housing association apologies to 'horrified' residents

cm1179 said:
i would class virgin tv and broadband as a luxury, every console under the sun and a powerful rig as a luxury. plus takeaways, booze and cigarettes as a luxury. tbf i haven't had much to do with him since he had his 3rd but he certainly wasn't doing anything illegal to top up his income. but no, he doesn't drive, hasn't been abroad since 2001 etc.

as i said, it's certainly not a lifestyle i'd want. the place he lives isn't all that bad in all honesty, especially for free!

i don't mind my taxes going towards feeding recipients children and providing a house for them. start filling that house with luxuries and i do have a bit of a problem with it.
Click to expand...
So, to pay for sky TV he forgoes a car & holidays & most likely spends some of the money meant for his kids on himself.

Isn't all that bad =/ good either, council estates have sky high crime rates, vandalism, criminal damage - the fact that you wouldn't want to trade places also speaks volumes.

The fact is, it's a pretty naff life is the only thing you get to live on is sky TV, a pack of 20 fags & a cheap bottle of cider.

I mean, this month I've donated more to charity than I would have got if I was on JSA..., it's a pathetic amount & hardly enough to afford a balanced high quality life-style.
 
Lets carry on vilifying a part of society as we all have fallen for tabloid meesage sponsored by the government. Look at the benefits bill and you'll see who reaps it in but hey why should the facts get in the way.

You can still be on benefits if you work - Tax Credits and still live in social housing due to your low income but hey why would the goverment want to tackle low wages.

The tone of the letter is offensive
 
groen said:
How is that even offensive? I just read the circular and there is one section where it says, can you realy afford sky etc. Big deal, i realy can't see the problem with that.
Click to expand...
Don't you think it's a loaded comment?.

If you get hit by a car, would you appreciated it if the doctor said "Well groen, maybe if you didn't wonder into the traffic while drunk on cider you would not have been hit" - despite not having a clue about the circumstances of the accident?, just based on the fact you looked like a chav (for example).

But that would never happen, why? - because only an idiot would make crass insulting generalisations about groups of people which would obviously cause offence.
 
elmarko said:
So, to pay for sky TV he forgoes a car & holidays & most likely spends some of the money meant for his kids on himself.



The fact is, it's a pretty naff life is the only thing you get to live on is sky TV, a pack of 20 fags & a cheap bottle of cider.
Click to expand...

it is a pretty naff life and certainly not one that i'd want but that doesn't really justify it because he chose that life and the fact that this government will foot the bill for others who choose to (and i'm not saying everyone in a similar position has the same attitude because i'm sure they don't) choose this life as it's a life they want but can only afford with taxpayers money.
 
Well what other luxuries could they have pointed out that would have not offended people? The bottom line is that people are not happy with their free stuff being cut. People like the free stuff, they vote for free stuff, they moan when they don't get free stuff. So when they start reducing free stuff or making it more difficult they find anything to moan about. They also always go to the extreme, now the government might as well be suggesting that the people getting the free stuff don't buy any food and starve to death.

How can it be offensive to tell people that are getting free stuff that they "Can you really afford Sky,cigarettes, bingo, drinks and other non essentials?" There is no assumption that every person who receives free stuff from the government smokes and watches sky. It just uses those non essentials as example to get the point across.

Never mind the obvious truth that 90%+ of people who do receive free stuff from the state, do in fact, smoke and drink, watch sky all day.
 
elmarko said:
The fact is, it's a pretty naff life is the only thing you get to live on is sky TV, a pack of 20 fags & a cheap bottle of cider.
Click to expand...

The irritation amongst those that don't see benefits as a career choice is that they have these "luxuries" mentioned above then say they can't afford to clothe and properly feed their children.
 
groen said:
<The veg of the post>

<The meat of the post>
Never mind the obvious truth that 90%+ of people who do receive free stuff from the state, do in fact, smoke and drink, watch sky all day.
Click to expand...
Do you have any facts to back this up?
 
no and thats the point. they release this kind of crap in papers like the daily mirror to stir up people.

majority of people on benefits struggle everyday of year. its not a luxury anyone who thinks it is is quite frankly a imbecile .
 
There are many people that live in a government house and receive money from the state and have sky, a relatively well furnished house and afford alcohol. Sure they can't afford take out and expensive food and other luxury things. Of course it is not a luxury to be on welfare but they don't exactly struggle like people do in other countries who have no job.

Where i used to live there was a couple that had 3 children and they had a massive house and the children always had ok clothes and they had sky and used to see the dad at the shop buying beers all the time.

I guess it depends on perspective. But for someone with no job, having sky and beer and smokes is a luxury that they should not be able to afford. If you have no job it should be a struggle, but the point is that it is not. If it was a struggle they would go out and get a job.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
no and thats the point. they release this kind of crap in papers like the daily mirror to stir up people.

majority of people on benefits struggle everyday of year. its not a luxury anyone who thinks it is is quite frankly a imbecile .
Click to expand...

I have a proportion of my family that I have nothing to do with who live off various benefits and haven't worked a day in their life. My girlfriend has the same.

No these people do not live like kings, but they also don't work. They all have many more kids than they can afford and so feed them utter rubbish from the frozen food companies. They do however go to the pub many times a week, sit at home and drink cheap booze when they aren't and, without fail, they all have Sky and a huge TV to watch it on (that they have on a repayment plan).

Sure rags like the Daily Mail make use of these stereotypes to get their readers riled up, but the simple fact is, these stereotypes ARE just that for a reason, many people who live off benefits in this country do so as a way of life and have never done anything else. Often their parents were the same and nearly all of the people they surround themselves with also do.

I also have friends who work for less than 11k a year who struggle to live on a month by month basis, but bar JSA between jobs, won't accept any other form of state benefit on any long term basis as they feel it is wrong to do so. For these people going out for a pint once a month is a huge luxury.

This is where the general vitriol for the benefits life-stylers comes from and it is perfectly justifiable to anyone who knows at least a few who follow it.
 
I'm in the camp where I'd love to see these long term unemployed parasites forced to work.

But that circular was patronising and written by someone with the literary skills of an ape.

But I can understand the shock these poor people must be in. Even mentioning the possibility of cutting booze and fags. *shivers*
 
Last edited:
manic_man said:
I have a proportion of my family that I have nothing to do with who live off various benefits and haven't worked a day in their life. My girlfriend has the same.
Click to expand...

My wife has the same. A large proportion of her family don't work and have large families.

It used to bother me but there is no point trying to fight it. They are going to continue to live their lives in this way and no matter how much or how little you give them in way of benefits they will continue to live a certain lifestyle.

What does amuse me is the way they refer to the hand that feeds them as "They". They have cut my benefits. They won't give us a bigger house because we've got loads of kids. They, they, they. Not once has one of them thanked me for my contribution. :)
 
manic_man said:
I have a proportion of my family that I have nothing to do with who live off various benefits and haven't worked a day in their life. My girlfriend has the same.

No these people do not live like kings, but they also don't work. They all have many more kids than they can afford and so feed them utter rubbish from the frozen food companies. They do however go to the pub many times a week, sit at home and drink cheap booze when they aren't and, without fail, they all have Sky and a huge TV to watch it on (that they have on a repayment plan).

Sure rags like the Daily Mail make use of these stereotypes to get their readers riled up, but the simple fact is, these stereotypes ARE just that for a reason, many people who live off benefits in this country do so as a way of life and have never done anything else. Often their parents were the same and nearly all of the people they surround themselves with also do.

I also have friends who work for less than 11k a year who struggle to live on a month by month basis, but bar JSA between jobs, won't accept any other form of state benefit on any long term basis as they feel it is wrong to do so. For these people going out for a pint once a month is a huge luxury.

This is where the general vitriol for the benefits life-stylers comes from and it is perfectly justifiable to anyone who knows at least a few who follow it.
Click to expand...
Pointing out how poor our minimum wage is (contrary to popular opinion) isn't justification to cut welfare for those who also live in poverty.

I think you will find most people who are in favour of us having a reasonable welfare state to look after the poorest are ALSO in favour of increasing the share of earning for the lowest paid in society.

I agree that people who work a full week deserve to be able to live a life, just that to pay for that we should not thrust those living on the line further into poverty.

Say we slash the benefits of the bottom 10% by a set percentage, this will have a social & economic impact.

Crime rates will increase
Mental illness will increase
Poor health will increase

More of the very behaviour you want to prevent will continue to expand & will do so at a faster rate.

Making life harder for people doesn't make people suddenly able to change - if that was true nobody would be starving in Africa - great adversity actually tends to have a detrimental effect of people, reducing their ability to handle stress & get out of the band situation.

What many are proposing is to use the stick, when all of our understanding of human behaviour & our social sciences say we need to use the carrot.

But hey, let's not let little things like facts & science get in the way of your ideology.
 
EddScott said:
My wife has the same. A large proportion of her family don't work and have large families.

It used to bother me but there is no point trying to fight it. They are going to continue to live their lives in this way and no matter how much or how little you give them in way of benefits they will continue to live a certain lifestyle.

What does amuse me is the way they refer to the hand that feeds them as "They". They have cut my benefits. They won't give us a bigger house because we've got loads of kids. They, they, they. Not once has one of them thanked me for my contribution. :)
Click to expand...

My immediate family protected me from the rest of my family when I was younger so it has all been a bit of a shock as I have grown up and found out how others that I met as a youngster (but knew very little about) actually live their lives.

My girlfriend was the opposite, she knew exactly how her family lived their lives but also saw how her parents shunned that way of thinking and struggled to get by in an honest way.

Both of us have grown up to be responsible adults with good career prospects and a dislike for those who think the world owes them something, however she is more of a realist than I am but less bitter about the bad in the world when she sees it, whereas it really gets to me, I wan't to shake these people and make them realise how much more is out there if only they could be bothered to put down the remote and go out and work for it.

Interesting how two different approaches produced different (but at the same time similar) personalities.
 
elmarko said:
Pointing out how poor our minimum wage is (contrary to popular opinion) isn't justification to cut welfare for those who also live in poverty.

I think you will find most people who are in favour of us having a reasonable welfare state to look after the poorest are ALSO in favour of increasing the share of earning for the lowest paid in society.

I agree that people who work a full week deserve to be able to live a life, just that to pay for that we should not thrust those living on the line further into poverty.

Say we slash the benefits of the bottom 10% by a set percentage, this will have a social & economic impact.

Crime rates will increase
Mental illness will increase
Poor health will increase

More of the very behaviour you want to prevent will continue to expand & will do so at a faster rate.

Making life harder for people doesn't make people suddenly able to change - if that was true nobody would be starving in Africa - great adversity actually tends to have a detrimental effect of people, reducing their ability to handle stress & get out of the band situation.

What many are proposing is to use the stick, when all of our understanding of human behaviour & our social sciences say we need to use the carrot.

But hey, let's not let little things like facts & science get in the way of your ideology.
Click to expand...

At no point have I said that I believe state benefits are intrinsically a bad thing, which is what your response suggests, I would much prefer to live somewhere that takes care of its citizens.

What I have said is that, I have irrefutable evidence that it is currently possible for multiple generations of immediate families to live purely off state benefits in a way that the current minimum wage does not allow, in fact it can allow a level of lifestyle that some could only dream of. It can (relatively easily) offer a next to free roof over your head that is maintained for you, enough sustenance to make you and those you care for fat and enough spare cash to allow it to be frittered away on having a million and one channels through Sky (because Freeview just isn't good enough), having money to hand over at your local pub very regularly and then to head to get take-away afterwards, or to go down to your local supermarket and buy a bottle of liquor of your choosing.

State benefits should NOT allow for at least some of these things (I am undecided about the roof as it's a thorny issue) but currently I have proof that it does. This is wrong.

EDIT: I forgot to add the crucial point, all of this (admittedly meagre) luxury is possible for somebody who DOESN'T WORK. They don't get up at 5 in the morning and work their lives away 12 hours at a time or even just get up at 9am and go to an office for 8 hours. They do nothing, their life is theirs to lead as they wish. They get up when they want, do what they want (bar the odd meeting with some form of council worker). This lifestyle should lead to nothing but a basic form of existence, otherwise where is the incentive for those without a sense of basic morals and self-worth to join those working for the same, or even lesser, lifestyle?

Also, I am intrigued, at the moment we use the carrot approach, somebody who isn't working for minimum wage can have a better lifestyle than somebody who is, if this is not the carrot approach then I don't know what is. So with this in mind, what is the carrot approach you speak of that we should be using to make working and becoming a generally responsible human being who takes their own future into their own hands an attractive prospect?

With this in mind, should we also cease to punish children when they do wrong by sending them to their room or by removing an unnecessary luxury and instead congratulate their ingenuity for being able to draw on the walls or punch their sibling or whatever it is they have done and if so, how do we go about this pat on the back?

Honestly I am interested to hear your actual plans to implement this rhetoric based loosely in scientific findings?
 
Last edited:
What are they crying about? Walk around a council estate at 10am and most of the curtains are shut, the lights are off and they all have satellite dishes bolted to the walls. They need to get up and do something, like get a job, go to the library and read a book (FOR FREE), learn a new skill or go and get spayed. Maybe they could even make a start cleaning up the filthy areas they live in, possibly pick up some litter, or even the mountains of dog **** they leave everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom