Marcus Rashford becomes MBE

[johncrobinson]

Avo i have rarely seen it better put

 

[EsterBanana]

Reality check:

Some people are actually better off on benefits than working.

There was a short period when I was quite young where this actually happened, the amount I could earn simply did not exceed or even match the same amount of cash in real terms as the benefits once you added it all up, AND I had to also find bus fare to get too and from work and that kind of thing. Of course I wanted to work, being on benefits sucks. I ended up working 5 x 14 hour night shifts as a security guard to bring in enough cash to make it worthwhile and try and get ahead a bit, but of course this left me absolutely knackered all the time.

A search for "better off on benefits than working" reveals countless stories, a popular site is 'mumsnet' - loads of posts saying the same thing, by the time everything is considered, they are literally better off not working. Paying for childcare while they are at work being a key factor in many cases.

In the same search there are a couple of short-sighted political rants that try to make out that this is a lie, but you have to wonder at their intellectual capacity to see past the most rudimentary of calculations and utter failure to comprehend what life is actually like when you are living at the level of being reliant on a minimum wage job, never mind being a single mum with a kid or two.

"Sorry we missed you" is an incredible film by Ken Loach, if you haven't seen it I highly recommend watching it for a hard hitting dose of reality of contemporary working life.

 

[thesteve]

What a nasty take on life you have,

My parents were (and sill are) inteligent enough and quite capable of budgeting, It didnt stop them being unemployed in the 80s and I have no shame of being on free school dinners for a year or two.

Is it a nasty take on life to expect people to want to work for a living? I am not expecting genuinely unemployed people to not get some kind of help from the government. What I detest is people who do not work with entitlement issues who think they should have the same kind of life as those people who do. It is right and proper than benefits should cover the basics not luxuries, it gives people an incentive to go out there and make a life for themselves. I'm sorry but if you are struggling then you should not have Sky telly and the latest smart phone. It makes me bloody angry to have to pay for things for my children when some other people rely on the government to pay it for theirs. I firmly believe it is a generational thing and that there is just too much handed out on a plate nowadays. People used to feel ashamed of having to rely on handouts, now it feels like working families who pay their own way are in the minority.

There are approximately 1.5M people unemployed in the UK but 1.1M job vacancies yet we are screaming to let people come in from abroad to fill the positions.

 

[EsterBanana]

I don't think anyone is saying that iPhones should be given out for free, or that they are paid for by the government, not sure where you are getting this from?

But then again, why not? People are bombarded with advertising, as a young person the intense peer pressure to conform and have the latest thing is profound and at the same time the job vacancies don't pay enough to be able to afford such luxuries. It's a form of torture. There are those who no matter what will never be able to 'better themselves' in such ways.

Is a phone even a luxury these days? Seems to me that there's a strong argument for it to be an essential item to be a functioning member of society.

Would you leave the city and relocate to the country to go fruit picking?

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit-...w-brits-prepared-to-pick-fruit/554452.article
Also remember that we live in a culture of stardom, many young people want to be, and I am not joking, stars! You say they are not motivated, but I think they are, just in a completely unrealistic ways.

So how do you convince one kid that they are never going to be famous to go fruit picking and look forward to a life of hard labour while encouraging another kid to give it their all because one day they might make it and live a life of luxury?

Who gets to make that call?

See how messed up it all is?

I thought we just had a national vote to close the borders and stop the freedom of movement, abdicated from the EU and told all the workers to go back to where they came from. As a country, we really are quite confused and delirious, we should really be taken into care.

 

[devexwarrior]

I see lots of low income families and almost without exception;

The parent(s) smoke and drink - the ones without children do little else.
Frequently one or other uses other chemicals/herbal substances
They have the latest mobile phone
No matter how squalid the (tax-payer funded) flat, there will be an enormous television
They will be "on the sick for me mental 'elf" thus preventing them from undertaking any form of employment

I have little sympathy other than for the very exceptional case where genuine crisis (a sudden death or serious illness) causes short term hardship.

One recent case was a serial shoplifter/drug addict. I found out he had served in the RAF so put him in touch with the local SSAFA rep. He was offered a place in a sheltered unit, rehab and a return to work programme. He refused the lot, preferring his life of theft and drug abuse until nature intervened and he died suddenly.

I may be cynical, dealing with a certain section of society day in day out but I'm a firm believer in the adage "The place to find sympathy is in the dictionary, between s**t and syphillis".

It is not the government's job to feed children, it is the parents' and welfare/benefits are sufficient to do this.

 

[Brewnaldo]

Is it a nasty take on life to expect people to want to work for a living? I am not expecting genuinely unemployed people to not get some kind of help from the government. What I detest is people who do not work with entitlement issues who think they should have the same kind of life as those people who do. It is right and proper than benefits should cover the basics not luxuries, it gives people an incentive to go out there and make a life for themselves. I'm sorry but if you are struggling then you should not have Sky telly and the latest smart phone. It makes me bloody angry to have to pay for things for my children when some other people rely on the government to pay it for theirs. I firmly believe it is a generational thing and that there is just too much handed out on a plate nowadays. People used to feel ashamed of having to rely on handouts, now it feels like working families who pay their own way are in the minority.

There are approximately 1.5M people unemployed in the UK but 1.1M job vacancies yet we are screaming to let people come in from abroad to fill the positions.

I see lots of low income families and almost without exception;

The parent(s) smoke and drink - the ones without children do little else.
Frequently one or other uses other chemicals/herbal substances
They have the latest mobile phone
No matter how squalid the (tax-payer funded) flat, there will be an enormous television
They will be "on the sick for me mental 'elf" thus preventing them from undertaking any form of employment

I have little sympathy other than for the very exceptional case where genuine crisis (a sudden death or serious illness) causes short term hardship.

One recent case was a serial shoplifter/drug addict. I found out he had served in the RAF so put him in touch with the local SSAFA rep. He was offered a place in a sheltered unit, rehab and a return to work programme. He refused the lot, preferring his life of theft and drug abuse until nature intervened and he died suddenly.

I may be cynical, dealing with a certain section of society day in day out but I'm a firm believer in the adage "The place to find sympathy is in the dictionary, between s**t and syphillis".

It is not the government's job to feed children, it is the parents' and welfare/benefits are sufficient to do this.

ALEXA, Show me two crass and ill informed examples of "punching down"

 

[Chippy_Tea]

There are approximately 1.5M people unemployed in the UK but 1.1M job vacancies yet we are screaming to let people come in from abroad to fill the positions.

The problem with figures like that is it's easy to make it look like there is plenty of work but there are many reasons why some cannot do them, where I live public transport is a joke of I didn't have a car I would struggle to do most of the jobs advertised round here,.

As has also been mentioned if you are paying for child minding on minimum wage you will be giving half you wages away every month who is going to rush out to work for £4.50 an hour?

 

[Michael Burnley]

It is not the government's job to feed children, it is the parents' and welfare/benefits are sufficient to do this.

You really are contradicting yourself in one sentence there

 

[EsterBanana]

Is it a nasty take on life to expect people to want to work for a living? I am not expecting genuinely unemployed people to not get some kind of help from the government. What I detest is people who do not work with entitlement issues who think they should have the same kind of life as those people who do. It is right and proper than benefits should cover the basics not luxuries, it gives people an incentive to go out there and make a life for themselves. I'm sorry but if you are struggling then you should not have Sky telly and the latest smart phone. It makes me bloody angry to have to pay for things for my children when some other people rely on the government to pay it for theirs. I firmly believe it is a generational thing and that there is just too much handed out on a plate nowadays. People used to feel ashamed of having to rely on handouts, now it feels like working families who pay their own way are in the minority.

There are approximately 1.5M people unemployed in the UK but 1.1M job vacancies yet we are screaming to let people come in from abroad to fill the positions.

I see lots of low income families and almost without exception;

The parent(s) smoke and drink - the ones without children do little else.
Frequently one or other uses other chemicals/herbal substances
They have the latest mobile phone
No matter how squalid the (tax-payer funded) flat, there will be an enormous television
They will be "on the sick for me mental 'elf" thus preventing them from undertaking any form of employment

I have little sympathy other than for the very exceptional case where genuine crisis (a sudden death or serious illness) causes short term hardship.

One recent case was a serial shoplifter/drug addict. I found out he had served in the RAF so put him in touch with the local SSAFA rep. He was offered a place in a sheltered unit, rehab and a return to work programme. He refused the lot, preferring his life of theft and drug abuse until nature intervened and he died suddenly.

I may be cynical, dealing with a certain section of society day in day out but I'm a firm believer in the adage "The place to find sympathy is in the dictionary, between s**t and syphillis".

It is not the government's job to feed children, it is the parents' and welfare/benefits are sufficient to do this.

I really do think that this is very short-sighted, I encourage anyone with these views to really re-consider how did these people get into this situation to begin with.

We are meant to be a community of people who should look after each other, at what point did that stop? Why did it stop? What can be done to reverse it?

I think The Thatcherous One has an awful lot to answer for.

One recent case was a serial shoplifter/drug addict. I found out he had served in the RAF so put him in touch with the local SSAFA rep. He was offered a place in a sheltered unit, rehab and a return to work programme. He refused the lot, preferring his life of theft and drug abuse until nature intervened and he died suddenly.

This is very sad, but I believe only half the story, again, ask why did he refuse? I image that there is some trauma there that makes them the last people he would ever go to! I mean how bad must it have been for him to prefer this life?

My answer would be, probably, "Absolutely horrific beyond imagining".

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I really do think that this is very short-sighted, I encourage anyone with these views to really re-consider how did these people get into this situation to begin with.

Could you quote when answering as with so many posts being added to popular threads its difficult to see what post you refer to.

 

[EsterBanana]

Could you quote when answering as with so many posts being added to popular threads its difficult to see what post you refer to.

Sorry, thought it was very obvious, but sure, will do ☺

I am referring to the punching down posts and will edit my post accordingly.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Sorry, thought it was very obvious, but sure, will do

I read hundreds of posts an hour i am easily confused.



I may be exaggerating slightly

 

[Braufather]

There are approximately 1.5M people unemployed in the UK but 1.1M job vacancies yet we are screaming to let people come in from abroad to fill the positions.

The economy my doesn’t work like that. There is a natural state of unemployment. And the vast majority most of those bacencies will be filled by people moving from another job as opposed to off the dole queue.

 

[johncrobinson]

Correct Brufather.
The Very Best time to get a new job is when you have allready got one.!!!

 

[EsterBanana]

It's true. I have been self employed for well over a decade and it is always easier to get new work in when I am in a financially stable position, when things get close to the edge the desperation creeps in and people know!

I laughed hard when I saw this a while back, nothing says "We know what you are up to you horrible sh*ts" to all the malevolent business owners like 82% of young people wanting to start their own business, why work for someone else... like ever?

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/43488/

 

[devexwarrior]

You really are contradicting yourself in one sentence there

How? The welfare system supplies funds to parents in order to feed their children. Explain how I contradict myself.

 

[EsterBanana]

How? The welfare system supplies funds to parents in order to feed their children. Explain how I contradict myself.

The government IS the welfare system.

I don't mean to be disparaging, so to be clearer, the tax payer (in all the many forms that expresses itself) contributes to government funding, the government allocates a portion of that funding to various government funded agencies, of which the Department of Social Security is one, that money is then allocated to applicants accordingly, this includes the support of parents feeding their kids.

 

[devexwarrior]

I really do think that this is very short-sighted, I encourage anyone with these views to really re-consider how did these people get into this situation to begin with.

We are meant to be a community of people who should look after each other, at what point did that stop? Why did it stop? What can be done to reverse it?

I think The Thatcherous One has an awful lot to answer for.



This is very sad, but I believe only half the story, again, ask why did he refuse? I image that there is some trauma there that makes them the last people he would ever go to! I mean how bad must it have been for him to prefer this life?

My answer would be, probably, "Absolutely horrific beyond imagining".

I don't have time to wonder why people are where they are and it's not my job. I deal with the 'now'. I go to them when they are in danger, or hurt, or fighting (with themselves or others). I would love to be able to solve the problems of the world but I can't. I'm just the last resort. The one emergency service the cannot and never will say 'No". I've gone into houses where I have had to say that the children the leaving with me (Section 46 Children's Act 1989) and the parents have been arrested. I've cut teenage suicides down and done CPR on people who's sporting events have gone horribly wrong or have just reached the end of their alotted time on earth.

I tell the MH cases that I go to every single shift that if all else fails, call 999 and ask for the police. We may not be MH experts, but WE WILL ALWAYS COME and we do, we always come. Sometimes it's a false alarm, sometimes we get there in time and sometimes we don't.

Why did the ex-RAF man refuse help? Because that was his choice and when he made it I had to accept it. It was easier for him to continue the way he was.

You want my job? You are welcome to it. My colleagues tell me that after a full Army career I'm mad to do the job. I need to have a difficult job to prove to myself that I can do it. I do the job, I do it right and I'll keep on doing it for the next few year until I reach compulsory retirement .

That is all.

 

[devexwarrior]

The government IS the welfare system.

I don't mean to be disparaging, so to be clearer, the tax payer (in all the many forms that expresses itself) contributes to government funding, the government allocates a portion of that funding to various government funded agencies, of which the Department of Social Security is one, that money is then allocated to applicants accordingly, this includes the support of parents feeding their kids.

We appear to agree. I am happy that any confusion has been sorted.

 

[EsterBanana]

We appear to agree. I am happy that any confusion has been sorted.

Ouch, epic misappropriation there...