Benefit sanctions

[stemjsim]

The war on those on benefits is entirely ideological and it's numpties like Oaksoft and programmes like Benefits Street which feed into and encourage that thinking of those on benefits as being lazy scroungers. It's smoke and mirrors by the Tories and they're fucking delighted at what they can get away with while Britain seethes at the poor.

It's another way of dividing people. Can't use Women/Race anymore so use Class (Reginald D Hunter has a bit about Class being next level as it discriminates against people who look the same) to divide people. "Hey guys look a this family of scroungers getting free money and stuff you pay for with your taxes" Who gives a shit, let them get benefits that's fine, in the same way I'd rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail, if someones gaming the system I'd rather the deserving case doesn't get hit with the sanctions as well.

Are we to understand that if they reduce the amount of money these guys get we are going to see a reduction in our Tax? Doubtful, we need to repay all the money the Government had to spend covering the gamblers that work in the financial industry and all the rest. Besides, why not reduce the benefit bill we have for companies. A lot of whom are profitable in the extreme thanks in part to money given by the government.

[pandarilla]

Interesting that you'd pick up on my post alone for my "debating style".

I make no apologies for throwing insults in the direction of Oaksoft. He's a deluded sociopath.

No one for one second is denying there are people who "play the system". What I object to are people who support and rub their hands with glee at this Government's treatment of those on benefits, whilst there are innumnerable other things this Government sinks money into that we could save on.

How much money do you think it costs the Government, for example, to run ATOS fit for work tests, to process the administrative side of every benefits sanction, to declare someone fit for work only to have the decision overturned on appeal, compared to the actual savings the Government makes? And that's not even mentioning the £176 billion Trident is now costing.

The war on those on benefits is entirely ideological and it's numpties like Oaksoft and programmes like Benefits Street which feed into and encourage that thinking of those on benefits as being lazy scroungers. It's smoke and mirrors by the Tories and they're fucking delighted at what they can get away with while Britain seethes at the poor.

Funny how we can find money to blow Syria to shite but we MUST shrink the welfare state because we just can't afford it.

I can't speak for oaksoft but I'd be surprised if he backed the horrendous privatisation of the system with atos.

Getting on to trident and Syria are a bit too far from the point and it gets tiresome when any suggestion of government funding can be compared to other irrelevant government spending.

There were a few excellent posts earlier outlining some of the details of the system. When did the government crack down on those cheating the disability system? If it is so difficult to play the game now (and i dont doubt that) when did this change happen? Was the system ever too easy to play?

My point remember is that the Tory / new labour policy only works on folk when they see injustice for themselves. A kernel of truth blown a million miles out of proportion.

[Fide]

Getting on to trident and Syria are a bit too far from the point and it gets tiresome when any suggestion of government funding can be compared to other irrelevant government spending.

Can I ask why you find it tiresome? Lot's don't. Look at it this way. Say a couple work out their monthly budget and realise that they'd like to curtail their disposable income to pay off some of the debt they owe. So they tighten their belts more than they need to, because reasons. Some of the belt tightening includes "difficult decisions", like stopping the monthly payment they give to a poorer relative. Then one morning the guy comes home with a brand new £50,000 rocket launcher because his large, brazen neighbour has one. Obvs hypothetical but the point stands.

People rightly aren't happy that we can't afford to fund a caring welfare state, but we can afford Trident and sorties over Syria.

My point remember is that the Tory / new labour policy only works on folk when they see injustice for themselves. A kernel of truth blown a million miles out of proportion.

Not quite sure what your point is here.

[strichener]

I can't speak for oaksoft but I'd be surprised if he backed the horrendous privatisation of the system with atos.

Getting on to trident and Syria are a bit too far from the point and it gets tiresome when any suggestion of government funding can be compared to other irrelevant government spending.

There were a few excellent posts earlier outlining some of the details of the system. When did the government crack down on those cheating the disability system? If it is so difficult to play the game now (and i dont doubt that) when did this change happen? Was the system ever too easy to play?

My point remember is that the Tory / new labour policy only works on folk when they see injustice for themselves. A kernel of truth blown a million miles out of proportion.

Having policies that leads directly to deaths in a certain section of society is what we have at the moment. My Grandad did not fight to defeat fascism only to see his fellow countrymen being mistreated by their own government.

The government has a duty to spend every pound wisely and therefore we have every right to question where money is being spent regardless of the apparent remoteness.

[ScotSquid]

Having policies that leads directly to deaths in a certain section of society is what we have at the moment. My Grandad did not fight to defeat fascism only to see his fellow countrymen being mistreated by their own government.

The government has a duty to spend every pound wisely and therefore we have every right to question where money is being spent regardless of the apparent remoteness.

I also don't understand why questioning abhorrent wastes of money like Trident can't be brought up when considering cuts to Welfare benefits.

Defence absolutely has to be considered alongside social spending.

Would be like spending all your money on giant locks for your house, then telling your wife you have no money for food, but on the plus side, no one is breaking in.

[stemjsim]

I also don't understand why questioning abhorrent wastes of money like Trident can't be brought up when considering cuts to Welfare benefits.

Defence absolutely has to be considered alongside social spending.

Would be like spending all your money on giant locks for your house, then telling your wife you have no money for food, but on the plus side, no one is breaking in.

The main problem is, as I understand it, the Budget is set up such a way as to be separate pots (if this is wrong feel free to tell me). So even if we did not spend the money on Trident that recovered expense/planned expenditure wouldn't go back into an overall pot where it could be redirected to social concerns.

So akin to shop vouchers you get at Xmas you are limited in how you can budget and spend them.

Edit : That should have quoted Fide.

[strichener]

The main problem is, as I understand it, the Budget is set up such a way as to be separate pots (if this is wrong feel free to tell me). So even if we did not spend the money on Trident that recovered expense/planned expenditure wouldn't go back into an overall pot where it could be redirected to social concerns.

So akin to shop vouchers you get at Xmas you are limited in how you can budget and spend them.

Edit : That should have quoted Fide.

This is absolute brainwashing. The argument of seperate budgets etc. is used to disguise pre-determined choices. If we decide to renew Trident then there will be a budget for it, if we don't then there will be more for other budgets. Budgets are simply the financial commitment to policies.

[stemjsim]

This is absolute brainwashing. The argument of seperate budgets etc. is used to disguise pre-determined choices. If we decide to renew Trident then there will be a budget for it, if we don't then there will be more for other budgets. Budgets are simply the financial commitment to policies.

Do you know where someone could read up more in how it works?

[Fide]

Do you know where someone could read up more in how it works?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uk+budget+policy

[stemjsim]

This is absolute brainwashing. The argument of seperate budgets etc. is used to disguise pre-determined choices. If we decide to renew Trident then there will be a budget for it, if we don't then there will be more for other budgets. Budgets are simply the financial commitment to policies.

Ok, I should have realised that, it makes sense. For some reason I thought the money for Trident was coming out of the Defence Budget and if they didnt commit the money would still be in the Defence Budget and they'd just spend it on something else. Brain Fart on my part.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uk+budget+policy

Link didn't work when I clicked on it, worked once I googled the link though. Cheers nice Gif.

[Billy Jean King]

Anyone ever been involved with the Scottish Welfare Fund. I've been working the last couple of weeks on anti fraud systems for a few LA's administering this and some if the loopholes and scams are eye watering. Never seen anything so open to abuse in all my life. Can't go into too many specifics but once cross checking and post award visits were put in place the level of fraud is off the scale. Just wondering if this was specific to the areas I was working for or rife Scotland wide ?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Anyone ever been involved with the Scottish Welfare Fund. I've been working the last couple of weeks on anti fraud systems for a few LA's administering this and some if the loopholes and scams are eye watering. Never seen anything so open to abuse in all my life. Can't go into too many specifics but once cross checking and post award visits were put in place the level of fraud is off the scale. Just wondering if this was specific to the areas I was working for or rife Scotland wide ?

A lot. Can't speak for other areas but it's pretty strict in Angus. No help for sanctioned people, travel expenses and have to have a current and relevant benefit in payment or a current claim. Scamming the SWF here is virtually inpossible.

What sort of scams have you encountered?

[Billy Jean King]

A lot. Can't speak for other areas but it's pretty strict in Angus. No help for sanctioned people, travel expenses and have to have a current and relevant benefit in payment or a current claim. Scamming the SWF here is virtually inpossible.

What sort of scams have you encountered?

The people receiving were fully entitled but were not needing the goods being claimed. There was a pan authority procurement team delivering fridges, cookers, beds and carpets that were being sold via ebay, facebook etc within days of receipt. Also serial applicants not being picked up when moving between authorities. Also had prisoners being released after 3 month stretches being given vouchers to buy new clothes if the prison confirmed they had put on a certain amount of weight during incarceration and hence clothes allegedly no longer fitted. Needless to say the LAs in question now do PRE visits thus ensuring the items are indeed required.

[welshbairn]

The people receiving were fully entitled but were not needing the goods being claimed. There was a pan authority procurement team delivering fridges, cookers, beds and carpets that were being sold via ebay, facebook etc within days of receipt. Also serial applicants not being picked up when moving between authorities. Also had prisoners being released after 3 month stretches being given vouchers to buy new clothes if the prison confirmed they had put on a certain amount of weight during incarceration and hence clothes allegedly no longer fitted. Needless to say the LAs in question now do PRE visits thus ensuring the items are indeed required.

Would you say you and your colleagues made the nation a profit after deducting your wages and expenses?

[pandarilla]

Can I ask why you find it tiresome? Lot's don't. Look at it this way. Say a couple work out their monthly budget and realise that they'd like to curtail their disposable income to pay off some of the debt they owe. So they tighten their belts more than they need to, because reasons. Some of the belt tightening includes "difficult decisions", like stopping the monthly payment they give to a poorer relative. Then one morning the guy comes home with a brand new £50,000 rocket launcher because his large, brazen neighbour has one. Obvs hypothetical but the point stands.

.

Yes but how can we possibly debate any point on its merits if it can be compared to every other area of government spending. We're not making these decisions, we're debating them.

Every issue could come down to: how many nurses could you buy with that? How many schools could be built with this?

Of course the government need to take an overall strategic look at the bigger picture but I find it tiresome when everything relating to money is compared to any other aspect of government spending.

I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't be bombing Syria but I want to see a social security policy discussed and put forward based on its merits.

Also, comparing government budgets with household budgets is not the best analogy - and the reason I know this is because it's used by the tabloid media when they want to simplify the deficit debate and make people agree to austerity.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

The people receiving were fully entitled but were not needing the goods being claimed. There was a pan authority procurement team delivering fridges, cookers, beds and carpets that were being sold via ebay, facebook etc within days of receipt. Also serial applicants not being picked up when moving between authorities. Also had prisoners being released after 3 month stretches being given vouchers to buy new clothes if the prison confirmed they had put on a certain amount of weight during incarceration and hence clothes allegedly no longer fitted. Needless to say the LAs in question now do PRE visits thus ensuring the items are indeed required.

I'm amazed any local authorities would be so lax

In our area a Community Care Grant won't even be entertained unless the individual is supported by a Social Worker/Social Work Service and pre-visits are always carried out. I thought you'd been referring to Crisis Grants beforehand.

Unfortunately, when you're talking about both CGs and CCGs, quite often you're dealing with the most difficult cases, eg people with significant mental health issues, substance abusers, alcoholics etc. Generally people that have already sold pretty much everything for buttons to get the next hit, drink etc, so even if they need the items, they'll probably still sell them on.

The SWF here will generally not award a CCG for white goods etc to known users for these very reasons. At most they'll sort out the most basic of used appliances that have hardly any sell-on value and hope for the best. There's f**k all else you can really do in these situations.

[Gordon EF]

the atos system is absolutely disgusting and you are correct i dont support it.

we do however have a moral duty to help any disabled person find fulfilling work because the benefits of working and earning are so obvious both financially and socially.

the problem woth the tories is more to do with the way they are going about thimgs rather than the overarching aim of getting as many people off welfare as possible. it is simply indefensible to do anything else.

a lot of the outrage and anger on this thread is undoubtedly because some of this is hitting quite close to home for some posters.

a kernel of truth can certainly provoke a overcompensating response and that is what we are seeing here, i am convinced of it.

you are already seeing a couple of people finally start talking about how they are personally on benefits.

the outrage has nothing to do with concern for the poor. it is more likely to be concern for themselves. overly defensive responses are always a red flag.

The vast majority of folk disagreeing with you are not on benefits. Do you have some shite psycho-pish reason why they're doing this?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

a lot of the outrage and anger on this thread is undoubtedly because some of this is hitting quite close to home for some posters.

a kernel of truth can certainly provoke a overcompensating response and that is what we are seeing here, i am convinced of it.

you are already seeing a couple of people finally start talking about how they are personally on benefits.

the outrage has nothing to do with concern for the poor. it is more likely to be concern for themselves. overly defensive responses are always a red flag.

Yeah I think this pretty much confirms you've lost whatever diabolically poor point your were trying to make and are now simply out-and-out trolling.

Why don't you reel off the names of all these posters who you believe are on benefits?

[mjw]

the atos system is absolutely disgusting and you are correct i dont support it.

we do however have a moral duty to help any disabled person find fulfilling work because the benefits of working and earning are so obvious both financially and socially.

the problem woth the tories is more to do with the way they are going about thimgs rather than the overarching aim of getting as many people off welfare as possible. it is simply indefensible to do anything else.

a lot of the outrage and anger on this thread is undoubtedly because some of this is hitting quite close to home for some posters.

a kernel of truth can certainly provoke a overcompensating response and that is what we are seeing here, i am convinced of it.

you are already seeing a couple of people finally start talking about how they are personally on benefits.

the outrage has nothing to do with concern for the poor. it is more likely to be concern for themselves. overly defensive responses are always a red flag.

So only someone who is poor can show concern for other poor people?

The people who have posted about being on benefits have probably given more information than anyone would want to on a football site.

Instead of having any compassion, you see it as proving your point.

What is it that is so bad in your life you want to be the cleverest, hardest working and most mature debater on a football forum?

[Fide]

Yes but how can we possibly debate any point on its merits if it can be compared to every other area of government spending. We're not making these decisions, we're debating them.

Every issue could come down to: how many nurses could you buy with that? How many schools could be built with this?

Of course the government need to take an overall strategic look at the bigger picture but I find it tiresome when everything relating to money is compared to any other aspect of government spending.

I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't be bombing Syria but I want to see a social security policy discussed and put forward based on its merits.

Also, comparing government budgets with household budgets is not the best analogy - and the reason I know this is because it's used by the tabloid media when they want to simplify the deficit debate and make people agree to austerity.

I completely disagree. Comparing any aspect of Government spend is wholly appropriate. And if we're doing things like renewing Trident at a cost of £176 billion, it's more than justifiable to question how many hospitals or schools could be built with that money.

I find it abhorrent that we live in a country where people are dying as a direct consequence of Government minister's decisions, yet we can afford to act the Billy Big Baws on the international military stage. It disgusts me.

the atos system is absolutely disgusting and you are correct i dont support it.

we do however have a moral duty to help any disabled person find fulfilling work because the benefits of working and earning are so obvious both financially and socially.

the problem woth the tories is more to do with the way they are going about thimgs rather than the overarching aim of getting as many people off welfare as possible. it is simply indefensible to do anything else.

a lot of the outrage and anger on this thread is undoubtedly because some of this is hitting quite close to home for some posters.

a kernel of truth can certainly provoke a overcompensating response and that is what we are seeing here, i am convinced of it.

you are already seeing a couple of people finally start talking about how they are personally on benefits.

the outrage has nothing to do with concern for the poor. it is more likely to be concern for themselves. overly defensive responses are always a red flag.

Your head has finally gone.

Seek help. Immediately.

Angry man/ wee man/ not promoted man/ has a boss younger than him man syndrome right there.