working for your dole......

groen said:
Ive always suggested just putting a time limit on it of say 1 year and then just stop it completely. People are quick to find solutions when they have to, but if they are never put in to that position they dont have the incentive.
Click to expand...

That's a bit Russian Roulette for my liking. What happens if they DON'T manage to work something out? How do we deal with the social consequences of that (crime, poverty, health issues, vagrancy etc).

That's odd, because last time I checked there were only two tiers of JSA and neither were dependant on your skin colour. DLA has three tiers - again, I can't see race or colour or sex as a qualifying factor. Child Benefit increase with the number of children, not the colour of your skin and either the father or mother can claim it.

Take your casual racism to another debate, it's not welcome here. I could have guessed at your bigotry just from your user name.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nick.lidgett said:
I dont see how any of that relates to what you quoted me saying, i said about targeting career claimants, how is that tarring everyone with the same brush?
Have you not read any of my other posts?
Click to expand...

But that's the problem, the system doesn't and wont filter folk by anything other by time on the list. Individual circumstances are never taken into account, the rules apply piecemeal to everyone. Any placements aren't matched to individuals needs or skills, its adhock send them to what we have. It's nonsense taking someone away from say a volunteering position where they can either pass on or learn new skills and stick them down the local supermarket stacking shelves, simply because system flags a date line that's been crossed.
 
So whats the general feeling on this then? It would be nice to have a poll, i started this thread to get a feeling of peoples views but it went a bit sideways a few pages back lol.
 
I would support a ratcheting system, say every 2 months you sign on, you are expected to do 5 hours of community work to get your money. Not enough that it impedes on your job seeking efforts if you have genuinely fallen on hard times and intend on bouncing back asap, but enough to hopefully bring some much needed stigma to living a life on the dole, and to claw back a little effort from those who do it in the name of society. The difficult thing would be administering such a system in a cost effective manner.

JSA claimants aren't the problem though. That'd be housing benefit claimiants, the huge numbers claiming disability who shouldn't be, and the pensioners - much more meaty welfare targets ;)
 
amigafan2003 said:
That's odd, because last time I checked there were only two tiers of JSA and neither were dependant on your skin colour. DLA has three tiers - again, I can't see race or colour or sex as a qualifying factor. Child Benefit increase with the number of children, not the colour of your skin and either the father or mother can claim it.

Take your casual racism to another debate, it's not welcome here.
Click to expand...
Clearly it was tongue in cheek you stupid poo poo head (;)) and don't speak for the rest of the board.
 
Last edited:
UncleRuckus said:
Clearly it was tongue in cheek you stupid $hit and don't speak for the rest of the board.
Click to expand...

As i was reminded this week when i recieved an infraction for calling somebody "a bit of a dick" for smacking his wife, personal attacks are not allowed in these forums.... or was calling him a stupid $hit tongue in cheek too?

Ps; nice edit :D
 
amigafan2003 said:
That's a bit Russian Roulette for my liking. What happens if they DON'T manage to work something out? How do we deal with the social consequences of that (crime, poverty, health issues, vagrancy etc).

That's odd, because last time I checked there were only two tiers of JSA and neither were t on your skin colour. DLA has three tiers - again, I can't see race or colour or sex as a qualifying factor. Child Benefit increase with the number of children, not the colour of your skin and either the father or mother can claim it.

Take your casual racism to another debate, it's not welcome here. I could have guessed at your bigotry just from your user name.
Click to expand...

WE dont deal with it the claimant has to deal with his own situation and he has a year to sort something out, very reasonble. That is the whole point. There has to be a time limit to combat the life long depedants.I cant think of any other solution to that problem. If its done in a staggerd manner then it shouldnt lead to drastic increases in social problems. Eventually the state won't have any money left and then the consequnces to social problema may be worse than if they implemented a time limit on all welfare benefits. There is no reasonble justification for giving poeple free houses for their entire lives and often the lives of several generations that follow. We are up to 4 or 5 generations now, of people who have received free houses, frew healhcare, free education, free salary and free child benefits and free etc. Oboviously that cant go on for ever.


sorry for spelling and grammer typing on nexus 7 and its rubbish for typing.
 
For long-term claimants I approve pushing them towards charity work for a few hours a week. The idea that claimants would be doing work that could be done by someone who, you know, actually gets paid shows their true motivations. It's exploitative of the weak and bloody disgusting.
 
I haven't read the entire thread, so may have been posted already.

I've no issues with people working for their money, but if you're being forced to work, you should receive the minimum wage, something the government have exempted themselves from with anything JSA related.

I know the current proposal is for 'long term scroungers', but having seen threads on the 'work programme' too where less long term unemployed have also been forced into jobs, I don't expect it'll be beyond the government thinking to apply it to pretty much anyone unfortunate to find themselves without work at some point.

As for those getting rent and council tax paid, minimum wage should cover at least some of these bills, so should be taken into account with the 'wage' working jobseekers receive.
 
elmarko said:
Okay, you say - get nothing if they refuse it.

Are you factoring the increased costs of policing & costs to our health service when making that decision?, is this a net gain or will it actually cost us more?.

I'm not denying that some people simply don't want to work (neither of us have the actual figures on how many, but some will exist) - what I'm questioning is if your solution will actually cost us more or not.

You only need one desperate person to resort to crime to cost in order of magnitudes more than a few JSA payments.
Click to expand...

They have the option to work, they choose not to do it, as far I'm concerned we've provided what they all say they want what is fair pay for fair work, after that point the cost of what ever they do, whether it's turning to crime or self harm is irrelevant.

They have made a lifestyle choice to exist without earning at that point, and if that results in them being imprisoned I don't think cost concerns come in to it.
 
Last edited:
hurfdurf said:
It wasn't clearly tongue in cheek, it was really stupid casual racism.
Click to expand...
wruo.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom