Dreadful decision by Rotherham Borough Council

[Basil-Don]

well some people work all their lives and pay money in and others laze around poncing have five kids never pay their way in life,unless you believe this doesnt happen,some folks are basically scum who shouldnt be allowed to breed,vermin they could be called yes.

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

As you call yourself a christian, can you please try and explain why an innocent child should live in dire poverty just because they they was unfortunate to be the offspring of irresponsible parents?

 

If the god that you worship considers it acceptable for a child born into poverty is deprived of equal opportunities in life due to an accident of birth, then I am forever grateful to be a confirmed atheist, and not a fascist.

 

You'd have to ask the parents, Alan. Not my call.

[cup of tea]

Far too many Daily Mail readers about methinks.

 

There's always going to be a small percentage of people that will do anything not to work, that's always been the case, but I honestly believe that most people, given the correct economic conditions will want to work. It's the system that penalises people for working, that's where the problem is.

In fairness, Ian Duncan-Smith has spent a long time researching this and is trying to do something about it, but we do need to protect the most vulnerable in society otherwise this country is going to go backwards and we'll start getting workhouses back etc.

 

As for EU, he works hard, has employed other people on occasions, looks after his family and generates far more for the government in tax than he gets back in child benefit (which I believe is still a universal benefit that I'm certain that the wealthy who don't need it will be claiming for).

 

Perhaps if we put as much effort into catching rich people who defraud the government with tax evasion etc then to benefit frauds, we might get enough money back to help the poorest people in society.

[Big J R]

I found this information from Rotherham after the recent by-election both interesting and encouraging. The Lib Dems are a 'spent-force' at last.

 

"Just a fortnight after earning a record 14.3% in the Corby by-election, UKIP has hammered the Conservatives and Lib Dems in Rotherham winning a massive 21.79% in yesterday's poll.

 

Party Leader Nigel Farage said: "This clearly shows that UKIP's policies are connecting with the people.

 

UKIP candidate Jane Collins won 4,648 votes to come second behind Labour's Sarah Champion with 9,866.

 

Yet again, the Lib Dems lost their deposit.

 

There were 11 candidates standing in the by-election and the turnout was 33.8% - down from 59% in the 2010 general election.

 

The by-election was called following the resignation of the former MP Denis MacShane on 2 November.!

[Basil-Don]

Far too many Daily Mail readers about methinks.

 

There's always going to be a small percentage of people that will do anything not to work, that's always been the case, but I honestly believe that most people, given the correct economic conditions will want to work. It's the system that penalises people for working, that's where the problem is.

In fairness, Ian Duncan-Smith has spent a long time researching this and is trying to do something about it, but we do need to protect the most vulnerable in society otherwise this country is going to go backwards and we'll start getting workhouses back etc.

 

As for EU, he works hard, has employed other people on occasions, looks after his family and generates far more for the government in tax than he gets back in child benefit (which I believe is still a universal benefit that I'm certain that the wealthy who don't need it will be claiming for).

 

Perhaps if we put as much effort into catching rich people who defraud the government with tax evasion etc then to benefit frauds, we might get enough money back to help the poorest people in society.

 

 

couldnt agree more i despise the idle rich as much as the idle 'poor', the fact is the idle poor are increasing all the time as they tend to breed like rabbits,the only people who can afford to have 5 kids in this country are benefit scroungers and certain sections of the immigrant population,decent working people must be pondering how the unemployed 'poor' are enjoying lifestyles they can only dream of.

[missunderstood]

You'd have to ask the parents, Alan. Not my call.

 

I'm trying to understand how a so called christian can support the royal family ,who are arguably the biggest scroungers of the lot, and at the same time remove the support for some of the most vulnerable children in society. Its hardly the child's fault they was born into the wrong kind of family.

 

You also need to take into account the fact that if families are denied enough money for even the most basic needs, then many of them will turn to crime, and that fact alone could make the cutting of benefits non cash effective, and our streets even more frightening than they already are in so many places.

[cup of tea]

The Royal family do generate quite a bit of income for the country - I think we perhaps need to cut down the civil list to remove the hangers on, but I wouldn't like to see the country be turned into a Republic and Royalty scrapped. They are the pinnacle of class distinction in the UK though, that's what I find difficult to accept.

 

Agree with you Alan, you cannot penalise children for decisions that they had no control over.

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

We've been here before with Queen Liz, haven't we?

 

How much extra revenue would we lose if Liz, Charlie, Wills and co. were put out to pasture? Quite a lot, it turns out.

 

Oh, and they do work - you cannot tell me that Prince William is an idle slob. I have a lot of respect for him personally.

 

No, of course it's not the child's fault - but those adults who care only about smoking, drinking, Jeremy Kyle and sh@gging (in no particular order) should be banned by law from breeding if they have no desire to work and stick two fingers up at those who work hard to provide for themselves. Maybe a Children's Licence could be an idea?

 

Here's a thing - if people need money bad enough then WORK for it. I worked my @rse off for 10 years in order to have a good standard of living.

 

The problem with the left argument is that you think the Middle Classes can be squeezed indefinitely. Give me one good reason why I should fund the lackeys and scroungers, when there are others more deserving? I'm struggling to understand how an aethiest thinks it's okay for lazy, pig ignorant people to be financed by decent hard-working individuals who have their taxes ramped up year after year? You think it's okay for people to be taxed out of existence?

 

Even though you are a lefty, Alan, I'm sure that you are not short of decency.

[cup of tea]

There are people who live in some estates who have little chance of getting a job, their parents had little chance of getting a job and whose children are unlikely to get jobs in the future. We can't turn our backs on those people we need to break that cycle somehow.

[BUFC]

There are people who live in some estates who have little chance of getting a job, their parents had little chance of getting a job and whose children are unlikely to get jobs in the future. We can't turn our backs on those people we need to break that cycle somehow.

 

What is all this shite of using living on an estate as an excuse for being idle?

[cup of tea]

No jobs

[Basil-Don]

sorry thats bo llocks, 5 years ago there were thousands of unfilled vacancies in Basildon did the profeesional benefit claimants fill them,like fck did they, we had to import more immigrants to do them.

[Eastside Urchin]

Sadly the culture on many estates is a benefit one,I am not saying its everyone but there is a large percentage who seem to follow everyone else into claiming whatever they can to avoid them going out to work.

There are good and bad people on estates,middle class suburban areas and millionaires row and each different situation will still have the idle and those that work hard.

Many people on estates and the like,do work hard,many for peanuts but there are also many who don't,choosing the so called easy way of free money as an income.

Having been to job centres in the past,you get to know the ones who blatantly act like idiots to avoid work,and you get to now those who really are in need of extra income from the government as they appear unemployable.

[missunderstood]

We've been here before with Queen Liz, haven't we?

 

How much extra revenue would we lose if Liz, Charlie, Wills and co. were put out to pasture? Quite a lot, it turns out.

 

Oh, and they do work - you cannot tell me that Prince William is an idle slob. I have a lot of respect for him personally.

 

No, of course it's not the child's fault - but those adults who care only about smoking, drinking, Jeremy Kyle and sh@gging (in no particular order) should be banned by law from breeding if they have no desire to work and stick two fingers up at those who work hard to provide for themselves. Maybe a Children's Licence could be an idea?

 

Here's a thing - if people need money bad enough then WORK for it. I worked my @rse off for 10 years in order to have a good standard of living.

 

The problem with the left argument is that you think the Middle Classes can be squeezed indefinitely. Give me one good reason why I should fund the lackeys and scroungers, when there are others more deserving? I'm struggling to understand how an aethiest thinks it's okay for lazy, pig ignorant people to be financed by decent hard-working individuals who have their taxes ramped up year after year? You think it's okay for people to be taxed out of existence?

 

Even though you are a lefty, Alan, I'm sure that you are not short of decency.

 

Believe it or not I have nothing against the Royal Family personally, just the life of extreme privilege we have no choice in funding. It might be more palatable if we had a referendum on the death of the monarch, and they were paid a wage similar to the Prime Minister, and funded their luxury lifestyle using their own considerable wealth.

There are people who live in some estates who have little chance of getting a job, their parents had little chance of getting a job and whose children are unlikely to get jobs in the future. We can't turn our backs on those people we need to break that cycle somehow.

 

Your absolutely correct Simon. Last year I worked on the National Census and was shocked at the way people live not much more than a stones throw from my own home. Part of my job was to help people who either couldnt understand the forms, or read and write. Far to many of the people I spoke to hadn't worked for years, but almost all of them would love to work to escape the poverty trap they was in, and one common theme was that hardly any of them knew how to get a job because they were computer illiterate. IMO education is the key, and compulsory learning programmes for the unemployed, and increased funding for the children that live on the sink estates is the answer to preventing another underclass generation of people with little hope of ever leading a decent life,or making a contribution to society.

[missunderstood]

We've been here before with Queen Liz, haven't we?

 

How much extra revenue would we lose if Liz, Charlie, Wills and co. were put out to pasture? Quite a lot, it turns out.

 

 

No, of course it's not the child's fault - but those adults who care only about smoking, drinking, Jeremy Kyle and sh@gging (in no particular order) should be banned by law from breeding if they have no desire to work and stick two fingers up at those who work hard to provide for themselves. Maybe a Children's Licence could be an idea?

 

 

 

Even though you are a lefty, Alan, I'm sure that you are not short of decency.

 

You still haven't answered the question on why an innocent child should suffer and be denied life opportunities just because the have irresponsible parents.

 

Never knew that decency was the preserve of the far right. This forum sure is a mine of information.

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

Of course no child should ever suffer, Alan, but what you have is a classic case of cause and effect. The cause of the problem is irresponsible, selfish people who won't work and whom claim benefits when they are fit for work. The effect is that their children are often at a disadvantage.

 

Your point about education is a good one, though, and we need to educate children in the right way. Society does not owe them anything, and if they want to enjoy a good standard of living then they will have to work hard for it. If you spent one day in some of the most economically deprived areas of South Wales, for example, you might get to see why I think the way I do. The attitude among most of the unemployed there is 'I'd rather drink, smoke, go up the bingo or do anything than do a honest day's work.' These people get thousands each year in benefits, and yet when people who have worked all their life apply for a bit of money they're told 'oh, because you worked and were ever so good you are getting eff all.'

 

That is something I personally cannot abide - you are thought of more in this country if you smoke, drink, are financially irresponsible than if you obey the rules and provide for your future.

 

You ask me for my opinion, Alan, so I fire this question back at you. What would you do in order to stop innocent children suffering and being denied the chance of a good living just because their parents are incompetent?

 

Personally, I would force their parents back to work (or at least one of them if they cannot rely on a family babysitter) and tell them that their benefits money will be removed after 12 months if they refuse to cow-tow and take a job (and no, not all of them are badly paid - some even come with on the job training and others don't require experience). I would also tell companies to take more of these people on, in order to clear up the backlog of unemployed people. I am self-employed, but I give to a local charity which helps people come off benefits and get into work (not just money but I've paid for computers and sponsored people). The change in these people is almost like Saul on the Damascus Road - they see the light and are grateful for the chance to move on with their lives and provide more for their families.

 

Also, I would apportion 20% of their total benefits into a Child's Trust Fund, if they have children, and this would hopefully act as a mechanism for not only giving their children a good start but also encourage them to budget their income better. I have no problem with benefits being payed until they have been in a job three months, if it helps, but then after that they should have no need for benefits.

 

The sooner we get people to realise that being on benefits is not cool, sexy, glamorous or whatever you want to call it - the better.

 

Having said that, I also strongly support the clamp down on those rich people who avoid tax and also would call for criminal sentences for Bankers and Government Ministers (such as Gordon Brown) who caused the financial crash.

[Eastside Urchin]

Once again,words are being put into people's mouths.

[missunderstood]

Of course no child should ever suffer, Alan, but what you have is a classic case of cause and effect. The cause of the problem is irresponsible, selfish people who won't work and whom claim benefits when they are fit for work. The effect is that their children are often at a disadvantage.

 

Your point about education is a good one, though, and we need to educate children in the right way. Society does not owe them anything, and if they want to enjoy a good standard of living then they will have to work hard for it. If you spent one day in some of the most economically deprived areas of South Wales, for example, you might get to see why I think the way I do. The attitude among most of the unemployed there is 'I'd rather drink, smoke, go up the bingo or do anything than do a honest day's work.' These people get thousands each year in benefits, and yet when people who have worked all their life apply for a bit of money they're told 'oh, because you worked and were ever so good you are getting eff all.'

 

That is something I personally cannot abide - you are thought of more in this country if you smoke, drink, are financially irresponsible than if you obey the rules and provide for your future.

 

You ask me for my opinion, Alan, so I fire this question back at you. What would you do in order to stop innocent children suffering and being denied the chance of a good living just because their parents are incompetent?

 

Personally, I would force their parents back to work (or at least one of them if they cannot rely on a family babysitter) and tell them that their benefits money will be removed after 12 months if they refuse to cow-tow and take a job (and no, not all of them are badly paid - some even come with on the job training and others don't require experience). I would also tell companies to take more of these people on, in order to clear up the backlog of unemployed people. I am self-employed, but I give to a local charity which helps people come off benefits and get into work (not just money but I've paid for computers and sponsored people). The change in these people is almost like Saul on the Damascus Road - they see the light and are grateful for the chance to move on with their lives and provide more for their families.

 

Also, I would apportion 20% of their total benefits into a Child's Trust Fund, if they have children, and this would hopefully act as a mechanism for not only giving their children a good start but also encourage them to budget their income better. I have no problem with benefits being payed until they have been in a job three months, if it helps, but then after that they should have no need for benefits.

 

The sooner we get people to realise that being on benefits is not cool, sexy, glamorous or whatever you want to call it - the better.

 

Having said that, I also strongly support the clamp down on those rich people who avoid tax and also would call for criminal sentences for Bankers and Government Ministers (such as Gordon Brown) who caused the financial crash.

 

It might be helpful if you had a little consistency in your posts. You say the innocent children shouldn't suffer, and then you say their parents should be forced to work or lose their benefits. Where are all the jobs these people are supposed to take? and do you honestly think a responsible employer would select a long term unemployed person who is long out of the habit of working, and may need long and expensive training, in preference to a person who has worked all their lives and still desperately needs and wants to work. I personally have been in that situation, and every single time decided that the long term unemployed was a risk, and it immoral to discard the genuine candidate in favour of someone who has shown less urgency in finding employment in the past.

 

What would I do? well to begin with I would make certain the most vulnerable children get at least as good an education as societies more privileged kids, I would also include aspirational studies into the curriculum, and fund after school activities and skills training so the kids that are unable to achieve intellectually may find a talent that may one day earn them a decent living. With regards to the long term unemployed, I'm afraid that IMO many of them are unemployable and beyond help, and although they could be forced to do some of the more menial tasks, would it really be fair to make the people already doing those jobs unemployed and restarting the process all over again.

[Eastside Urchin]

Only a very small percentage,minuscule,are unemployable.

Many come across as that but if they could be bothered,they could do such Jobs.

Too many know they can act the fool and its taken that they are unemployable,they are playing the system and get away with it.

I have seen people I know in the job centres before and this is very common

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

'What would I do? well to begin with I would make certain the most vulnerable children get at least as good an education as societies more privileged kids, I would also include aspirational studies into the curriculum, and fund after school activities and skills training so the kids that are unable to achieve intellectually may find a talent that may one day earn them a decent living. With regards to the long term unemployed, I'm afraid that IMO many of them are unemployable and beyond help, and although they could be forced to do some of the more menial tasks, would it really be fair to make the people already doing those jobs unemployed and restarting the process all over again.'

 

That sounds like a good idea, but changing the National Curriculum will be shouted out by the Unions.

 

I would also motion for Youth Clubs to make a come back.