need to do is create new employment opportunities that pay livable wages. Then this largely mythical underclass, (of idle poor), won't want to claim benefits, they'll want to go to work and earn a good living as now they can spend the money they earn having a more enjoyable life than the miserable existence they're born into now."

Shambo, -- Smashing scenario , but not simple, and most relevent,not immediate. Reminds me of the Irish answer to directions to somewhere

"If I were you I wouldnt start from here"

You've missed my point. A lot of people asked him why he was still entitled to the vehicle etc and even he didn't know! He was working legally paying tax etc and honest with the state about his disability being fixed yet still has the car. The only thing he himself could come up with is once you were on it they couldn't take you off! And no I don't think that every disabled person should have visible signs, that's absurd but in this case the disability was fixed (his words).

A single person who may have worked all their life and gets made redundant at say 58 years of age will receive £71 a week plus if applicable rent paid and support for council tax. Which is same for a 26 year old who has never worked but why would a person who has always worked need more than a person who has worked. £71 is the very least a person could survive on.People with disabilities get considerably more and rightly so.
In an area of high employment that I am familiar with community leaders hold meetings to discuss job prospects and the turnouts are always very high. I suggest that the people who believe the unemployed are scroungers go on to job sites on internet and you will see hundreds of applications for every job that does not require much in the way of qualifications.Yes there are jobs advertised but there are tens of people chasing every job. Please consider how you would feel if you lost your job it is time to stop this ridiculous slandering of the sick and unemployed,

I see your words have formed a garbled answer, and to me they seem scathing and suggestive of an opposing opinion, yet they don't say what that opinion is... a very political answer.

The way to decrease the number of unemployed is to increase the number of jobs... simply put. If there are not enough people to immediately fill those vacancies then wages will begin to rise which will influence the quality of life... another simple premise.

Creation of new jobs is a skill that has eluded every career politician, of every political flavour, in my lifetime. To the point that to just suggest such an obvious answer seems to elicit your scorn. It's a simple answer that pays no heed to the tenet of the right-wing scoundrel who needs to feel they are better than somebody else, and need to believe the work-shy are holding them back from an idealistic better world, where everybody works hard and holds the same beliefs, if you don't like it then tough, where societys cohesion and strength comes from a strong work ethic, a meritocracy where the clever and hard working rise to the top and cheats never prosper, a proud country, a clean country and.... sorry but it's starting to sound a bit like Mein Kampf. Coincidently that forms part of my own little theory about the correlation between people who are likely to whine about paying taxes which go towards benefits, and those who are likely to get their panties in a bunch about 'bloody muslims' and 'imergrents' (sic). Y'know, the sort of people who start a sentence with "I'm not racist but..." Not mutually exclusive I know but, y'know, I'm just sayin'.

Anyway, the scapegoat of todays whinge du jour happen to be people who will be the least involved in society, those who are most likely to live in the most deprived areas, (such as alot of north Wirral BTW), suffer from ill health, recieve the poorest education and suffer the blight criminal activity. Poverty begats poverty and no amount of posturing about how hard you've had it, or how your grandad used to live in a shoebox and eat cold gravel, will ever change that simple fact. Generation upon generation of wasted potential because capitalism is now the master of society and in order for a few people to get rich, more people have to get poor. To disguise this unpalatable trust requires a scapegoat.

The cherry on this rotten benefit cake is to be tarred by the person who lives next door, their only real difference is that one's employed and the other isn't, who's boring arsed, average excuse for a miserable life is consumed with a hatred that their neighbours are scroungers who hoover up taxes to live an imaginary life of riley. What a waste.

I've rambled, I apologise. Be assured though venice, with comments like yours, nobody could accuse you of being part of a solution.

Sorry Shambo, you clearly have the best interests of the underprivileged at heart as do I and most folk on Wiki but what you disregard is market forces which are the absolute drivers in world and thus British economy.You mention increasing jobs as an answer but do not say how to increase them.It is no good creating "false" jobs e.g.public sector posts.What is needed is more manufacturing which creates goods for sale abroad.That is where my comment that I do not know how to move the goal posts comes from. China undercuts everything that the western world produces and we face an uphill battle to get back to being a worldwide producer of goods that the rest of the world needs.

Whoa ! Sorrry Shambo if I offended. Sincerly there was no intention and I most certainly wasnt being scathing. All I meant was the discussion (in my eyes anyway) was about how best to finance welfare claimants right now - whether they should get more, less , at all, etc . As I said at the beginning , your solution is sound and a good long term goal, but it doesnt solve how to deal with todays claimants-and that was the point I was making.
Sorry again if this came over badly .

No doubt helped in part by the £30m or so that the UK gave them in aid last year!

Yes indeed but £30m is a drop in the ocean in those sort of finances with the NHS at over £100 billion, sorry I cannot compute those sort of monies.However you are right to highlight the £30m as it would fund the gap in Wirral councils budget spending against income.

When you add up the amounts given to Kosovo, Iran, Barbados & Russia for example, it all soon adds up. Slightly off topic though perhaps - or is it?

Don't worry venice, it's only the internet. Anyway, most if it wasn't aimed at you because you didn't tell us what your opinion on this matter was!

Salmon. you've just told me that I haven't addressed how to create employment and that manifacturing jobs are needed, without telling me how you think this feat will be achieved yourself. Manifacturing was destroyed in this country by Thatchers move towards a tertiary economy and only now are we as a nation reaping the long term losses. Globalisation has reduced the cost of tech goods imported into the country whilst making home grown manifacturing unviable, (it's even cheaper to ship a television from China to Felixstowe than it is to ship from one side of our county to another). Consuming these low cost imports, and the deliberate overheating of the housing market, has been the fuel for the debt that's kept our economy moving, until a few years ago. Today our omnishambling governments answer to the problem is to reduce public spending and vilify the poor who claim benefits, but we are about to enter a triple dip recession with no manifacturing exports to pull us out of this downwards tailspin. The only stimulus left available is investment in infactructure... but unfortunately most of it's been sold off to the private sector so any investment will be more of a subsidy to the rich at the expense of, you guessed it, the taxpayer, (see british banking system). It's not poor peple who are damaging our society, it's the rich, I'm alright jack so f**k you attitude that allows capitalism to puts profit before people.

I also think you'll find most people on WikiWrral do NOT have the best interests of the underpriviledged at heart, they join this site to have good old moan about benefit cheats, single mums, immigrants, kids today, etc... A bit like the Daily Mail letters page.

Sorry, I should of read the first post properly before posting.

I thought this was about Benefit scroungers. There is a difference between them and genuine claimants.
Title should be changed.

Can you change the title, I don't know how to. Thanks

I don't think anyone has a gripe against people who genuinely need help, it's those who are taking the pish that get the hackles up. E.g. 2 people, both with mobility cars, pretending they are living seperately but are not so the spare car is given to another family member to use who is at a seperate address.
Bloke A, goes for triple heart bypass and has to sign on for the first time in his life and hasn't much idea of what to do. Goes to the "bru" and meets an old acquaintance there, Bloke B, after exchanging pleasantries Bloke B tells Bloke A to make sure he gets industrial injury benefit because he gets it. Bloke A ask how come because Bloke B has never worked in his life. Bloke B says it doesn't matter he still gets it. Bloke B then tells Bloke A what forms to get (forms expert who knows the whole inventory of forms) and then to return to him for assistance in filling them in. This he does and gets his benefit. Mind you it was industrial injury that caused his problems anyway.
There are loads more. The scroungers leave less in the pot for genuine people who need assistance, simples.

The title “”Benefit scroungers”””

does that include the OAP;s who receive winter fuel benefit, free tv licence, free bus pass’s.
does it also include the low paid in receipt of housing benefit/council tax benefit, working tax credit,
does it also include people in receipt of child benefit, the middle class, the super rich, the MPs who claimed child benefit ie Mr Osbourne,
these benefits are included in the total expenditure, of the welfare budget
better off MP’s should be stripped of their benefits first - as "we are all in this together" - starting with first class travel and £400+ a week food allowance and housing related allowances.

It is always the sick/disabled, the unemployed classed as BENEFIT SCROUNGERS

Here,Here.

I've worked all my life and any benefits I receive, im entitled to as I've paid into the pot all of my life, I get a good pension and I'm very proud of my life achievements. The benefit system is there to help people who need it but unfortunately there are just too many who abuse the system and basically take the piss out of honest tax payers.

Well good for you that you've grasped the oppertunities for you to have worked all your life, got a good pension and been pround of your life achievements, but if that's an excuse to be smug faced and slate people who are on benefits maybe, through no fault of there own , shame on you. Don't tar everyone on Benefits with the same brush, that just makes you look like an ar se.

I came across this comment in the guardian today, sums up Osbourne so accurate
George s story:
"When young George was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was extremely fond. He went about chopping everything that came his way.
One day, as he wandered about the garden amusing himself by hacking his mother's pea sticks (and pulling the legs off insects), he found a beautiful, young English cherry tree, of which his father was most proud. He struck the edge of his hatchet on the trunk of the tree and cut the bark it so that it died.
Some time after this, his father discovered what had happened to his favorite tree.
Just then George, with his little hatchet, came into the room.
"George,'' said his father, "do you know who has killed my beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?
"Father, I cannot tell a lie, said the lying little shit as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. It was Gordon Brown...and the civil service bureaucrats…and the public sector…and the
o and the banks…and the wrong kind of snow...and employment tribunals…and trade unions…and energy prices…and the royal wedding...and the extra bank holiday…and the Eurozone...but it definitely wasn't me"
"Well George, you are a mendacious little Grrr, aren’t you" said his father, relieving him of his hatchet. “I would ask you to grow me another tree but I don't think you know the first thing about growth. In fact, I don't think you could grow anything even if I gave you a fistful of seeds and a sack full of horseshit…now, fook off out of my sight”"

THERES A D I F F E R E N C E!!!



See, there is work for you out there, you would make a great writer, i for one actually enjoyed that story

You never know, you may just be the next stephen king!!!

Calm down calm down

What on earth are you on about? I'm not tarring people on benefits, I'm just saying there are too many people who are very happy to milk the system and have no intentions of finding work.

i think they are on to much, my answer is give them food vouchers, the local off licence or betfred wont take them, so BUY FOOD for yourself and kids, they dont get benefits to "treat" themselfs, people spending hand outs on nights out ect, yes i understand that there are people out there that do struggle and depend on benefits, but that leaves the scroungers that do take the piss, false claims and people on the sick, bad back and depression change the record it makes me

I haven't read through all of this but seems like most discussions with some for and some against.

I think we have to be very careful about labelling people. One young man is in a mortuary at the moment probably because he was about to lose his job and couldn't see a future. Perhaps he didn't want to be thought of as a benefit scrounger? Maybe the homeless guy they have also found dead on Bidston hill didn't want to be known as a scrounger hence his homelessness?

The welfare state was created for everyone who might fall on hard times. Certainly Thatcher and her ilk used it to massage the unemployment figures when it suited them by handing out incapacity benefit to anyone who had as much as a cold and no job in the eighties and nineties. Now I am told they employ some private firm to get people off the benefit and it costs more than they are recovering? Doesn't matter though because its private enterprise.

It's the same old story, divide and conquer. There but for the grace of god go any of us. Think!

Well I suffer from a bad back (occasionally) and depression and I have never claimed a penny in means tested benefits in my life !!.....Agree totally that most benefits should be paid in vouchers, this should have been brought in years ago.

hey sneezy, if your entitled to it claim it, im 37 and have paid into this benefit pot for 20 years now so if i can get something back i will, i have never claimed im lucky to have had a job since ive left school, and yes i feel for the people like john how worked for blockbusters so so sad

Well said wise one, i applaud you.

hey sneezy, if your entitled to it claim it, im 37 and have paid into this benefit pot for 20 years now so if i can get something back i will, i have never claimed im lucky to have had a job since ive left school, and yes i feel for the people like john how worked for blockbusters so so sad



Thanks ....but as you say ...never been entitled to anything, worked all my life since I was 16 so have had to pay my way all of my life.

Maybe the word 'Scroungers' is wrong, as it does give a slightly different slant than,

'Benefit Cheats'.

Many of us have possibly heard of or come across a person who 'cheats' the benefit system and not necessarily on a personal level. There are a lot out there and we all know it.

As someone who has recently been unemployed for a period of six months (I have had the good fortune to be starting work in a few weeks), it does appear to me that a large number of people have fallen for the lie that is peddled about benefit scroungers (as they probably did about single mothers and immigrants and gay people).

Anyone claiming JSA has to attend the job centre every two weeks. At the meeting you have to provide details of all your work-related activity for the prior two weeks. At the meeting, your advisor will recommend a few jobs which you must then apply for (even if you do not think they are suitable work for your skills). If you do not, your JSA will be withdrawn.

A large number of JSA claimants are also now on the work programme. A private company is paid to find you work, and will ask you to attend several times per week for meetings at which work will be discussed. If you do not attend, or do not follow an instruction, again your JSA will be withdrawn (leaving you with no money to live on).

Recently they have started putting forward people for unpaid 'training' (compulsory) at big companies - where in effect the big companies are getting staff paid for by the taxpayer (at £1.75 per hour to the person working!)

The level of JSA for all of this is the princely sum of £70 per week. To pay the gas, electricity, water, telephone / internet (necessary for jobsearch work), TV license as well as your food and travel bills (and clothing).

In April, the £70 (which is being increased by 70p per week) will also have to pay a proportion of Council Tax.

Now I have found a job (with no help from the work programme private company provider), the company will now receive £2000 of your money...

I would ask anybody who thinks that benefits are in any way an extravagant lifestyle to try it for six months and see of their opinion changes. Perhaps we should not take what the tabloids (who have their own agenda) tell us as the gospel truth...

Does anyone know if it's illegal to eat poor people? Apparently poor people are fatter.

Asking for a friend.

Poor people may be fatter because they can't afford fresh fruit and veg every day. Cheap frozen food is unhealthy it's full of fillers and buying chips is cheap. People don't realize how expensive some food items are.

Unfortunately I am unemployed and I am always struggling. I have to buy cheap food, plan my money out and I never have any spare to spend on anything other than food and bills. I don't drink or smoke so I don't waste it on that. I find it really hard and soul destroying. It's embarrassing having to go into the job centre and be labelled as a "bum". It's hard at the moment I lost my job a few months ago and I've been looking for work ever since.

A few people mentioned food stamps but only a proportion of that could be stamps because people need the money to pay bills. I still have to pay water, electricity and gas out of that money.

I went to the job centre the other week and some young girl was standing outside just shouting I AM NEVER GOING TO BE ON THE DOLE fooking .... She was basically trying to start an argument with anyone. I thought how narrow minded is she, just wait until she loses her job (if she has/gets one) and is on her arse and see if she comes crawling for help.

Benefits are good and I am glad they are around to help people but the people who are taking advantage shouldn't ruin it for everyone else. Instead of trying to give people less/more the people who are clearly alcoholics, drug users, gamblers infact have any addiction and people who are clearly not doing enough on their job search should be thrown off. That goes for all other benefits too. Instead of everyone else getting this view of being lazy arseholes.

What really gets me is the myth that the majority of benefits claimants are not genuine, and are therefore somehow deserving of scorn. However these damaging untruths may have started, they have rapidly pervaded into everyday consciousness, to the extent that it becomes widely accepted that they are true.

To a large degree, I believe it suits this government's agenda for wider society to view benefits claimants in this manner, as evidenced by several ministers' lazy claims that it is not fair that other people have to go to work whilst those not in work sit around watching Jeremy Kyle on their plasma TVs, because it entitles them to attack the otherwise unjustifiable. Do government ministers have specific figures for how widespread their claim is I wonder, or is it merely convenient speculation?

Don't get me wrong, anybody abusing the system should rightly be condemned, but to use an emotive stereotype, which plays on the prejudices and fears of the uninformed, is disingenuous, and very damaging to the majority of benefits claimants. To skew public perception to the extent that the starting point should be to view claimants as scroungers, unless they can somehow justify that they are not, flies in the face of any notion of natural justice, and is cynical in the extreme.

One particularly vile piece of cynicism by the Tories is to have a preconceived target of how many claimants it wishes to remove from Incapacity Benefits. Notwithstanding the now notorious behaviour of ATOS, who have the contract to review claims, if, as the government state, every claim will be judged entirely on its own merits, how can there possibly be a target, as that indicates pre-judgement? As Minister for the Disabled, Wirral West MP Esther McVey is culpable for this sham.

When David Cameron talks of "fairness", I feel he fails to acknowledge that when making cuts across the board, these decisions have a wholly disproportionate effect on the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Whilst the more affluent may bemoan not being able to afford a desirable but non-essential things, those at the bottom have much more immediate problems, like keeping any form of roof over their heads, clothing themselves, and having sufficient food and warmth.

Being on Benefits is bad enough, without being perceived as a scrounger, or having even the most basic means to support yourself being ideologically attacked by the Tories in the name of "fairness".

We are not all in this together, and at some point, there will be inevitable repercussions to the audacity of any political party proceeding on the basis of this falsehood.

Nice post 24424m,lucid and perspicacious.

I tend to agree with what 24424m has posted.I wonder why the media don't keep banging on about the banks, huge corporations and really rich folks who avoid paying taxes by loopholes etc made by the rich and their croniesthemselves. They own the media and the government that's why

What gets me angry is when the government appoints someone like ATOS and doctors to examine the claims of sick and disabled people.
These appointees are going to do their best to disqualify claims so they can keep their nice lucrative contracts.
Don't they believe that our own GP's are good enough.

By the way I don't claim any benefits for myself in any way

Everyone has their viewpoint, according to their perception of the matter.

I somehow think that this all has a wider picture, eventually for the benefit of others.
There are 15 people living in houses in other parts of the country, all claiming benefits (possibly illegally) Public don't like the idea.
In London and possibly other places, people are building sheds and rooms in their backyards to house immigrants,of many. You've seen it on the news etc. and many a person complained about such.
There are 4 students paying £200 per month or more for a house share of 2 bedrooms plus a boxroom, so one of the downstairs rooms is classed as a bedroom.(which it isn't)

These are the situations arising to overcrowding living conditions.

There are people who claim benefits and the same week seen doing extensive building work at a neighbours property. (they got reported)
There are people who claim benefits and always carry a wadd of notes in their back pocket.

They could be the ones seen as the benefit cheats. Not the genuine who seem to be taking umbridge and think the finger is being pointed at themselves.

All these things need to be tackled and how else (suggest) could it be done. At least with the bedroom tax, their is possibly more likely hood of a true headcount on claimants on benefits.

So far as the media etc and the points raised aout that. The last 15years encouraged a culture which was happy to find the loopholes and make megga fortunes at whatever cost and that plonker

Whoops.....got cut off.

That plonker Mandelson and his remark about having no objection to people getting 'filthy rich' as he said.

Well they did get filthy rich and then the big arm of control came out to play. So here we are..........up shit creek without a paddle.

The only issues I'd have with the vouchers are:

1 How do I pay my gas/electric/water rates/tax underpayment from when my employer did the tax calculations/my rent & council tax excess etc?

2 How do I pay for the bus to get to the shops to buy food & pay for the taxi to get back (hard to carry shopping bags when you need your arms to use crutches/stick/wheelchair) or buy online so you don't have to (in my case) take 10mgs of morphine to go shopping & another 10mgs when I get home (then not be able to walk the next day).

3 How do I pay for the bus to get to hospital appointments/physio etc?

4 How much abuse will I get from the members of the public that will see me as a scrounger & second class citizen? It will be like school dinner tokens in the 80's.

5 Will ALL food shops have to accept them? What if your bill comes to less/more than your vouchers?

6 Will they only be for food? If so, what will ladies have to do about buying tampons/towels etc? Will there be a separate voucher for nappies? How am I meant to pay for toilet rolls, cleaning products, a whole other host of necessities such as clothes?

I'm sure there would be a fair few more questions about them if I really sat & thought about it.

I agree that they shouldn't be used for nights out, alcohol, drugs etc but I can't see vouchers being the way to stop that.

Great points wench . It shows that vouchers are only part of the answer . Havent a clue what the whole answer is though.

some good points wench, but there are alot of people out there who do not need to claim, its a bit hard to digest when you see these scroungers who do go out and spend benefits on beer and drugs ect, and then i see people like you have mentioned, people on crutches ect and yes they do need financial help, there are people who live by me and i see there kids dressed in all the new football kits ect, thats what gets under my skin, hence the vouchers, and as for tampons i think they should be free im sick of paying out for them for the wife

Would you not qualify for a free bus pass?
http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/Site%20Documents/Free%20Travel%20Pass%20Information%20Booklet.pdf

Maybe it should be based on whether or not you own a tracksuit and have a Sky dish...

Hopefully, yes - forms have gone off this week. Still wouldn't help with paying for a taxi though. It was more of an example if that makes sense?

Yes, I saw that but was just hoping to give you an idea to help out.How about when you go shopping then you get the shop to deliver free,some of them (Iceland/ Co-op/Cool Trader) do that if you spend over £25 or if you shop on line with Tesco/Asda/JS the delivery charge can be £2.50 which could be less than a taxi.I know that is only the grocery but that tends to be the heaviest stuff.

I'd just take issue with the view of those who say "I've paid into it for xx-something years so I'm entitled to get some of it back". No, it's not an investment account! That is neither the intent nor the purpose, of the benefit system, surely!
I'd have said it was meant to be more like insurance, where although you pay in (premiums), your fond hope is that you will never have to claim (because that would mean you now have a problem!)
Benefits are there to help those people who CANNOT provide for themselves, not for a return on investment for the people who have paid into the system. If you think that way then you're just a part of the problem!

Wench can't you go in for this hun link I know it's for London but I don't, know if they do something like it up here.

I have renamed the topic. I was looking for a more suitable Name.

My Take on this is its like the Prison Service?
Or as they say, if you didn't come in to prison as a criminal then you will leave one trained and more knowledgeable.

With Regards to Benefits when i was out of work 6yrs ago you get dragged into the how to cheat the system, or as it was described "What your entitled too" and at first your shocked but then when its explained that half the country can get that benefit you become a number and a insignificant number. Then after receiving the Money all guilt is removed because you now believe that half the country is getting the same benefit and the spot light is no longer on you.

The Truth is that Benefits should be on a case by case or Means tested. The System back then was open to abuse, and even encouraged to get what you could. But there is a darker side where the Benefits system has failed people and families. As i say above once your in the system like a prison you get to know just what and how you can claim for.

The Benefits System is to blame for its own mess not the people as a whole, its allowed its own system to be abused with too much paper work and red tape.

Meh, it's your forum chief, but I wish you wouldn't change it after the event. "Benefit Scroungers" sums up nicely the opinion of alot of posters in this thread, on this website over the years and indeed alot of the public at large. You changing the topic title seems to justify some of the back peddling that's gone on in here when, from the outset, it was clearly another transparent attack on the the poorest members of our society, in one of the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom, in the midst of what is being called 'The Great Depression' and perpetrated by people who could literally be neighbours.

I don't fear censure for refusing to give money to panhandlers for I have neither the powers of observation nor intuition, to make a distinction between the poor and the feckless.

Very dangerous society we live in now.Newspapers, talk radio, and any type of social media are stirring up hatred for people on benefits.Please do not carried away by this propaganda.Remember what happened in Germany prior to W.W.2 Neighbour against neighbour. They persecuted the disabled and gassed them. There is a Famous poem, I wish I could find which tells the story of turning away from people and ignoring their plight.Hopefully someone on here knows the poem I am on about and could perhaps share it with us all on here and other social media sites to perhaps make people think before they condemn.I am a novice computer user and a recent Wiki member.

well said

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

I was thinking about this before and seriously its better to live in ignorance than fear...

Thanks for renaming the Topic of this thread Mark.

Anyone in prison or know's anyone in prison due to be released soon should read this

legislation.gov.uk
ISBN 978-0-11-153193-8PART 2Restrictions on entitlementRestrictions on entitlement – prisoners etc.Regulation 19Table of ContentsContentDraft Explanatory Memorandum
Legislation:This is a draft item of legislation and has not yet been made as a UK Statutory Instrument. Restrictions on entitlement – prisoners etc.19.—(1) Entitlement to universal credit does not arise where a person is—
(a)a member of a religious order who is fully maintained by their order;
(b)a prisoner; or
(c)serving a sentence of imprisonment detained in hospital.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply during the first 6 months when the person is a prisoner where—
(a)the person was entitled to universal credit immediately before becoming a prisoner, and the calculation of their award included an amount for the housing costs element; and
(b)the person has not been sentenced to a term in custody that is expected to extend beyond that 6 months.
(3) In the case of a prisoner to whom paragraph (2) applies, an award of universal credit is not to include any element other than the housing costs element.
(4) In paragraph (1)(c) a person serving a sentence of imprisonment detained in hospital is a person who is—
(a)being detained—
(i)under section 45A or 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983(1) (power of higher courts to direct hospital admission; removal to hospital of persons serving sentence of imprisonment etc), and
(ii)before the day which the Secretary of State certifies to be that person’s release date within the meaning of section 50(3) of that Act (in any case where there is such a release date); or
(b)being detained under—
(i)section 59A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995(2) (hospital direction), or
(ii)section 136 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003(3) (transfer of prisoners for treatment of mental disorder).
(1)1983 c.20. Section 45A was inserted by section 45A was inserted by section 46 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.
(2)1995 c.46. Section 59A was inserted by section 133 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.
(3)2003 asp13.


or click this>http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/regulation/19

The Workers cry "We cannot tolerate the unemployed and foreighners bleeding the country dry"

The Unemployed cry " We cannot tolerate the foreighners bleeding the country dry"

The Government crys "Keep blaming each other whilst we bleed the country dry, you fools"!!!!!!

So very, very true!!

Troll alert! So sad.

Which one are you?

There are a lot of unemployed people who are actively trying to find work and deserve all the help they can get, while there are others who spend most of there time sat at a laptop fag in one hand vodka and coke in the other, moaning they don't get enough benefit. I worked all my life and am very proud of that. If I had been unfortunate enough to have ended up unemployed then of course I would have been grateful for any help I could get from the benefits, I know it is very hard times out there and we should support those who are out of work through no fault of there own and who are actively trying to find work. As for foreigners working in this country, I see no wrong in this as long as it helps the economy, its the foreigners who send the money out of the country and claim benefits for their families who don't even live in this country, that makes my blood boil.

George I agree with what you have just posted. I am sick to death of people knocking the unemployed, disabled and foreigners. There will always be people who abuse the system but in a civilised country there should be support and a safety net for those in need.

Salmon it is attributed to Pastor Martin Miemoller. Google his name, or 'First they came' and you will find plenty of links and information.

You might wish to also Google or check the following link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/source/biography/Kolbe.html to read about Maximilian Kolbe a prisoner in Auschwitz,who volunteered to die in the place of a stranger

how is this a troll alert?

if you look it looks like (this topic is called Mark now)

your quote "Thanks for renaming the Topic of this thread Mark."

not "Thanks for renaming the Topic of this thread, Mark.

anyway back to topic

Sorry typo- Surname Niemoller is correct

Welcome to the ranks of the Grammar Police, edd; unfortunately we're a dying breed and not welcome here, (more's the pity).

Just out of interest Grandpa George, in relation to your two statements I have highlighted, do you have the figures in support of your generalisation? I'm just wondering what percentages of the unemployed you would fit into each of these categories?

I don't think anybody would reasonably defend benefits cheats, unless possibly their actions were borne out of utter desperation, but bearing in mind the DWP's own figures are that only 2.1% of the benefits budget is lost to fraud & error (so a smaller % for fraud alone), I would just question your motives for making the inference that such actions are perhaps more widespread.

It is very easy to promote lazy stereotypes, and without trying to make this too personal, with respect, I suspect that it what you have sought to do here, for whatever reason.

I wouldn't trust any government department's figures as far as I could throw them. That figure is frankly unbelievable, bearing in mind the number of successful prosecutions for fraud. Also, bear in mind that many fraudsters go undetected so never appear in the figures.

Fair point I guess, but as you dispute these figures, what specific information do you have that leads you to believe they are so inaccurate?

I would be really interested to see which reliable source (i.e. not the Daily Mail) your information comes from?

I'd like to know what the big deal is with the daily mail.

Sick of the smart ass remarks about that website so comeon someone spill the beans please?

I have no sources, reliable or otherwise, to quote. My point is that, as long as it's acknowledged that some (or many) claimants cheat and are never detected, how can any figures, from whatever source, be accurate? There are too many cases of a government department coming up with a statistic which is later proved to be inaccurate, for me ever to trust them. I repeat; because we've no way of knowing how many benefit claims are fraudulent, the figure given must be inaccurate. We can never know the true figure but it must be greater, maybe by an order of magnitude, than the one quoted.

I believe it is incumbent on the accuser - i.e. in the context of this thread, those who would suggest that benefits fraud is rife, and should somehow be the starting point for the general consensus as to the validity of any given claim - to provide the evidence to back-up their standpoint.

You doubt the government statistics, which is entirely your prerogative, and absolutely fair enough, but come on, you need to back yourself up here with persuasive evidence to the contrary, or else you leave yourself open to an accusation of prejudice.

I personally find the "guilty until proven innocent" stance as offensive, and contrary to natural justice.




.... or few??? How many is many?

As the "accuser" in this context, I obviously I can't provide statistics for a quantity which is unknown. What I claim is that the figure provided by you, from the government department, is clearly inaccurate and therefore invalid. I have no evidence that abuse is rife, but I personally believe that it is. This discussion is clearly going nowhere and I have nothing more to offer.

As our 'neatral pensioner' pointed out 'benefit bashing' is rife, thus he decided to make a thread about it, to make it local- sadly, for him, it has not gone the way he has intended?

You have backtracked, made wild generalised statements with no supporting evidence atall and have shown your real intention. I get the impression that other readers can see this for themselves.....

Oh, nor been able or willing to answer the questions, aimed towards you??

I advise that you start at the beginning (of this thread, that you started) and make 'notes'- just incase you 'forget' again, Sausage.

What is your problem with me?
I had no intentions with this thread, I just said my piece and asked other members for their opinions on this. It has been a very interesting read.

This was the question at the beginning of the thread.......

Do Wiki members believe that benefits are too low and cause hardship or that they are too high and discourage work.

Don't think you have given us your opinion on this yet RUDEBOX.
My thoughts are, "those who can afford booze and cigarettes, surely can't be that bad off", Or are these the ones who are on the fiddle?

Sadly from the point of view of discussing things on Wiki, the point has already been made on several threads that if one dares to veer however slightly away from the left opinion or offer any sort of alternative then this appears to be a red rag to a bull.

I think the problem I have with your original post {& title}, and some of the subsequent stuff, is that there seemed to be an implicit intention to draw hostility to genuine benefits claimants, by using benefit cheats as the benchmark for addressing the question of whether the level of benefits is appropriate. That said, if that was not your intention, then fair enough, and I am happy to apologize if I have misinterpreted.

Leaving aside cheats for a moment, but there is a fundamental issue regarding the morality of taking even more away from people who despite their best intentions, are unable to work or unable to find work.

Benefit levels are set at a bare minimum to survive on, for example I think the current JSA(IB) rate is £71.00 per week for a single person. Now, although a jobless person may [currently] also receive additional benefit to cover their rent & council tax, they do have to fund every other aspect of their life, such as food, clothing, heating & lighting, and any other everyday expense out of the £71.00. I don't know about any other contributors to this thread, but I would suggest that is an almost impossible task to accomplish, and leaves nothing for "luxuries", such as any form of social life or consumer goods, such as TVs, computers etc. Of course, you could argue that a TV or a computer is desirable but not essential, but here's the thing - poverty is relative to the society in which an individual lives, and whilst in real terms, there are clearly people around the world in much more immediate poverty, nevertheless, in this country, in order to adequately function, and be accepted / successfully assimilate into society, I would argue that means of communication and receiving information could reasonably be considered as essential.

It is against this backdrop, where keeping one's head above water is a real struggle, that benefits rises below inflation (i.e. cuts), bedroom tax, changes to council tax benefits and other further demands on an already unmanageably low income are simply not justified. How can you take more away from somebody who already effectively has nothing, and not expect their to be serious repercussions?

Back to cheats, of course this is wrong and needs to be stamped out. However, what is not acceptable is to justify impossible cuts for the majority on the basis that some people are cheating. To do this, as this government is, in order to attempt to justify their ideological dismantling of the safety net that social reformers fought so hard over so many generations to put in place, is utter madness, and morally reprehensible. This country is potentially sleepwalking back to grinding poverty for many, and that is simply not acceptable. To use cheats in the argument is merely a smokescreen for something much more cynical and malevolent.

Ironically, the government is also hugely cutting back on front line services within the DWP, which includes fraud investigation, which sadly means that those who do cheat have less chance of being caught and facing the consequences of their dishonesty. None of this is the fault of genuine benefits claimants.

This thread is missing one more choice phrase and my buzzword bingo card will be complete!

I Do agree that there are some who need benefits and are looking to seek work.
But what about a ones who claim they cant work and can.Example, bad heart,back problems.and has been making this an excuse for years.
How long does it take for the benefits to check up on poeple like this.

or the ones claiming that they are stressed or depressed when they clearly aren't

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/20/scrounger-stigma-poor-people-benefits#

There are genuine cases for people being on benefits we no, such as just left school and cant get a job due to having no experince. People who have been made redundant, people who have to leave work to be a carer to family member. People who are sick eg with cancer etc. We all understand that, its the people who play the system , claiming for being a lone parent when in fact they are not. People who claim housing benefit they no they arent entitled to , that one is always in the papers. People who say they cant walk then go on a skiing holiday, thats another thats in the papers as well.

Anyone who has commented in this debate should take the time to read that article.





The people who play the system deserve to suffer the consequences of their action. I don't believe that to be in dispute.

However, what is contentious is the willful stigmatizing of genuine claimants as scroungers, to suit a political agenda. To spell it out, to deliberately overstate the extent of fraud, and insinuate that claiming benefits should be viewed negatively as a starting point, in order to be seen to be justified in dismantling the welfare system, in what is no more than a naked ideological attack on the poor and vulnerable.

From many comments within this thread, it regrettably looks like the Tory spin is being swallowed hook line & sinker in some quarters.

People who through no fault of their own either can't work or can't find work are deserving of better treatment than to be abused, derided, and have what little they have squeezed even more. The fraud argument is a red herring in this context, thrown in to muddy the waters by a malevolent government. Of course there is a debate to be had about cheating, but it should not blur the social responsibility we have as a society to protect those who are genuinely in difficulty. To suggest they are somehow undeserving, or living a life of luxury, is frankly laughable.

Of course there are always high-profile cases exposed in the media, which I applaud, but can either of you provide figures as to how widespread that problem may be, or alternatively would you simply like to believe it is widespread, in order to be angry about it?

In terms of the cases you mention, be it in relation to physical or mental health, are you qualified medically to make clinical judgements in each individual case, or is it just possible that the majority are genuine, despite your reservations and assumptions? Mental health issues in particular are often perceived as bogus because they are not immediately obvious to the uninformed, leading to unnecessary prejudice and detraction.

The Guardian article was, I thought, balanced, well reasoned and well written. It's true that it's the high profile cases of abuse of the system which grab the headlines. However (and I've mentioned this before in an earlier post), the figure for fraud, given in the article as "not rising beyond 3%", is clearly inaccurate since it obviously cannot include those who cheat the system and go undetected. It's certain that the true figure is greater but because, by definition, there are no statistics, we don't know what it is.

...... but if, as you say, the government cannot include those who cheat but go undetected, is it not a bit convenient for you to infer it is a statistically significant amount? By definition, if they are undetected, how do you know whether there are a large amount of such cases, or whether they are negligible?

To suggest the government figures are significantly inaccurate can be no more than speculation, and I would question why you would wish to speculate in this particular manner.

yes i totally agree with you on the cancer etc,no there not an exact number of poeple who are robbing the system blind, Reason is the benefit system has lost track as to the ones who claim they have a heart problem, sore back and can go jogging,keep fit etc,These poeple are very clever and they get away with it,And will never admit to ripping the system off.
Its got that bad that neither man or wife work.And never intend to work either.

The bedroom tax is unfair, but it will catch out the ones who are playing the system,thats why alot are in a panic.The country is in such a state,and its getting worse.

Sadly the genuine cases dont outnumber the cheats and scammers, I'm sure.

some people who have commented on this thread should go and work for the dwp!you seem to think you know more about our benefit system than anybody else.just because people claim that does not automatically make them bad people,maybe they are just unfortunate to be put in a position to have to claim benefits.

All I've said is that the given figure is inaccurate; I didn't say "significantly inaccurate". Clearly, I don't know how inaccurate; neither does the Government. I just object to a figure being used when it's obviously incorrect and too low.

why do you think that?EI-Aych.

It's not all you've said though is it?



So you don't know how inaccurate the government figures are, and you acknowledge you have no evidence that abuse is rife, and yet you cling to your point!

How many cases are you personally aware of then, and have you taken any action to report them?

Smells like prejudice to me, when I look at the dictionary definition as: "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand, or without knowledge, thought or reason".

Still, to be fair, I guess only you can honestly appraise your motives.

BUT......Re Chris Huhne:



Crime is Crime! Or is it because he is/was an MP? Both paid for by the tax paying members of the public!!

I don't understand your thinking

Can i ask something? what if you knew someone was cheating the system would you blow the whistle on them?

Be honest would you?

would you?

Yes, I do believe that there are many undetected abusers of the system. The reason I come to this conclusion is that there are, from time to time, well publicised cases of abusers being detected. I find it impossible to believe that all cases are detected, therefore there are other undetected cases.
My "motive" is to complain about the system being abused, to the detriment of genuine cases; i.e. that because abuse is known to occur, all claimants are under suspicion.
I have no personal knowledge of abuse of the system; rest assured that if I discover a case, I will certainly report it. There was a case only today of a farmer who claimed incapacity unjustifiably and over a period collected £100,000. He got 18 months jail. It wasn't reported whether he has to repay the money; I hope so. This happened in the Midlands and probably only made the local news.
As long as cases like this appear, I will continue to believe that more go undetected; do you not agree?

Handy Guide for The Wiki Wannabe Fraud Squad

http://campaigns.dwp.gov.uk/campaigns/benefit-thieves/whatis.asp

is alive and working lol

VERY WITTY RUDEBOX!!!!!!!

I can't understand why you seem to be exteremely protective of those who cheat the benefit system! There can't possiby be any correct figures and I assume you have been in a position to have experience and are able make the counter claim, of what others might know as fact.
To be protective of such, would indicate that you DO NOT have the best interests of the struggling, benefit claimants, at heart. So your contirbution comes across as not very genuine. IMHO
You seem to be very good at your fancy words and long drawn out reasoning, but I find your posts a bit boring, as they are a bit too repetative.A lot like articles from a 'political author' of a local rag.

With reference to Pokerchamp's post I would say that others should have experience on front-line services provided by councils. Eyes could well be opened.... many times, it does not go unnoticed.

Talking about Benefit Cheats not the struggling Benefit Claimants.

Yes I would shop them, why should they be claiming for what their not entitled too and sitting around on there backsides not even trying to find work.

I like this statement from Rudebox's link.

It’s not if we catch you, it’s when. And when we do, you could face a prison sentence.

this is very true Mr Rudebox, thanks for the link.

Cheeky,am asking the questions.

People are just trying to get by on the pittence people get from the goverment, cameron is quick enough giving people the push...police..firemen..nurses..armed forces...shops closing by the dozens..yet he complains there are too many on benefits???you cant have it both ways cameron...how about you lot of greedy mp's claiming for all sorts of goodies for your big houses (and they have millions of ££££'s) but nothing is done....then cameron wants more money taken from the poorest, yet it was mp's who got us in this mess in the first place so why cant they take a huge drop in wages instead of wanting a pay rise of £30,000+ and asking everyone to pay for there mistakes...
the cheek of it, if i knew someone cheating the system i would not grass them up...if its good enough for the mp,s its good enough for everyone...

Granny,

I fear you have completely missed my point.

My posts were in no way intended to be protective of those who cheat the benefits system, and if you care to re-read them (if that's not too boring for you? ) I am confident you will belatedly appreciate that.

My objection is in relation to sweeping statements, inferring or explicitly stating that the majority of benefits claimants are cheating. There is little basis or evidence for this claim, and yet it seems to have pervaded into public consciousness, certainly amongst some of the contributors to this thread anyway.

The reason I view that unsubstantiated standpoint as dangerous is because it inevitably stigmatizes genuine benefits claimants, and that is exactly what this manipulative and malevolent government intended. That way, they can make their ideological attack on the poor and vulnerable with minimal opposition, and instead of being forced to confront the very real hardship, and danger, they are placing people in, they can merely write them off as scroungers, or an underclass undeserving of compassion. The reality, of course, is that this is far from the truth, but the Tories tactic of choice is to divide and conquer by repeating their mantra of misinformation until it becomes accepted wisdom. Not very subtle, but alas it seems to be working, and that, Granny, is why I have been at pains during this debate to refute observations that simply regurgitate received information as fact.

What next for people whispering in the shadows, detracting easy targets and minorities? Maybe "those ethnic minorities" or "those gays" are next on the radar for unjustified slur and attack!

I genuinely believe this country is becoming an intolerant, and judgemental maelstrom of hate, and that, in my humble opinion, is very sad.

I genuinely believe this country is becoming an intolerant, and judgemental maelstrom of hate, and that, in my humble opinion, is very sad. [/quote]
****************

OK ,24424m, maybe I have missed some of your points but the threads you write are somewhat laborious to wade through. So here's another one.
Can't agree with your above comment. We are probably one of the most tolerant countries in the world, to every other one, apart from our own. I genuinely believe that we are having far too many changes thrust upon us over a relatively short period of time, and we are beginning to suffer from 'overload' which we are all fighting back at, as it's our natural way of survival.
Our tollerance has diminished considerably. When saying a short period of time, I mean the last 15 to 20 years, continuous change. None of us knows how to deal with it anymore, we are unable to speak openly about so much now, for ethical reasons. We can't critisize, we can't have an opinion over something that is viewed as intolerant or predjudiced by others who may feel offended.People, I am sure sit in their own front room saying some pretty racist comments unheard by the outside world. We are who we are, and too much change, I believe, is leading to bitterness and turning us against our own. There is a name for that I think, but I can't remember it. We are becoming like caged animals. The same applies to most of the european countries. Speak to people from France, Holland, Spain etc. They have very much the same problems for the very same reasons and they too are not heard. We do not hear about what is really going on in those countries, unless we search for it.The people of Greece are in dire straights, far, far, worse than here, we don't hear their voice at the moment becuase it's not chosen for us, that we do.
We are a tolerant nation and also very fair but as posted above, I think we are getting closer the 'neighbour against neighbour' as we have been pushed to the limits by succesive Governments.
By the way, for those who did not vote in the last general election , I feel, should not be making any negative comments about the Government of the day. It was, indirectly, your choice.

p.s Why don't you have a name like 'billy' much easier to identify with, rather than a number, which is another step forward to loosing any identity you may have had? Please can you adopt the more 'understandable' vocabulary in your posts? I can't understand what you're saying!

Also think there are a number of spelling errors in this, but can't be assed anymore to deal with them !

Phew, that was a somewhat laborious rant Granny, skirting around the edges of racist views - that is where you were going with that wasn't it, suggesting intolerance towards immigrants is okay?

I do agree, this country has traditionally been tolerant, and that's my point really - that as a nation, we a rapidly losing that liberal tolerance that once defined us, in favour of intolerance, hate, and generalized detractions of certain groups & easy targets, as though they can be defined as a whole by the actions of some. That very notion is as ridiculous as labelling the wikiwirral community as "all the same".

There is certainly many an unhealthy view harboured behind respectable net curtains and neatly manicured lawns these days, but I guess some people would suggest that was alright, as the sources are deemed to be "pillars of the community".

So apart from issues with some people who are a different colour to you, have a different sexual orientation to you (which apparently makes you queezy) and benefits claimants, is there anything else bothering you Granny, apart from apparently my username that is ?

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

OK ,24424m, maybe I have missed some of your points but the threads you write are somewhat laborious to wade through. So here's another one.
Can't agree with your above comment. We are probably one of the most tolerant countries in the world, to every other one, apart from our own. I genuinely believe that we are having far too many changes thrust upon us over a relatively short period of time, and we are beginning to suffer from 'overload' which we are all fighting back at, as it's our natural way of survival.
Our tollerance has diminished considerably. When saying a short period of time, I mean the last 15 to 20 years, continuous change. None of us knows how to deal with it anymore, we are unable to speak openly about so much now, for ethical reasons. We can't critisize, we can't have an opinion over something that is viewed as intolerant or predjudiced by others who may feel offended.People, I am sure sit in their own front room saying some pretty racist comments unheard by the outside world. We are who we are, and too much change, I believe, is leading to bitterness and turning us against our own. There is a name for that I think, but I can't remember it. We are becoming like caged animals. The same applies to most of the european countries. Speak to people from France, Holland, Spain etc. They have very much the same problems for the very same reasons and they too are not heard. We do not hear about what is really going on in those countries, unless we search for it.The people of Greece are in dire straights, far, far, worse than here, we don't hear their voice at the moment becuase it's not chosen for us, that we do.
We are a tolerant nation and also very fair but as posted above, I think we are getting closer the 'neighbour against neighbour' as we have been pushed to the limits by succesive Governments.
By the way, for those who did not vote in the last general election , I feel, should not be making any negative comments about the Government of the day. It was, indirectly, your choice.

p.s Why don't you have a name like 'billy' much easier to identify with, rather than a number, which is another step forward to loosing any identity you may have had? Please can you adopt the more 'understandable' vocabulary in your posts? I can't understand what you're saying!

Also think there are a number of spelling errors in this, but can't be assed anymore to deal with them ! [/quote]


Spot on Granny. I quite agree.

Oh dear

Making it difficult by filling in the blanks ,wrongly! I was absolutely not suggesting that intolerance to immigrants is ok. I was making a point that people behind closed doors are more often than not different people on the outside. Living a lie, you might say for appearances sake, because they have been forced to do so but don't necessarily believe or want to take onboard all that is expeced of them, and definitely not, only the net curtain brigade.
Please don't make accusations about me having a problem with people of a different colour to me.
Do you konw anything about me? You have assumed you know my family tree and you do not know my friends!

Memories of when I was in Greece in the 1970's when the junta were in power. It was a crime to play cards within your own home. You couldn't run to catch a bus, as you would have been thought of as mad. No one whistled as that was another clause in the list of can do and can't do. Intimidation, by the powers that be. In this country, we now have intimidation toward each other and it's not a very nice place we live in any longer.
We have the same here now. If you don't agree with certain social issues you get slandered. If you should dare to say that seeing same sex couples kissing makes you feel queezy, it's twisted around somehow in an attempt to make one feel guilty! If someone feels that benefits are not distributed according to someone elses ideas, people get extremely defensive and quite often nasty. Making belittling remarks about people with manicured gardens and net curtains is typical of those who can not come up with a reasonable comment.Most of us are guilty, even those in high places make mocking remarks making themselves feel better and that is the unfortunate culture we have now. Generally, people are fighting their corner all the time from the poorest to the curtain twitchers who put a lot into communities to help those who are in need , so please don't make them YOUR easy targets! You are just trying to be someone you are not for the benefit of others, which I think is exactly where I started this post tonight.
Anyway Billy, I thank you for making your vocabulary more user friendly, and despite all things I think you are quite human underneath your exterior.

Somehow Billy, I have a feeling I've met you before somewhere?

Sorry CVCVCV, I just had to reply...in the nicest possible way!

This is now

You've got a nerve. choosing what interpretation to put on Granny's comments.
For my part, I believe that there are limits to tolerance and that self-preservation is a deep rooted and valid survival strategy. If I were to believe that thousands of immigrants from Eastern Europe who now have membership of the European Community are about to descend on us in order to take advantage of our benefit system, then I would feel entitled to complain.
So now, come and have a go at me. I will either ignore you or give as good as I get: my choice.

If you have not worked it out yet then let me explain. 24424m is just a "professional" devil's advocate.He will always argue about anything simply for something to do.There is no point whatsoever in entering in to a debate with him as he simply raises different points in every post.Best to ignore him and let him study his own navel.

Granny,

You are quite correct, I don't know anything about you or your friends, some of whom are no doubt black, and I do apologize for making unwarranted assumptions, based on scant information off an internet forum, plus generalizations about what you believe or the content of your character........ it's not a nice feeling is it, to be unjustly labelled pejoratively?

I wouldn't normally get personal on an internet forum, but in this case, I thought it made an important point, as let's be honest, this whole thread has been about much more that benefits cheats, it has been about bigotry, intolerance, assumptions & generalizations.

Back on topic, yes, some people cheat the benefits system, and they deserve to face the consequences of their dishonesty. However, to use that as a starting point in the debate about the level of benefits in general is disingenuous, as I am confident the OP fully appreciates.

Of course there is a separate debate to be had regarding whether it is moral or ethical to further cut benefits, and to consider the potential social fall-out from this intended course of action. I firmly believe this is no more than an ideological attack by the Tories, and to be morally repugnant, as well as counter-productive - you, of course, may disagree.

In conclusion though, what I would urge anyone reading this to consider is before condemning any given group en masse, be it a minority group or benefits claimants in this instance, is whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to automatically judge the entirety by the actions of those at the margins, or alternatively, whether perhaps unsubstantiated / received information may be clouding the bigger picture. For me, any thought process which relies excessively on the actions of a minority to judge the majority is, by definition, tantamount to prejudice.

After reading the previous post, I am losing the will to live!

At least you managed to read it all Pinz. I fell asleep half way through.

I know the feeling.Just wondering if Grampa George will be able to take it all in,With him having such a short memory.

Thanks for the tip, Salmon; I do propose to ignore him.

Each to their own opinions
Freedom of speech.
You can't have a debate if everyone's on the same side

Why black? Some are green with wings and, just because you haven't seen 'green with wings' doesn't mean they don't exist, Billy.

If you read this forum you'll think all 9483 Registered Users have jobs but if that's the case why do we always hear that wirral is one of the places with the most people on the dole.

trolls if left unchallenged would run amok like a disease...as mentioned by a few on here they already slow down debate, cause running arguments, highlight the divide of opinion and in my opinion, cause people to set their beliefs in stone because of the polarisation they try to cause, perhaps before some people have reviewed the matter enough to actually know what they believe.. all in the 'quest' of proof..when they get proof or find they cant refute any more, they simply exit the thread and start again on another thread...They are the malignant cells of the body forum...whats more they know it and revel in it..Free speech is a commodity that has never really existed..its the unicorn of the equine world..challenge the trolls but not seriously..if they are made figurers of fun they sink into their own clown shoes..

How many large employers have now gone from Wirral.When I left school in 1974 you could try lots of jobs before choosing which one you stayed with.I watched the Tonight programme on ITV 7.30pm
there was a lad on there, trying to find work .I ask you to watch it and then judge people who you consider to be benefit cheats or Scroungers.We are all guilty at times, of making judgements that are wrong,and yes there will be some people who seem to know how to milk the system ,but the vast majority are people who would love to be in work, if we had the manufacturing jobs that were once here and the related business that existed beside them .

check this out>

It has been revealed that Birmingham Council have entered into an agreement with Asda to provide 'Welfare cards' in the form of gift vouchers to struggling families and individuals as a replacement for crisis loans, which are being scrapped as part of the government axing of the Social Fund.

The Welfare News Service is disgusted that a supermarket would seek to benefit financially from the suffering of people going through severe financial hardship by adopting a scheme designed to force people in to shopping as a predefined location.

We believe that no individual or family should be told where to purchase goods, including food, but should instead retain the power of their free will when deciding where to shop.

The Welfare News Service believe that such a draconian policy is an infringement upon a persons civil liberties and urge Asda to rethink their participation as a matter of up-most urgency, if like us they support an individuals right to choose for themselves where they shop.

Until Asda rethink their participation and involvement in such a scheme the Welfare News Service will be asking its readers and supporters to both boycott and lobby Asda, with the objective of encouraging the supermarket chain to pull back from this scheme.

Should any further businesses also be considering such a scheme we urge them to think again and show their customers that they, unlike Asda, are not seeking to benefit financially from the hardship and suffering of families across the country.

Katryn..
This scheme I believe is wrong. Asda is a megga American company and if they got a foothold on our welfare system, guaranteed it would go to higher places. Already we have American companies overseeing certain important area of administration in this country. In my opinion it is a dangerous place to go, there is nothing to say, Globalization is restricted only to productive companies.
We are in a world of immense change in many ways and, of things beyond our control. The list should be halted instead of encouraged, if it's possible.

Someone explain that I'm wrong...please.

see here>

http://welfarenewsservice.com/welfa...boycott-asda-welfare-cards/#.UVbtR03yDcs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/29/asda-welfare-scheme-birmingham

This is totally wrong.We are truly being taken over by Big business .But do we want to Americanise everything. Walmart own Asda.I was worried this week when it was reported that we were running out of Gas .Hastily denied by the powers that be.Centrica own British gas Centrica are an American business.Our Britain is slowly being bought up and controlled by American business who when they have had enough pull the plug and run back home leaving chaos behind.

Just seen this, makes me sick, dirty scumbag.

[youtube]IxYd-fK4mLs[/youtube]

Terrible,thanks for sharing george.

That... thing... serves no purpose to this planet and should be dead.

They should line the bottom with explosives and drop her block of flats with them all inside it.

THAT is how we combat the problem we are faced with. Kill the useless, pathetic, sniveling leeches. As painfully as possible.

Lol

A BIT EXTREME ........

That's why the government spends ALL the tax revenue it makes on benefits with NO money left for anything else (NHS, Defence, Capital schemes, etc) The figures are eye watering.

The comments are a bit extreme but when you see loathsome cretins like that who aren't going to work and think they have a right to live that way, maybe we should bring back the work house.

No, it's spot on.

"It's the way I've been brought up" - and now she's bringing up a daughter.

Both should be injected.

Problem is that its these types who have the most kids. Spreading like a fatal disease.

One thing that comes across, is the fact that the likes of the person in the Video clip, seems to think that the money is hers. When in fact, it isn't. It's been taken off others.
When people buy a house or get a loan from the bank, they have to pay it back. What if the benefits were classed as a loan, with a repayment scheme put in place once they were working again?
Does that sound an impossible idea?

Hmmm. The woman in this clip cannot be held as being representative of all people on benefits. The unemployed are not just a lump of lazy people prone to benefit fraud, petty theft, or class B drug use. Many of them are people who have been made redundant and just need help to get back to work. *They're* just getting money which they've already put into the system.

It's a difficult issue. Personally I was unemployed for most of the 1980s and a lot of the 1990s too. Things were far worse in the 1980s than they are now. Throughout all of our lives, there have always been people in the UK who have been struggling to make ends meet. There has never been any golden age of plenty.

We're lucky over here imo. 780 million people in developing countries don't have access to fresh water. Meanwhile, we complain about the cost of luxuries such as alcohol and petrol.

Madonnafan, I still think 'killing' them IS extreme thinking , i agree with 'the way i been brought up ' because i have never been out of work ,since leaving school, and three of my daugthers are the same.The woman in the clip is WRONG in her believe about the way to spend benefits ,she's obviously not all there!!I do have thoughts about people on benefits but would not write about it on a public forum.

cost of wars in Iraq n Afghanistan tops £20bn ps I know this is from 2010

Wow some of these opinions are quite replusive. Smoking is not a luxury but an addiction which tne goverment in many years pro actively encouraged and before i get flack i work my socks off dont claim any benifits and dont smoke.
The goverment are not stupid the lower classes are aloud to breed so this country has a steady stream willing to work for minimum wage and publish papers such as the The Daily Mail to turn us against each other and for the stupid among us it works.
Dont 5h,t in your own back garden

MadonnaFan why is it that your constantly trying to get a reaction from people by putting stupid comments and pulling people down?

Good question pokerchamp

It is of great concern that a national tv station should present a person of limited intelligence as typical of benefit claimants.I have no doubt that the interview was edited. The majority of the welfare budget goes on pensioners and a considerable amount to short term claims.It may come as a shock to certain contributors to this forum that at some point in their life they may need some state support and who knows maybe it will be very day that the new laws advocated by them comes in and they are the first to be sent to the death camps.
Most unemployed and sick people would love to be in work paying taxes and most have already paid large amounts whilst they were in work.

Blatent Tory propoganda. Would not surprise me if she turned out to be a paid actress like Natalia Belova et al

Wake up.

# Admin Notice : This account is under review.

Cant blame the child being born into a situation like this!

MP's expenses should be scrapped, MP's should drive themselves around instead of being chauffeur driven.