Demonstration wakes people up to ‘cruel’ tax

The People’s Assembly protesting in Swindon town centre against the Bedroom Tax. Pictured front is Brian Shakespeare

The People’s Assembly protesting in Swindon town centre against the Bedroom Tax. Pictured front is Brian Shakespeare

First published in News

ACTIVISTS protested against what they say is ‘the cruellest’ policy inflicted on the vulnerable by the Government – the so-called bedroom tax.

Members of the Swindon People’s Assembly joined Swindon Tenants’ Campaign Group on Saturday morning at a demonstration against the under-occupancy tax on Canal Walk.

Under the welfare reform tenants living in social housing who have a spare bedroom have seen their benefit claim reduced by anything from £40 to £80 a month.

Jo Colby of Swindon People’s Assembly said: “The Bedroom Tax is one of the cruellest, most unjust policies inflicted by this Government.

“Nearly two thirds of the people affected are sick or disabled. It demands people move to smaller houses, even though for nine out of 10 victims of this despicable policy there are none to move to.

“It punishes many thousands of people for the failure of Governments to build housing.”

Bar manager Mike Boon, one of the action group’s founding members added: “In Swindon there are nowhere near enough smaller homes for all the people affected to ‘downsize’.

“The latest figures show 140 households having moved, but still there are over 800 tenant households having to find the extra money from their meagre income to pay 14 per cent or 25 per cent of their rent.

“The irony is, whilst the Government talk about ‘freeing up spare rooms’ their housing policy is cutting the number of homes available for those on the housing waiting list.”

Comments (75)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:50am Mon 7 Apr 14

Traditional says...

How exactly is this government policy cruel? The house belongs to the state, and the state is there to provide housing for those that need it. Not prop up a lifestyle! The house belongs to the state not the occupant, so people saying its "My house" are mistaken. You must accept the fact that it is not yours!
OK - lets see all the left wingers give me a negative arrow.
How exactly is this government policy cruel? The house belongs to the state, and the state is there to provide housing for those that need it. Not prop up a lifestyle! The house belongs to the state not the occupant, so people saying its "My house" are mistaken. You must accept the fact that it is not yours! OK - lets see all the left wingers give me a negative arrow. Traditional
  • Score: 42

7:03am Mon 7 Apr 14

swindondad says...

The mere fact that a bunch of left wing extremists like the so called “Swindon People’s Assembly” is against any policy seems a good reason to support it.
The mere fact that a bunch of left wing extremists like the so called “Swindon People’s Assembly” is against any policy seems a good reason to support it. swindondad
  • Score: 18

7:24am Mon 7 Apr 14

nigelej says...

One thing to remember people living in private rental don't get the chance to have a spare room unless they were already in accommodation when labour changed the system for them . Yet people in social housing are being asked to move into smaller homes that aren't there anyway . Yes I would be happy if it applied to new tenants moving into bigger homes . Why don't any of you question why if this is such a good thing aren't pensioners included I know of two single lady's that occupy two four bedroom houses . Also why don't the government lead by example and make it compulsory that there seconded homes that are paid for by the tax payer one bedroom only .oh and stop fiddling the expensives also greedy sods then they preach to us .
One thing to remember people living in private rental don't get the chance to have a spare room unless they were already in accommodation when labour changed the system for them . Yet people in social housing are being asked to move into smaller homes that aren't there anyway . Yes I would be happy if it applied to new tenants moving into bigger homes . Why don't any of you question why if this is such a good thing aren't pensioners included I know of two single lady's that occupy two four bedroom houses . Also why don't the government lead by example and make it compulsory that there seconded homes that are paid for by the tax payer one bedroom only .oh and stop fiddling the expensives also greedy sods then they preach to us . nigelej
  • Score: 10

7:29am Mon 7 Apr 14

stfcdod says...

Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say.
By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.
Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say. By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners. stfcdod
  • Score: 21

7:34am Mon 7 Apr 14

Localboy86 says...

There was no more than 10 of them there protesting, really sent out a strong message. That message being, even the people affected by this dont give a sh1te
There was no more than 10 of them there protesting, really sent out a strong message. That message being, even the people affected by this dont give a sh1te Localboy86
  • Score: 22

8:07am Mon 7 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

IT'S NOT A TAX.
IT'S NOT A TAX. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 22

8:09am Mon 7 Apr 14

semitonic says...

Last I heard it was costing more to implement than it was saving.
Last I heard it was costing more to implement than it was saving. semitonic
  • Score: -10

8:33am Mon 7 Apr 14

nigelej says...

stfcdod wrote:
Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say.
By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.
Must of the people affected by this are hard working people working on the minimum wage . Please be fair not everyone who lives in social housing are unemployed .
[quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say. By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.[/p][/quote]Must of the people affected by this are hard working people working on the minimum wage . Please be fair not everyone who lives in social housing are unemployed . nigelej
  • Score: 3

8:37am Mon 7 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

Traditional wrote:
How exactly is this government policy cruel? The house belongs to the state, and the state is there to provide housing for those that need it. Not prop up a lifestyle! The house belongs to the state not the occupant, so people saying its "My house" are mistaken. You must accept the fact that it is not yours!
OK - lets see all the left wingers give me a negative arrow.
Spot on. Its not a tax, its not cruel and is not unfair. And it may be their home but it isn't their house, it is an asset that belongs to the Borough of Swindon.

Why is it people already being subsidised by the taxpayer endlessly winge about their lot? We need to make the best use of the limited social housing/taxpayers hard earned money we have and make sure that those who truly need it get it and those who don't are moved on. Why should some be helped and others not when they are capable of helping themselves but cant be bothered, why are you so **** selfish all the time?

Shakespear and Wickes and the other politically motivated puffed up "activists" should be the first to go, they should have been moved out years ago, I bet they wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list if they applied now so why are we allowing them to live in subsidised housing any longer?

Help those that need it while they need it and when they no longer need it move them on, anything else is grossly unfair and just encourages complacency and laziness.
[quote][p][bold]Traditional[/bold] wrote: How exactly is this government policy cruel? The house belongs to the state, and the state is there to provide housing for those that need it. Not prop up a lifestyle! The house belongs to the state not the occupant, so people saying its "My house" are mistaken. You must accept the fact that it is not yours! OK - lets see all the left wingers give me a negative arrow.[/p][/quote]Spot on. Its not a tax, its not cruel and is not unfair. And it may be their home but it isn't their house, it is an asset that belongs to the Borough of Swindon. Why is it people already being subsidised by the taxpayer endlessly winge about their lot? We need to make the best use of the limited social housing/taxpayers hard earned money we have and make sure that those who truly need it get it and those who don't are moved on. Why should some be helped and others not when they are capable of helping themselves but cant be bothered, why are you so **** selfish all the time? Shakespear and Wickes and the other politically motivated puffed up "activists" should be the first to go, they should have been moved out years ago, I bet they wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list if they applied now so why are we allowing them to live in subsidised housing any longer? Help those that need it while they need it and when they no longer need it move them on, anything else is grossly unfair and just encourages complacency and laziness. house on the hill
  • Score: 7

8:44am Mon 7 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

nigelej wrote:
stfcdod wrote:
Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say.
By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.
Must of the people affected by this are hard working people working on the minimum wage . Please be fair not everyone who lives in social housing are unemployed .
Not every hard working person on minimum wage is in social housing, so how come some can manage and some cant then? And a lot of people work hard but get no help whatsoever from the state, I think for many it is the this whole expectancy culture where everyone expects others to pick up the pieces of their lives and choices. If you choose to have 3 kids you cant afford why should others work hard to support you? Sorry the whole system is grossly unfair against those who choose to be responsible and manage their own lives. Yes give help to those who cant help themselves, but why to those who can but choose not to?
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say. By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.[/p][/quote]Must of the people affected by this are hard working people working on the minimum wage . Please be fair not everyone who lives in social housing are unemployed .[/p][/quote]Not every hard working person on minimum wage is in social housing, so how come some can manage and some cant then? And a lot of people work hard but get no help whatsoever from the state, I think for many it is the this whole expectancy culture where everyone expects others to pick up the pieces of their lives and choices. If you choose to have 3 kids you cant afford why should others work hard to support you? Sorry the whole system is grossly unfair against those who choose to be responsible and manage their own lives. Yes give help to those who cant help themselves, but why to those who can but choose not to? house on the hill
  • Score: 5

8:51am Mon 7 Apr 14

attilla the hun says...

any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft.
as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax.
there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think
any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft. as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax. there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think attilla the hun
  • Score: 18

8:54am Mon 7 Apr 14

nigelej says...

house on the hill wrote:
nigelej wrote:
stfcdod wrote:
Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say.
By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.
Must of the people affected by this are hard working people working on the minimum wage . Please be fair not everyone who lives in social housing are unemployed .
Not every hard working person on minimum wage is in social housing, so how come some can manage and some cant then? And a lot of people work hard but get no help whatsoever from the state, I think for many it is the this whole expectancy culture where everyone expects others to pick up the pieces of their lives and choices. If you choose to have 3 kids you cant afford why should others work hard to support you? Sorry the whole system is grossly unfair against those who choose to be responsible and manage their own lives. Yes give help to those who cant help themselves, but why to those who can but choose not to?
Why don't you ever condem those that have money but are so greedy ie the two Tories who this year have both been taking more than they should one fiddles £6000 for electricity and one for mortgage payments your a tax payer you pay there wages demand on here for them to go .After all these very people are the ones that are happy to tell us how we should live our life's . These people should be setting examples .
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say. By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.[/p][/quote]Must of the people affected by this are hard working people working on the minimum wage . Please be fair not everyone who lives in social housing are unemployed .[/p][/quote]Not every hard working person on minimum wage is in social housing, so how come some can manage and some cant then? And a lot of people work hard but get no help whatsoever from the state, I think for many it is the this whole expectancy culture where everyone expects others to pick up the pieces of their lives and choices. If you choose to have 3 kids you cant afford why should others work hard to support you? Sorry the whole system is grossly unfair against those who choose to be responsible and manage their own lives. Yes give help to those who cant help themselves, but why to those who can but choose not to?[/p][/quote]Why don't you ever condem those that have money but are so greedy ie the two Tories who this year have both been taking more than they should one fiddles £6000 for electricity and one for mortgage payments your a tax payer you pay there wages demand on here for them to go .After all these very people are the ones that are happy to tell us how we should live our life's . These people should be setting examples . nigelej
  • Score: -6

8:59am Mon 7 Apr 14

nigelej says...

attilla the hun wrote:
any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft.
as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax.
there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think
So if sadly you lost your job or fell very ill you wouldn't want to claim anything then . Of course you would you could get help with your mortgage .ive said before on here and got shot down but I will say it again you should all be careful for what you wish for .we never know when we may need support probably 1% of claimants don't want to work and choose this life but must wouldn't wish this life at all and its so sad that society is being split delebaroutly by this government . Who as you can see from last week are greedy and corrupt .
[quote][p][bold]attilla the hun[/bold] wrote: any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft. as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax. there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think[/p][/quote]So if sadly you lost your job or fell very ill you wouldn't want to claim anything then . Of course you would you could get help with your mortgage .ive said before on here and got shot down but I will say it again you should all be careful for what you wish for .we never know when we may need support probably 1% of claimants don't want to work and choose this life but must wouldn't wish this life at all and its so sad that society is being split delebaroutly by this government . Who as you can see from last week are greedy and corrupt . nigelej
  • Score: -6

9:09am Mon 7 Apr 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

nigelej wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
nigelej wrote:
stfcdod wrote:
Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say.
By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.
Must of the people affected by this are hard working people working on the minimum wage . Please be fair not everyone who lives in social housing are unemployed .
Not every hard working person on minimum wage is in social housing, so how come some can manage and some cant then? And a lot of people work hard but get no help whatsoever from the state, I think for many it is the this whole expectancy culture where everyone expects others to pick up the pieces of their lives and choices. If you choose to have 3 kids you cant afford why should others work hard to support you? Sorry the whole system is grossly unfair against those who choose to be responsible and manage their own lives. Yes give help to those who cant help themselves, but why to those who can but choose not to?
Why don't you ever condem those that have money but are so greedy ie the two Tories who this year have both been taking more than they should one fiddles £6000 for electricity and one for mortgage payments your a tax payer you pay there wages demand on here for them to go .After all these very people are the ones that are happy to tell us how we should live our life's . These people should be setting examples .
I think you'll find he does, as do many of the others commenting in this thread.....!
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say. By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.[/p][/quote]Must of the people affected by this are hard working people working on the minimum wage . Please be fair not everyone who lives in social housing are unemployed .[/p][/quote]Not every hard working person on minimum wage is in social housing, so how come some can manage and some cant then? And a lot of people work hard but get no help whatsoever from the state, I think for many it is the this whole expectancy culture where everyone expects others to pick up the pieces of their lives and choices. If you choose to have 3 kids you cant afford why should others work hard to support you? Sorry the whole system is grossly unfair against those who choose to be responsible and manage their own lives. Yes give help to those who cant help themselves, but why to those who can but choose not to?[/p][/quote]Why don't you ever condem those that have money but are so greedy ie the two Tories who this year have both been taking more than they should one fiddles £6000 for electricity and one for mortgage payments your a tax payer you pay there wages demand on here for them to go .After all these very people are the ones that are happy to tell us how we should live our life's . These people should be setting examples .[/p][/quote]I think you'll find he does, as do many of the others commenting in this thread.....! LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 8

9:37am Mon 7 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

Only a month left of our awful Tory council, and a year of the condems in government.
Gonna be leaving a big mess to sort out though.
Only a month left of our awful Tory council, and a year of the condems in government. Gonna be leaving a big mess to sort out though. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -15

9:54am Mon 7 Apr 14

John Trollston says...

This ill-conceived policy should be repealed and efforts redoubled to build more homes which would bring down the cost of housing and reduce benefit bills rather than hurting the most vulnerable.

that the cost of short-term discretionary housing payments for those unjustly penalised is undermining councils' capacity to build the new social housing that could tackle the problem.

Policies destroying peoples lifes.
This ill-conceived policy should be repealed and efforts redoubled to build more homes which would bring down the cost of housing and reduce benefit bills rather than hurting the most vulnerable. that the cost of short-term discretionary housing payments for those unjustly penalised is undermining councils' capacity to build the new social housing that could tackle the problem. Policies destroying peoples lifes. John Trollston
  • Score: -8

10:23am Mon 7 Apr 14

Robh says...

It would seem that councils were made aware of this over 2 years before it was introduced but have still been caught on the hop without a sufficient number of downgrade properties.
It would seem that councils were made aware of this over 2 years before it was introduced but have still been caught on the hop without a sufficient number of downgrade properties. Robh
  • Score: 7

11:18am Mon 7 Apr 14

Spurs Fan says...

Whatever you call this a tax or a spare room subsidy it is not really working. 6 out of ten housing benefit claimants are low waged working people so it is not really encouraging most people into work as was one of it's stated aims. There are not enough smaller properties to downsize into so it is failing another of its aims. Most under occupiers of social housing are pensioners who are exempt from the tax/subsidy. It has been reported that although it is supposedly saving £1m per week administration costs more than that figure. This policy was introduced retrospectively so even if you were given a property too big for you by your landlord years ago, you still have to pay the tax/subsidy. When LHA was introduced for private renters in 2008 it only applied to under occupiers of properties from that date. This policy was introduced for purely political reasons. It makes no sense when you can legitimately downsize from your too big council house at £90 pw to a 1 bed housing association flat at £130 pw and get the rent on the flat paid in full, yet not the rent on the cheaper council house. Call this what you like but it is a farce!
Whatever you call this a tax or a spare room subsidy it is not really working. 6 out of ten housing benefit claimants are low waged working people so it is not really encouraging most people into work as was one of it's stated aims. There are not enough smaller properties to downsize into so it is failing another of its aims. Most under occupiers of social housing are pensioners who are exempt from the tax/subsidy. It has been reported that although it is supposedly saving £1m per week administration costs more than that figure. This policy was introduced retrospectively so even if you were given a property too big for you by your landlord years ago, you still have to pay the tax/subsidy. When LHA was introduced for private renters in 2008 it only applied to under occupiers of properties from that date. This policy was introduced for purely political reasons. It makes no sense when you can legitimately downsize from your too big council house at £90 pw to a 1 bed housing association flat at £130 pw and get the rent on the flat paid in full, yet not the rent on the cheaper council house. Call this what you like but it is a farce! Spurs Fan
  • Score: 9

12:22pm Mon 7 Apr 14

beach1e says...

there is no such thing as a bedroom tax. what there are are a lot of people too selfish to allow others to have the benefit of a helping hand in getting housing. there are people that think social housing is their right and that they are entitled to whatever they want at the expense of people that work hard and pay their taxes. people that choose to live in houses that are too big for their family need is fine, so long as you choose to pay for that and don't deprive others whose need is greater if it is paid for by the public purse. its a disgrace that people live in houses too big for their needs,choose to go into arrears and don't have any consequence to their rotten actions. people who don't have priviledge of being funded by tax payers and have to buy their homes face the prospect of having their homes repossessed when times are hard so they downsize if they can, they don't have the luxury that people that these scroungers have.
there is no such thing as a bedroom tax. what there are are a lot of people too selfish to allow others to have the benefit of a helping hand in getting housing. there are people that think social housing is their right and that they are entitled to whatever they want at the expense of people that work hard and pay their taxes. people that choose to live in houses that are too big for their family need is fine, so long as you choose to pay for that and don't deprive others whose need is greater if it is paid for by the public purse. its a disgrace that people live in houses too big for their needs,choose to go into arrears and don't have any consequence to their rotten actions. people who don't have priviledge of being funded by tax payers and have to buy their homes face the prospect of having their homes repossessed when times are hard so they downsize if they can, they don't have the luxury that people that these scroungers have. beach1e
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

It's not a tax!
All the "experts" are at it again.
Not sure why they've had to use different logins to air their view.

Perhaps they should try getting elected
It's not a tax! All the "experts" are at it again. Not sure why they've had to use different logins to air their view. Perhaps they should try getting elected Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: -4

12:45pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

People are very quick to judge and make that same sweeping judgement for all cases.
Maybe you should read and listen to individuals before making judgement?
People are very quick to judge and make that same sweeping judgement for all cases. Maybe you should read and listen to individuals before making judgement? Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Mon 7 Apr 14

madreeves says...

A spare room in any house is an attractive rental proposition to get a nice bit of extra income. I'm not suggesting that all tenants do this but, hey, the ability to do it is there, cash in hand, and who's going to check up?
A spare room in any house is an attractive rental proposition to get a nice bit of extra income. I'm not suggesting that all tenants do this but, hey, the ability to do it is there, cash in hand, and who's going to check up? madreeves
  • Score: -4

1:40pm Mon 7 Apr 14

John Trollston says...

That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda,

he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion.
This is where most of it goes -
Working people - £42 Billion.

Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion.
Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion.

Unemployed people - £5 Billion.

The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere.

wasting -
The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%.
Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits)

Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals.
I could go on.

£25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year.

People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons.

Maria Miller anyone?
That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda, he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion. This is where most of it goes - Working people - £42 Billion. Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion. Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion. Unemployed people - £5 Billion. The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere. wasting - The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%. Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits) Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals. I could go on. £25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year. People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast. PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons. Maria Miller anyone? John Trollston
  • Score: 4

2:38pm Mon 7 Apr 14

trolley dolley says...

I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available.

If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately.

As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes.

Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong.

It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there.

I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are.
I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available. If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately. As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes. Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong. It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there. I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are. trolley dolley
  • Score: 6

2:46pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

John Trollston wrote:
That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda,

he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion.
This is where most of it goes -
Working people - £42 Billion.

Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion.
Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion.

Unemployed people - £5 Billion.

The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere.

wasting -
The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%.
Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits)

Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals.
I could go on.

£25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year.

People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons.

Maria Miller anyone?
Brilliant post. Probably wasted in the bigoted idiots on here though.
[quote][p][bold]John Trollston[/bold] wrote: That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda, he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion. This is where most of it goes - Working people - £42 Billion. Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion. Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion. Unemployed people - £5 Billion. The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere. wasting - The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%. Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits) Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals. I could go on. £25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year. People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast. PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons. Maria Miller anyone?[/p][/quote]Brilliant post. Probably wasted in the bigoted idiots on here though. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 3

3:24pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Spurs Fan says...

trolley dolley - the subsidy (if you wish to call it that) is introduced as soon as you have a spare room under the legislation. It does not matter if there is no where smaller to move too. If you under occupy you pay. Snag is the largest group of under occupiers are of pensionable age and are not effected. The people most affected by this legislation are the working poor and the disabled. Social housing should be for those in greatest need but this legislation is perverse insofar as you can downsize to a smaller property at a bigger rent and get the higher rent paid in full. My gut feeling is this was introduced to pander to the Conservative party's traditional Daily Mail reading following.
trolley dolley - the subsidy (if you wish to call it that) is introduced as soon as you have a spare room under the legislation. It does not matter if there is no where smaller to move too. If you under occupy you pay. Snag is the largest group of under occupiers are of pensionable age and are not effected. The people most affected by this legislation are the working poor and the disabled. Social housing should be for those in greatest need but this legislation is perverse insofar as you can downsize to a smaller property at a bigger rent and get the higher rent paid in full. My gut feeling is this was introduced to pander to the Conservative party's traditional Daily Mail reading following. Spurs Fan
  • Score: 2

3:26pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Spurs Fan says...

John Trollston, excellent post but probably wasted as Davey Gravey says!
John Trollston, excellent post but probably wasted as Davey Gravey says! Spurs Fan
  • Score: 2

3:42pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Thoughtfulness says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Only a month left of our awful Tory council, and a year of the condems in government.
Gonna be leaving a big mess to sort out though.
yes, thank God Labour left the economy in such great shape, or who knows where we'd be?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Only a month left of our awful Tory council, and a year of the condems in government. Gonna be leaving a big mess to sort out though.[/p][/quote]yes, thank God Labour left the economy in such great shape, or who knows where we'd be? Thoughtfulness
  • Score: 9

3:43pm Mon 7 Apr 14

The Real Librarian says...

swindondad wrote:
The mere fact that a bunch of left wing extremists like the so called “Swindon People’s Assembly” is against any policy seems a good reason to support it.
There seem only to be about 10 or 11 of them, so no worries really
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: The mere fact that a bunch of left wing extremists like the so called “Swindon People’s Assembly” is against any policy seems a good reason to support it.[/p][/quote]There seem only to be about 10 or 11 of them, so no worries really The Real Librarian
  • Score: -1

4:52pm Mon 7 Apr 14

nigelej says...

John Trollston wrote:
That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda,

he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion.
This is where most of it goes -
Working people - £42 Billion.

Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion.
Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion.

Unemployed people - £5 Billion.

The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere.

wasting -
The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%.
Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits)

Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals.
I could go on.

£25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year.

People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons.

Maria Miller anyone?
Excellent post very well put .thank you for highlighting those facts .ive said before people need to be careful what they wish for .thay never know when they might need help .
[quote][p][bold]John Trollston[/bold] wrote: That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda, he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion. This is where most of it goes - Working people - £42 Billion. Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion. Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion. Unemployed people - £5 Billion. The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere. wasting - The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%. Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits) Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals. I could go on. £25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year. People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast. PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons. Maria Miller anyone?[/p][/quote]Excellent post very well put .thank you for highlighting those facts .ive said before people need to be careful what they wish for .thay never know when they might need help . nigelej
  • Score: 7

6:03pm Mon 7 Apr 14

bussy1 says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Only a month left of our awful Tory council, and a year of the condems in government.
Gonna be leaving a big mess to sort out though.
That last comment is so laughable, the gall of Labour supporters is priceless :0)
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Only a month left of our awful Tory council, and a year of the condems in government. Gonna be leaving a big mess to sort out though.[/p][/quote]That last comment is so laughable, the gall of Labour supporters is priceless :0) bussy1
  • Score: -1

6:47pm Mon 7 Apr 14

stfcdod says...

John Trollston wrote:
That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda,

he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion.
This is where most of it goes -
Working people - £42 Billion.

Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion.
Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion.

Unemployed people - £5 Billion.

The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere.

wasting -
The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%.
Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits)

Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals.
I could go on.

£25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year.

People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons.

Maria Miller anyone?
You'd make a brilliant Labour chancellor..........
......your figures don't add up mate.
[quote][p][bold]John Trollston[/bold] wrote: That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda, he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion. This is where most of it goes - Working people - £42 Billion. Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion. Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion. Unemployed people - £5 Billion. The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere. wasting - The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%. Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits) Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals. I could go on. £25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year. People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast. PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons. Maria Miller anyone?[/p][/quote]You'd make a brilliant Labour chancellor.......... ......your figures don't add up mate. stfcdod
  • Score: -4

6:52pm Mon 7 Apr 14

nigelej says...

stfcdod wrote:
John Trollston wrote:
That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda,

he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion.
This is where most of it goes -
Working people - £42 Billion.

Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion.
Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion.

Unemployed people - £5 Billion.

The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere.

wasting -
The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%.
Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits)

Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals.
I could go on.

£25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year.

People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons.

Maria Miller anyone?
You'd make a brilliant Labour chancellor..........

......your figures don't add up mate.
Perhaps you could break it down and show him what is wrong with his figures .so we will know what's right and what's wrong
[quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Trollston[/bold] wrote: That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda, he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion. This is where most of it goes - Working people - £42 Billion. Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion. Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion. Unemployed people - £5 Billion. The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere. wasting - The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%. Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits) Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals. I could go on. £25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year. People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast. PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons. Maria Miller anyone?[/p][/quote]You'd make a brilliant Labour chancellor.......... ......your figures don't add up mate.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you could break it down and show him what is wrong with his figures .so we will know what's right and what's wrong nigelej
  • Score: -4

7:25pm Mon 7 Apr 14

bussy1 says...

John Trollston wrote:
That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda,

he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion.
This is where most of it goes -
Working people - £42 Billion.

Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion.
Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion.

Unemployed people - £5 Billion.

The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere.

wasting -
The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%.
Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits)

Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals.
I could go on.

£25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year.

People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons.

Maria Miller anyone?
"People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast" Or in your case John, lunch and dinner as well.
[quote][p][bold]John Trollston[/bold] wrote: That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda, he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion. This is where most of it goes - Working people - £42 Billion. Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion. Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion. Unemployed people - £5 Billion. The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere. wasting - The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%. Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits) Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals. I could go on. £25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year. People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast. PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons. Maria Miller anyone?[/p][/quote]"People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast" Or in your case John, lunch and dinner as well. bussy1
  • Score: -4

7:34pm Mon 7 Apr 14

faatmaan says...

for a large amount of working people living in Swindon it is fast becoming like most of the rest southern England where they can neither afford to buy or rent, this is pushing working people into abject poverty, depression and so on. The council need to make a decision on whether they constructively support the working community, prioritise housing for the local people who can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt their entitlement, disabled people should be housed according to their needs ( after a strict medical assessment by impartial medical professionals), the exchange system needs to policed in greater depth to stop people obtaining larger properties by having family members temporarily move in to make the numbers up and then when swapped disappear, the frauds are endless. Being on the electoral roll should be a legal requirement if obtaining housing via the council. Random checks need to be made to establish levels of occupation, as quite often people as previously mentioned have extra undeclared occupiers and in receipt of various income based benefits. more cross checking with the tax and national insurance addresses may also yield more culprits, social housing was originally provided for those who fell on hard times, now people get their names down on the register almost as soon as they leave school.
for a large amount of working people living in Swindon it is fast becoming like most of the rest southern England where they can neither afford to buy or rent, this is pushing working people into abject poverty, depression and so on. The council need to make a decision on whether they constructively support the working community, prioritise housing for the local people who can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt their entitlement, disabled people should be housed according to their needs ( after a strict medical assessment by impartial medical professionals), the exchange system needs to policed in greater depth to stop people obtaining larger properties by having family members temporarily move in to make the numbers up and then when swapped disappear, the frauds are endless. Being on the electoral roll should be a legal requirement if obtaining housing via the council. Random checks need to be made to establish levels of occupation, as quite often people as previously mentioned have extra undeclared occupiers and in receipt of various income based benefits. more cross checking with the tax and national insurance addresses may also yield more culprits, social housing was originally provided for those who fell on hard times, now people get their names down on the register almost as soon as they leave school. faatmaan
  • Score: -2

7:57pm Mon 7 Apr 14

attilla the hun says...

nigelej wrote:
attilla the hun wrote:
any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft.
as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax.
there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think
So if sadly you lost your job or fell very ill you wouldn't want to claim anything then . Of course you would you could get help with your mortgage .ive said before on here and got shot down but I will say it again you should all be careful for what you wish for .we never know when we may need support probably 1% of claimants don't want to work and choose this life but must wouldn't wish this life at all and its so sad that society is being split delebaroutly by this government . Who as you can see from last week are greedy and corrupt .
Oh I'd take a cash that sum from the pension I have paid into the last 35 years and pay my mortgage off and still have enough to live on, by the way joining the scheme was optional but planning for my old age seemed like a good idea
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]attilla the hun[/bold] wrote: any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft. as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax. there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think[/p][/quote]So if sadly you lost your job or fell very ill you wouldn't want to claim anything then . Of course you would you could get help with your mortgage .ive said before on here and got shot down but I will say it again you should all be careful for what you wish for .we never know when we may need support probably 1% of claimants don't want to work and choose this life but must wouldn't wish this life at all and its so sad that society is being split delebaroutly by this government . Who as you can see from last week are greedy and corrupt .[/p][/quote]Oh I'd take a cash that sum from the pension I have paid into the last 35 years and pay my mortgage off and still have enough to live on, by the way joining the scheme was optional but planning for my old age seemed like a good idea attilla the hun
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Mon 7 Apr 14

nigelej says...

attilla the hun wrote:
nigelej wrote:
attilla the hun wrote:
any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft.
as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax.
there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think
So if sadly you lost your job or fell very ill you wouldn't want to claim anything then . Of course you would you could get help with your mortgage .ive said before on here and got shot down but I will say it again you should all be careful for what you wish for .we never know when we may need support probably 1% of claimants don't want to work and choose this life but must wouldn't wish this life at all and its so sad that society is being split delebaroutly by this government . Who as you can see from last week are greedy and corrupt .
Oh I'd take a cash that sum from the pension I have paid into the last 35 years and pay my mortgage off and still have enough to live on, by the way joining the scheme was optional but planning for my old age seemed like a good idea
That's good for you and I'm pleased for you but not everyone can have that chance and need support it does not mean they haven't worked .by the way I had a pension and the government had it of me bless them . Mind I'm very greatful for the support I do get and I don't begrudge anybody having what they have worked hard for .
[quote][p][bold]attilla the hun[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]attilla the hun[/bold] wrote: any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft. as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax. there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think[/p][/quote]So if sadly you lost your job or fell very ill you wouldn't want to claim anything then . Of course you would you could get help with your mortgage .ive said before on here and got shot down but I will say it again you should all be careful for what you wish for .we never know when we may need support probably 1% of claimants don't want to work and choose this life but must wouldn't wish this life at all and its so sad that society is being split delebaroutly by this government . Who as you can see from last week are greedy and corrupt .[/p][/quote]Oh I'd take a cash that sum from the pension I have paid into the last 35 years and pay my mortgage off and still have enough to live on, by the way joining the scheme was optional but planning for my old age seemed like a good idea[/p][/quote]That's good for you and I'm pleased for you but not everyone can have that chance and need support it does not mean they haven't worked .by the way I had a pension and the government had it of me bless them . Mind I'm very greatful for the support I do get and I don't begrudge anybody having what they have worked hard for . nigelej
  • Score: -4

9:36pm Mon 7 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

nigelej wrote:
John Trollston wrote:
That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda,

he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion.
This is where most of it goes -
Working people - £42 Billion.

Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion.
Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion.

Unemployed people - £5 Billion.

The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere.

wasting -
The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%.
Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits)

Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals.
I could go on.

£25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year.

People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons.

Maria Miller anyone?
Excellent post very well put .thank you for highlighting those facts .ive said before people need to be careful what they wish for .thay never know when they might need help .
And a few people have said to you before, no one minds helping those who need it, it is those that don't but can't be bothered to help themselves that drain the welfare state of money that could and should be used for those in real need. We all know what happened to you and yes of course you should be helped. And so that you know I hate scrounges and cheats on all levels, not just welfare, but tax cheats, expenses claim cheats, bootleg goods cheats, and especially those who should know better and set an example.
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Trollston[/bold] wrote: That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda, he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion. This is where most of it goes - Working people - £42 Billion. Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion. Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion. Unemployed people - £5 Billion. The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere. wasting - The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%. Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits) Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals. I could go on. £25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year. People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast. PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons. Maria Miller anyone?[/p][/quote]Excellent post very well put .thank you for highlighting those facts .ive said before people need to be careful what they wish for .thay never know when they might need help .[/p][/quote]And a few people have said to you before, no one minds helping those who need it, it is those that don't but can't be bothered to help themselves that drain the welfare state of money that could and should be used for those in real need. We all know what happened to you and yes of course you should be helped. And so that you know I hate scrounges and cheats on all levels, not just welfare, but tax cheats, expenses claim cheats, bootleg goods cheats, and especially those who should know better and set an example. house on the hill
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Mon 7 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
People are very quick to judge and make that same sweeping judgement for all cases.
Maybe you should read and listen to individuals before making judgement?
Have you ever worked in social housing then? Try being a housing officer for a number of years and see if you still think the same way, I guarantee you won't when you see the reality of it all!
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People are very quick to judge and make that same sweeping judgement for all cases. Maybe you should read and listen to individuals before making judgement?[/p][/quote]Have you ever worked in social housing then? Try being a housing officer for a number of years and see if you still think the same way, I guarantee you won't when you see the reality of it all! house on the hill
  • Score: 0

10:04pm Mon 7 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

A number of posters on here have said social housing should only be for the needy - why? Is it unreasonable for people to have security of tenure, and not be under threat of having to move every 6 months? In terms of financial value, isn't it better that housing benefit gets recycled by paying Council rents rather than going into the pockets of private landlords? The housing market is hideously distorted, and a lot of hard working families on low pay can't afford either private rents or to buy....but as a society we need essential jobs filled, but want to keep wages depressed as much as possible.

The answer is build loads of good quality council housing, have it as a a public asset, it'll pay for itself many times over. Stop council house sales - if you can afford to buy, buy on the open market. Council house sales was a cynical attempt to buy votes from greedy b@stards who were quite happy to make profits at the expense of the rest of us, a bit like those who recently bought Royal Mail shares.....but that's another story
A number of posters on here have said social housing should only be for the needy - why? Is it unreasonable for people to have security of tenure, and not be under threat of having to move every 6 months? In terms of financial value, isn't it better that housing benefit gets recycled by paying Council rents rather than going into the pockets of private landlords? The housing market is hideously distorted, and a lot of hard working families on low pay can't afford either private rents or to buy....but as a society we need essential jobs filled, but want to keep wages depressed as much as possible. The answer is build loads of good quality council housing, have it as a a public asset, it'll pay for itself many times over. Stop council house sales - if you can afford to buy, buy on the open market. Council house sales was a cynical attempt to buy votes from greedy b@stards who were quite happy to make profits at the expense of the rest of us, a bit like those who recently bought Royal Mail shares.....but that's another story BeardyBill
  • Score: 4

11:43pm Mon 7 Apr 14

lisers says...

Traditional wrote:
How exactly is this government policy cruel? The house belongs to the state, and the state is there to provide housing for those that need it. Not prop up a lifestyle! The house belongs to the state not the occupant, so people saying its "My house" are mistaken. You must accept the fact that it is not yours!
OK - lets see all the left wingers give me a negative arrow.
il tell you why its cruel it affects mostly disabled people who have had adaptions for them to live in the property and seeing as there are too few smaller properties to move to never mind the costs to adapt the new premises ,in some parts of the uk 3 and 4 bedroom homes are being left empty because people don't want the hassle of moving in and having to pay bedroom tax later on how is that helping matters and then we have the likes of some holier than thou on here . trying to be derogatory by calling others left wingers .i voted conservative always have until Cameron and his cronies .so what is your suggestion start opening workhouses
[quote][p][bold]Traditional[/bold] wrote: How exactly is this government policy cruel? The house belongs to the state, and the state is there to provide housing for those that need it. Not prop up a lifestyle! The house belongs to the state not the occupant, so people saying its "My house" are mistaken. You must accept the fact that it is not yours! OK - lets see all the left wingers give me a negative arrow.[/p][/quote]il tell you why its cruel it affects mostly disabled people who have had adaptions for them to live in the property and seeing as there are too few smaller properties to move to never mind the costs to adapt the new premises ,in some parts of the uk 3 and 4 bedroom homes are being left empty because people don't want the hassle of moving in and having to pay bedroom tax later on how is that helping matters and then we have the likes of some holier than thou on here . trying to be derogatory by calling others left wingers .i voted conservative always have until Cameron and his cronies .so what is your suggestion start opening workhouses lisers
  • Score: 0

11:51pm Mon 7 Apr 14

lisers says...

stfcdod wrote:
Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say.
By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.
this affects hard working people who have to have there wages subsidised by the taxpayer too you know it also affects people who have worked all there lives then become redundant it affects the disabled more than anyone else affected they have had adaptions to be able to live in the property so what should they do and if it was as simple as you seem to think it is why do you think people are protesting there is a lack of small properties in case you were unaware of the fact ,you call it what you want but i call it a tax because if your being charged for an extra room in 2014 we will be back to the window tax before we know it
[quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say. By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.[/p][/quote]this affects hard working people who have to have there wages subsidised by the taxpayer too you know it also affects people who have worked all there lives then become redundant it affects the disabled more than anyone else affected they have had adaptions to be able to live in the property so what should they do and if it was as simple as you seem to think it is why do you think people are protesting there is a lack of small properties in case you were unaware of the fact ,you call it what you want but i call it a tax because if your being charged for an extra room in 2014 we will be back to the window tax before we know it lisers
  • Score: 1

11:55pm Mon 7 Apr 14

lisers says...

stfcdod wrote:
Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say.
By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.
why are pensioners not affected in this thats what id like to know
[quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: Why should people be given handouts just because they have a spare bedroom? It just doesn't make sense, despite what the communist leader of this protest might say. By the way, it isn't a tax, it just means that they're getting less of a handout from hard working people and also pensioners.[/p][/quote]why are pensioners not affected in this thats what id like to know lisers
  • Score: -1

12:18am Tue 8 Apr 14

lisers says...

attilla the hun wrote:
any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft.
as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax.
there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think
so you were happy enough to by a council house that was bought with a subsidy from the government either by you or the one before you and sold at a lower price but you complain about someone having a spare room yes right selfish and then you complain about woman with 3 kids down the road who has everything you have and never done a days work well unless you have been paying her a visit how could you know she has what you have and how do you know she is not working she could be working from home .im not a left wing loony a tory my whole life till cameron and co now i have seen the errors of my ways .and yes you are selfish the above comments prove that it also proves you know nothing of what you talk about as most people are out of work no longer than 6 months i suggest you do some research
[quote][p][bold]attilla the hun[/bold] wrote: any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft. as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax. there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think[/p][/quote]so you were happy enough to by a council house that was bought with a subsidy from the government either by you or the one before you and sold at a lower price but you complain about someone having a spare room yes right selfish and then you complain about woman with 3 kids down the road who has everything you have and never done a days work well unless you have been paying her a visit how could you know she has what you have and how do you know she is not working she could be working from home .im not a left wing loony a tory my whole life till cameron and co now i have seen the errors of my ways .and yes you are selfish the above comments prove that it also proves you know nothing of what you talk about as most people are out of work no longer than 6 months i suggest you do some research lisers
  • Score: -1

12:27am Tue 8 Apr 14

lisers says...

semitonic wrote:
Last I heard it was costing more to implement than it was saving.
yes your right and some parts of the country 3 and 4 bedroom houses are being left empty with no income from them at all then we have the fact that this TAX mostly affects the disabled and when you consider thousands of pounds have been spent adapting the homes for them in the first place and even if they are able to find somewhere smaller the council have the expense of adaption again., no intelligent argument the best they can give is that people complaining are left wing loonies .just shows people are uncaring and selfish
[quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: Last I heard it was costing more to implement than it was saving.[/p][/quote]yes your right and some parts of the country 3 and 4 bedroom houses are being left empty with no income from them at all then we have the fact that this TAX mostly affects the disabled and when you consider thousands of pounds have been spent adapting the homes for them in the first place and even if they are able to find somewhere smaller the council have the expense of adaption again., no intelligent argument the best they can give is that people complaining are left wing loonies .just shows people are uncaring and selfish lisers
  • Score: -1

12:34am Tue 8 Apr 14

lisers says...

nigelej wrote:
attilla the hun wrote:
any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft.
as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax.
there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think
So if sadly you lost your job or fell very ill you wouldn't want to claim anything then . Of course you would you could get help with your mortgage .ive said before on here and got shot down but I will say it again you should all be careful for what you wish for .we never know when we may need support probably 1% of claimants don't want to work and choose this life but must wouldn't wish this life at all and its so sad that society is being split delebaroutly by this government . Who as you can see from last week are greedy and corrupt .
most unemployed are only out of work for six months but the government wont tell you that though will they it doesn't fit with there scroungers and shirkers rhetoric and it is sad and disgusting how this government has turned the poor against the poorest and vulnerable that is why i will never ever vote conservative again
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]attilla the hun[/bold] wrote: any saving on the benefits bill can only be a good thing, as a single, overtaxed working man, I want the state to stop taking money that I have earned from my salary and giving it away to benefits claimants and foreign aid grants, some may say it's selfish I say it's immoral and nothing more than legalised theft. as an aside, I struggle to pay a mortgage, maintain my home (an ex council house) without any help apart from a small discount on the council tax. there's a young woman two doors down from me, living in a 3 bed house, three children by different fathers, since she has lived there she has never done a days work yet she has what I have for nothing, how can that be right or fair, as for the usual left wing loonies who cares what they think[/p][/quote]So if sadly you lost your job or fell very ill you wouldn't want to claim anything then . Of course you would you could get help with your mortgage .ive said before on here and got shot down but I will say it again you should all be careful for what you wish for .we never know when we may need support probably 1% of claimants don't want to work and choose this life but must wouldn't wish this life at all and its so sad that society is being split delebaroutly by this government . Who as you can see from last week are greedy and corrupt .[/p][/quote]most unemployed are only out of work for six months but the government wont tell you that though will they it doesn't fit with there scroungers and shirkers rhetoric and it is sad and disgusting how this government has turned the poor against the poorest and vulnerable that is why i will never ever vote conservative again lisers
  • Score: 0

12:39am Tue 8 Apr 14

lisers says...

beach1e wrote:
there is no such thing as a bedroom tax. what there are are a lot of people too selfish to allow others to have the benefit of a helping hand in getting housing. there are people that think social housing is their right and that they are entitled to whatever they want at the expense of people that work hard and pay their taxes. people that choose to live in houses that are too big for their family need is fine, so long as you choose to pay for that and don't deprive others whose need is greater if it is paid for by the public purse. its a disgrace that people live in houses too big for their needs,choose to go into arrears and don't have any consequence to their rotten actions. people who don't have priviledge of being funded by tax payers and have to buy their homes face the prospect of having their homes repossessed when times are hard so they downsize if they can, they don't have the luxury that people that these scroungers have.
load of tosh start reading up on it loads of real and clear information on the internet to put you right
[quote][p][bold]beach1e[/bold] wrote: there is no such thing as a bedroom tax. what there are are a lot of people too selfish to allow others to have the benefit of a helping hand in getting housing. there are people that think social housing is their right and that they are entitled to whatever they want at the expense of people that work hard and pay their taxes. people that choose to live in houses that are too big for their family need is fine, so long as you choose to pay for that and don't deprive others whose need is greater if it is paid for by the public purse. its a disgrace that people live in houses too big for their needs,choose to go into arrears and don't have any consequence to their rotten actions. people who don't have priviledge of being funded by tax payers and have to buy their homes face the prospect of having their homes repossessed when times are hard so they downsize if they can, they don't have the luxury that people that these scroungers have.[/p][/quote]load of tosh start reading up on it loads of real and clear information on the internet to put you right lisers
  • Score: 0

12:42am Tue 8 Apr 14

lisers says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
John Trollston wrote:
That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda,

he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion.
This is where most of it goes -
Working people - £42 Billion.

Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion.
Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion.

Unemployed people - £5 Billion.

The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere.

wasting -
The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%.
Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits)

Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals.
I could go on.

£25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year.

People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons.

Maria Miller anyone?
Brilliant post. Probably wasted in the bigoted idiots on here though.
yes brilliant shame the idiots posts are all about them then they call others selfish
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Trollston[/bold] wrote: That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda, he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion. This is where most of it goes - Working people - £42 Billion. Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion. Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion. Unemployed people - £5 Billion. The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere. wasting - The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%. Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits) Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals. I could go on. £25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year. People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast. PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons. Maria Miller anyone?[/p][/quote]Brilliant post. Probably wasted in the bigoted idiots on here though.[/p][/quote]yes brilliant shame the idiots posts are all about them then they call others selfish lisers
  • Score: -1

12:45am Tue 8 Apr 14

lisers says...

trolley dolley wrote:
I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available.

If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately.

As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes.

Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong.

It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there.

I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are.
ever heard of secure tenancy
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available. If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately. As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes. Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong. It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there. I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are.[/p][/quote]ever heard of secure tenancy lisers
  • Score: -1

8:37am Tue 8 Apr 14

stfcdod says...

lisers wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available.

If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately.

As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes.

Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong.

It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there.

I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are.
ever heard of secure tenancy
You are one very sad person with all those responses. However, if you want to continue supporting this communist inspired 'massive', protest, you go ahead. How many of the masses are supporting it? Six, or was it seven?
[quote][p][bold]lisers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available. If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately. As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes. Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong. It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there. I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are.[/p][/quote]ever heard of secure tenancy[/p][/quote]You are one very sad person with all those responses. However, if you want to continue supporting this communist inspired 'massive', protest, you go ahead. How many of the masses are supporting it? Six, or was it seven? stfcdod
  • Score: -1

9:30am Tue 8 Apr 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Nobody should be getting more benefits than they have paid in themselves in income tax and NICs
Nobody should be getting more benefits than they have paid in themselves in income tax and NICs A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -2

9:32am Tue 8 Apr 14

Spurs Fan says...

stfcdod wrote:
lisers wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available.

If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately.

As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes.

Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong.

It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there.

I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are.
ever heard of secure tenancy
You are one very sad person with all those responses. However, if you want to continue supporting this communist inspired 'massive', protest, you go ahead. How many of the masses are supporting it? Six, or was it seven?
Stfcdod, why resort to calling an individual "very sad" Lisers was making some sound points while all you have done is called a poster names and a communist supporter. Why not add something to the debate? What ever your views on the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax, it costs more to implement than it saves, it mainly targets the waged poor and the disabled, both facts. If you want to support the policy in light of the facts that is your privileged, However, personal insults show you in a very poor light.
[quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available. If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately. As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes. Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong. It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there. I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are.[/p][/quote]ever heard of secure tenancy[/p][/quote]You are one very sad person with all those responses. However, if you want to continue supporting this communist inspired 'massive', protest, you go ahead. How many of the masses are supporting it? Six, or was it seven?[/p][/quote]Stfcdod, why resort to calling an individual "very sad" Lisers was making some sound points while all you have done is called a poster names and a communist supporter. Why not add something to the debate? What ever your views on the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax, it costs more to implement than it saves, it mainly targets the waged poor and the disabled, both facts. If you want to support the policy in light of the facts that is your privileged, However, personal insults show you in a very poor light. Spurs Fan
  • Score: 1

9:33am Tue 8 Apr 14

Spurs Fan says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Nobody should be getting more benefits than they have paid in themselves in income tax and NICs
How would that work with disabled children A.Baron-Cohen?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Nobody should be getting more benefits than they have paid in themselves in income tax and NICs[/p][/quote]How would that work with disabled children A.Baron-Cohen? Spurs Fan
  • Score: 3

9:54am Tue 8 Apr 14

nigelej says...

This government have been brilliant at turning people against people the tax payer against the none tax payer . With lies after lies I have written to Cameron ,Osbourne, and IDS and challenged them on some of there lies and requested to prove I'm wrong . Not one of them replyd . I even called them liers so if I was wrong they could have got nasty but they didn't . The truth is there is very few people who would wish to be on benefits for a way of living .it is not fun ,you don't get loads no where near the £26,000 that they would have people believe . The biggest problem is that no one addresses is the very people most on here are anti aren't the ones being hounded by this government . Those that can work but choose not to rant being chased its the disabled and the severely sick . One myth they say when you are on Dla you weren't being checked and you were awarded it for life . Complete lie I know people who have been on this and have been assessed every couple of years . Also on the award paper work it clearly says you can be looked at .At any time . No different to this pips which at the moment is a shambles .
This government have been brilliant at turning people against people the tax payer against the none tax payer . With lies after lies I have written to Cameron ,Osbourne, and IDS and challenged them on some of there lies and requested to prove I'm wrong . Not one of them replyd . I even called them liers so if I was wrong they could have got nasty but they didn't . The truth is there is very few people who would wish to be on benefits for a way of living .it is not fun ,you don't get loads no where near the £26,000 that they would have people believe . The biggest problem is that no one addresses is the very people most on here are anti aren't the ones being hounded by this government . Those that can work but choose not to rant being chased its the disabled and the severely sick . One myth they say when you are on Dla you weren't being checked and you were awarded it for life . Complete lie I know people who have been on this and have been assessed every couple of years . Also on the award paper work it clearly says you can be looked at .At any time . No different to this pips which at the moment is a shambles . nigelej
  • Score: 0

10:09am Tue 8 Apr 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Nobody should be getting more benefits than they have paid in themselves in income tax and NICs
How would that work with disabled children A.Baron-Cohen?
Aren't children the responsibility of the parents?
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Nobody should be getting more benefits than they have paid in themselves in income tax and NICs[/p][/quote]How would that work with disabled children A.Baron-Cohen?[/p][/quote]Aren't children the responsibility of the parents? A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 0

10:35am Tue 8 Apr 14

nigelej says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Spurs Fan wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Nobody should be getting more benefits than they have paid in themselves in income tax and NICs
How would that work with disabled children A.Baron-Cohen?
Aren't children the responsibility of the parents?
Not when they grow up and no longer have parents .
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Nobody should be getting more benefits than they have paid in themselves in income tax and NICs[/p][/quote]How would that work with disabled children A.Baron-Cohen?[/p][/quote]Aren't children the responsibility of the parents?[/p][/quote]Not when they grow up and no longer have parents . nigelej
  • Score: 3

10:47am Tue 8 Apr 14

stfcdod says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
stfcdod wrote:
lisers wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available.

If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately.

As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes.

Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong.

It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there.

I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are.
ever heard of secure tenancy
You are one very sad person with all those responses. However, if you want to continue supporting this communist inspired 'massive', protest, you go ahead. How many of the masses are supporting it? Six, or was it seven?
Stfcdod, why resort to calling an individual "very sad" Lisers was making some sound points while all you have done is called a poster names and a communist supporter. Why not add something to the debate? What ever your views on the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax, it costs more to implement than it saves, it mainly targets the waged poor and the disabled, both facts. If you want to support the policy in light of the facts that is your privileged, However, personal insults show you in a very poor light.
Lisers made nine comments on the trot. I think that's quite sad. As for the communist comment I believe that the leader of this 'mass', protest is a self admitted communist. If I am wrong on this I will hold my hands up.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: I am not sure when the subsidy is withdrawn but clearly it should only be done when people refuse to move. In other words it should not be withdrawn if smaller houses are not available. If anyone refuses to move for whatever reason the subsidy should be withdrawn immediately. As has been said previously, social housing is for people in real need and should not be a soft option. The tenants must understand that it is not their house and must abide with the landlords wishes. Too many people see a council house as theirs for life, that is both selfish and wrong. It is for people IN NEED and should be vacated when that need is no longer there. I wonder what the needs of Mr SH. and Mr Wk. are.[/p][/quote]ever heard of secure tenancy[/p][/quote]You are one very sad person with all those responses. However, if you want to continue supporting this communist inspired 'massive', protest, you go ahead. How many of the masses are supporting it? Six, or was it seven?[/p][/quote]Stfcdod, why resort to calling an individual "very sad" Lisers was making some sound points while all you have done is called a poster names and a communist supporter. Why not add something to the debate? What ever your views on the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax, it costs more to implement than it saves, it mainly targets the waged poor and the disabled, both facts. If you want to support the policy in light of the facts that is your privileged, However, personal insults show you in a very poor light.[/p][/quote]Lisers made nine comments on the trot. I think that's quite sad. As for the communist comment I believe that the leader of this 'mass', protest is a self admitted communist. If I am wrong on this I will hold my hands up. stfcdod
  • Score: -1

10:50am Tue 8 Apr 14

Spurs Fan says...

A Baron Cohen so if you have severely disabled child with twenty four hour care needs the parent should not only provide all the care but pay for it as well? Even our beloved prime minister claimed benefits for his late son. It is far to easy to say you should never have more out of the benefits system than you pay in but that is many case would not be practical. Say a young man is severely injured in a motorcycle accident in his twenties how can he have ever paid in enough for a life time of care. We live in a society where we have collective responsibility for each other and I am glad we do.
A Baron Cohen so if you have severely disabled child with twenty four hour care needs the parent should not only provide all the care but pay for it as well? Even our beloved prime minister claimed benefits for his late son. It is far to easy to say you should never have more out of the benefits system than you pay in but that is many case would not be practical. Say a young man is severely injured in a motorcycle accident in his twenties how can he have ever paid in enough for a life time of care. We live in a society where we have collective responsibility for each other and I am glad we do. Spurs Fan
  • Score: 4

11:00am Tue 8 Apr 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
A Baron Cohen so if you have severely disabled child with twenty four hour care needs the parent should not only provide all the care but pay for it as well? Even our beloved prime minister claimed benefits for his late son. It is far to easy to say you should never have more out of the benefits system than you pay in but that is many case would not be practical. Say a young man is severely injured in a motorcycle accident in his twenties how can he have ever paid in enough for a life time of care. We live in a society where we have collective responsibility for each other and I am glad we do.
Unless disability is the result of an accident (not at fault), then obviously this should be covered.
However if parents made the conscious decision to have a disabled child, then obviously they should be made to bear the cost of their decision.
Yes you are absolutely correct that we live in Society where we have a collective responsibility for each other, however most have forgotten that this principle goes both ways.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: A Baron Cohen so if you have severely disabled child with twenty four hour care needs the parent should not only provide all the care but pay for it as well? Even our beloved prime minister claimed benefits for his late son. It is far to easy to say you should never have more out of the benefits system than you pay in but that is many case would not be practical. Say a young man is severely injured in a motorcycle accident in his twenties how can he have ever paid in enough for a life time of care. We live in a society where we have collective responsibility for each other and I am glad we do.[/p][/quote]Unless disability is the result of an accident (not at fault), then obviously this should be covered. However if parents made the conscious decision to have a disabled child, then obviously they should be made to bear the cost of their decision. Yes you are absolutely correct that we live in Society where we have a collective responsibility for each other, however most have forgotten that this principle goes both ways. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -4

11:02am Tue 8 Apr 14

Spurs Fan says...

Stfcdod, the leaders of the protest are to my knowledge former trades unionists, that does not make them communists. In your opinion making nine comments maybe sad, but they were all trying to be constructive and trying to move the debate forward. It is very easy for people to post on this site using the cloak of anonymity to denigrate others. It is much harder to be respectful and constructive. I do not politically agree with many who post regularly on the adver site, but I would hope that I was respectful of people's opinions and likewise respected for my own.
Stfcdod, the leaders of the protest are to my knowledge former trades unionists, that does not make them communists. In your opinion making nine comments maybe sad, but they were all trying to be constructive and trying to move the debate forward. It is very easy for people to post on this site using the cloak of anonymity to denigrate others. It is much harder to be respectful and constructive. I do not politically agree with many who post regularly on the adver site, but I would hope that I was respectful of people's opinions and likewise respected for my own. Spurs Fan
  • Score: 5

11:06am Tue 8 Apr 14

Spurs Fan says...

A-baron cohen I am the father of a severely disabled young man myself. My son is in need of 24/7 care and has been since birth.. We never knew he would be born disabled. My wife and I have both given up more than you could ever imagine to look after him and will do until the day we die. I do find your remarks really difficult to understand.
A-baron cohen I am the father of a severely disabled young man myself. My son is in need of 24/7 care and has been since birth.. We never knew he would be born disabled. My wife and I have both given up more than you could ever imagine to look after him and will do until the day we die. I do find your remarks really difficult to understand. Spurs Fan
  • Score: 7

11:40am Tue 8 Apr 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
A-baron cohen I am the father of a severely disabled young man myself. My son is in need of 24/7 care and has been since birth.. We never knew he would be born disabled. My wife and I have both given up more than you could ever imagine to look after him and will do until the day we die. I do find your remarks really difficult to understand.
I really appreciate the difficulty of your situation, and by your account you are doing the right thing.
The point here is that Welfare is finite and is costing more and mortgaging future generation even those not yet born, do we have this right?
We must find a way to cut Welfare and the only way we can do this is by changing the way we think and go about our lives.
In many ways, welfare is keeping so many people in a permanent infantile state, we need to make people responsible for their actions and decisions.
This new world we live in, is much more competitive than it ever was, and we owe it to the next generations to hand over to them a country that is fit and prepared to face the challenges ahead, we cannot do that by saddling with a mountain of debts.
Tough decisions ahead for all of us, I am afraid.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: A-baron cohen I am the father of a severely disabled young man myself. My son is in need of 24/7 care and has been since birth.. We never knew he would be born disabled. My wife and I have both given up more than you could ever imagine to look after him and will do until the day we die. I do find your remarks really difficult to understand.[/p][/quote]I really appreciate the difficulty of your situation, and by your account you are doing the right thing. The point here is that Welfare is finite and is costing more and mortgaging future generation even those not yet born, do we have this right? We must find a way to cut Welfare and the only way we can do this is by changing the way we think and go about our lives. In many ways, welfare is keeping so many people in a permanent infantile state, we need to make people responsible for their actions and decisions. This new world we live in, is much more competitive than it ever was, and we owe it to the next generations to hand over to them a country that is fit and prepared to face the challenges ahead, we cannot do that by saddling with a mountain of debts. Tough decisions ahead for all of us, I am afraid. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -2

11:44am Tue 8 Apr 14

nigelej says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
A-baron cohen I am the father of a severely disabled young man myself. My son is in need of 24/7 care and has been since birth.. We never knew he would be born disabled. My wife and I have both given up more than you could ever imagine to look after him and will do until the day we die. I do find your remarks really difficult to understand.
I'm sorry your in that position and until people are they will never understand . I think over the past few months we have seen the divide of the haves and the have nots and alarmingly it appears the haves are more envious of the have nots . That is a sad state of affairs .i knew someone once who was like many of the people that comment on here who was anti social housing ,benefit scroungers etc . At 54 he lost his job and tried very hard to find another he had brought his council house but remortgaged so couldn't pay that . So didn't hesitate to go sign on Get is interest paid . Unfortunatly he still had his house repossessed so went straight to the council and was given a new home . Funny I wonder if he ever looks back at how he felt 3or 4 years ago .
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: A-baron cohen I am the father of a severely disabled young man myself. My son is in need of 24/7 care and has been since birth.. We never knew he would be born disabled. My wife and I have both given up more than you could ever imagine to look after him and will do until the day we die. I do find your remarks really difficult to understand.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry your in that position and until people are they will never understand . I think over the past few months we have seen the divide of the haves and the have nots and alarmingly it appears the haves are more envious of the have nots . That is a sad state of affairs .i knew someone once who was like many of the people that comment on here who was anti social housing ,benefit scroungers etc . At 54 he lost his job and tried very hard to find another he had brought his council house but remortgaged so couldn't pay that . So didn't hesitate to go sign on Get is interest paid . Unfortunatly he still had his house repossessed so went straight to the council and was given a new home . Funny I wonder if he ever looks back at how he felt 3or 4 years ago . nigelej
  • Score: -1

12:31pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

Don't bother trying to reason with idiots, it's utterly pointless and a waste of time. There are some right prize **** on this website.
Don't bother trying to reason with idiots, it's utterly pointless and a waste of time. There are some right prize **** on this website. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

Agreed ;-)
Agreed ;-) Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: -2

12:55pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

😜
😜 Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: -3

2:58pm Tue 8 Apr 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

nigelej wrote:
stfcdod wrote:
John Trollston wrote:
That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda,

he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion.
This is where most of it goes -
Working people - £42 Billion.

Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion.
Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion.

Unemployed people - £5 Billion.

The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere.

wasting -
The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%.
Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits)

Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals.
I could go on.

£25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year.

People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons.

Maria Miller anyone?
You'd make a brilliant Labour chancellor..........


......your figures don't add up mate.
Perhaps you could break it down and show him what is wrong with his figures .so we will know what's right and what's wrong
Well the very first figure is wrong for a start. Not much point in going beyond that.
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Trollston[/bold] wrote: That social security is not paid just to people who are the scroungers and shirkers of government propaganda, he total spend, excluding pensions, is about £108 Billion. This is where most of it goes - Working people - £42 Billion. Families with children (many working) - £37 Billion. Sick and disabled combined (including disabled children and pensioners) - £31 Billion. Unemployed people - £5 Billion. The cuts to what you call "welfare" are being achieved by massive spending elsewhere. wasting - The Work Programme - £7 Billion, failure rate 94%. Universal Credit - £12.8 Billion if ever rolled out nationwide (that's just the cost of implementation, not including the actual benefits) Work Capability Assessments - £115 Million a year, plus undisclosed sums to catch up, plus £60 Million a year in appeals. I could go on. £25 Billion of public funds that we pay for on reforms and schemes that do not work and which is five times more than we spend on unemployed people each year. People need to wake up and stop eating propaganda for breakfast. PEOPLE do want to "downsize" there are no properties for this.Stop victimising most desperate and and in need in our soceity and vent anger at these elitist baffons. Maria Miller anyone?[/p][/quote]You'd make a brilliant Labour chancellor.......... ......your figures don't add up mate.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you could break it down and show him what is wrong with his figures .so we will know what's right and what's wrong[/p][/quote]Well the very first figure is wrong for a start. Not much point in going beyond that. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: -4

3:19pm Tue 8 Apr 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

For reference tax payers pay around £6 per day on welfare, about twice as much as we spend on healthcare, and nearly three times as much as on education. Despite the protestation of certain groups such as this one, overall benefit spending increased last year.

How can anyone not see the potential consequences of not getting that spending under control?
For reference tax payers pay around £6 per day on welfare, about twice as much as we spend on healthcare, and nearly three times as much as on education. Despite the protestation of certain groups such as this one, overall benefit spending increased last year. How can anyone not see the potential consequences of not getting that spending under control? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: -2

8:14pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Russell Holland says...

People who cannot afford to pay rent whether they rent privately or from a social provider are eligible for housing benefit.

Many people who receive benefits work and many more would like to be able to work but they can't because of health issues, caring responsibilities or because they struggle to find work.

The under occupation rules bring in similar rules for housing benefit for people who rent social housing that already exist for people who rent in the private sector.

It is correct that Council rents are lower than private rents. However if a person moves from Council to private accommodation while their rent may increase (and therefore housing benefit increase too), it does free up a larger home for a family who will have a greater need of a larger home.

Personally I think there should have been a blanket exemption for people with disabilities, the same way that there was a blanket exemption for pensioners. However, the Government has provided significant additional funding for Councils to provide discretionary housing payments which means that for people with particular needs they can receive additional help. As such the impact on arrears overall has been fairly minimal.

The increase in the housing benefit bill has more to do with increases in private sector rather than public sector rents. However, private sector homes may be more modern and therefore have comparatively lower repair costs. However, for tenants in private sector homes which are not of a good standards, it is much harder to get issues resolved than it is for tenants in the public sector.

Emotive language from both sides on the welfare reform debate has a tendency to ignore the reality of the complexity of the situation.

In the case of housing benefit the real issue is the disparity between wages and the cost of housing.
People who cannot afford to pay rent whether they rent privately or from a social provider are eligible for housing benefit. Many people who receive benefits work and many more would like to be able to work but they can't because of health issues, caring responsibilities or because they struggle to find work. The under occupation rules bring in similar rules for housing benefit for people who rent social housing that already exist for people who rent in the private sector. It is correct that Council rents are lower than private rents. However if a person moves from Council to private accommodation while their rent may increase (and therefore housing benefit increase too), it does free up a larger home for a family who will have a greater need of a larger home. Personally I think there should have been a blanket exemption for people with disabilities, the same way that there was a blanket exemption for pensioners. However, the Government has provided significant additional funding for Councils to provide discretionary housing payments which means that for people with particular needs they can receive additional help. As such the impact on arrears overall has been fairly minimal. The increase in the housing benefit bill has more to do with increases in private sector rather than public sector rents. However, private sector homes may be more modern and therefore have comparatively lower repair costs. However, for tenants in private sector homes which are not of a good standards, it is much harder to get issues resolved than it is for tenants in the public sector. Emotive language from both sides on the welfare reform debate has a tendency to ignore the reality of the complexity of the situation. In the case of housing benefit the real issue is the disparity between wages and the cost of housing. Russell Holland
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Tue 8 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

@ A Baron-Cohen "However if parents made the conscious decision to have a disabled child, then obviously they should be made to bear the cost of their decision"......I'm genuinely shocked, I thought support for eugenics sort of fizzled out with the demise of the Third Reich. I bet you think you look really smart in your black shirt
@ A Baron-Cohen "However if parents made the conscious decision to have a disabled child, then obviously they should be made to bear the cost of their decision"......I'm genuinely shocked, I thought support for eugenics sort of fizzled out with the demise of the Third Reich. I bet you think you look really smart in your black shirt BeardyBill
  • Score: 2

11:42am Wed 9 Apr 14

trolley dolley says...

There are a few basic facts in life;

1. You must provide yourself with food.
2. You must provide yourself with shelter.
3. You must provide for any children you decide to have.
4. You cannot expect other people to do this for you.

So my message to all these people who complain is, don't expect too much CHARITY you will only be disappointed.
There are a few basic facts in life; 1. You must provide yourself with food. 2. You must provide yourself with shelter. 3. You must provide for any children you decide to have. 4. You cannot expect other people to do this for you. So my message to all these people who complain is, don't expect too much CHARITY you will only be disappointed. trolley dolley
  • Score: 2

11:59am Wed 9 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
There are a few basic facts in life;

1. You must provide yourself with food.
2. You must provide yourself with shelter.
3. You must provide for any children you decide to have.
4. You cannot expect other people to do this for you.

So my message to all these people who complain is, don't expect too much CHARITY you will only be disappointed.
What a misanthropic view on life. Part of being a civilised society is that we pool risk, and support those that fall on hard times. I really despair at the "I'm OK, screw you" attitude that has started to pervade society since the early 80's. Greed is not good, it will drag us back to Victorian times where the majority live in grinding poverty, exploited by the fortunate few.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: There are a few basic facts in life; 1. You must provide yourself with food. 2. You must provide yourself with shelter. 3. You must provide for any children you decide to have. 4. You cannot expect other people to do this for you. So my message to all these people who complain is, don't expect too much CHARITY you will only be disappointed.[/p][/quote]What a misanthropic view on life. Part of being a civilised society is that we pool risk, and support those that fall on hard times. I really despair at the "I'm OK, screw you" attitude that has started to pervade society since the early 80's. Greed is not good, it will drag us back to Victorian times where the majority live in grinding poverty, exploited by the fortunate few. BeardyBill
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Wed 9 Apr 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

BeardyBill wrote:
@ A Baron-Cohen "However if parents made the conscious decision to have a disabled child, then obviously they should be made to bear the cost of their decision"......I'm genuinely shocked, I thought support for eugenics sort of fizzled out with the demise of the Third Reich. I bet you think you look really smart in your black shirt
I think you should read my comment more carefully before rushing into making such a silly claim.
I am not and never will support Eugenics, however if the parents decide to have a disabled child despite scans showing any anomalies, then it is the responsibility of the parents, let me explain.
They have been given all the tools and opportunities to make an informed decision and I applaud them for making it, however it would be very wrong to shift the cost of their decision onto the community, this is not what Welfare is about.
The idea is about responsibility, and passing the buck is not what Welfare should be about, it is a safety net for people falling on hard times at no fault of their own.
We should be very proud of the Welfare we have to offer. It is a great idea but we are abusing it, it is time to get back to the basics and for people to take back ownership of their destiny.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: @ A Baron-Cohen "However if parents made the conscious decision to have a disabled child, then obviously they should be made to bear the cost of their decision"......I'm genuinely shocked, I thought support for eugenics sort of fizzled out with the demise of the Third Reich. I bet you think you look really smart in your black shirt[/p][/quote]I think you should read my comment more carefully before rushing into making such a silly claim. I am not and never will support Eugenics, however if the parents decide to have a disabled child despite scans showing any anomalies, then it is the responsibility of the parents, let me explain. They have been given all the tools and opportunities to make an informed decision and I applaud them for making it, however it would be very wrong to shift the cost of their decision onto the community, this is not what Welfare is about. The idea is about responsibility, and passing the buck is not what Welfare should be about, it is a safety net for people falling on hard times at no fault of their own. We should be very proud of the Welfare we have to offer. It is a great idea but we are abusing it, it is time to get back to the basics and for people to take back ownership of their destiny. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 1

3:59pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Spurs Fan says...

A Baron Cohen many, many disabilities cannot and are not picked up before birth. Your argument about parents being given choice is in reality only going to be given to a very small minority of of prospective parents I am afraid. I do not get this pervading attitude that we are at this moment in time abusing welfare. The amount of fraud in the welfare system is about 0.7%. Before everyone rushes to condemn me that is the latest figure. If only we could say that only 0.7% of MPs were on the fiddle!
A Baron Cohen many, many disabilities cannot and are not picked up before birth. Your argument about parents being given choice is in reality only going to be given to a very small minority of of prospective parents I am afraid. I do not get this pervading attitude that we are at this moment in time abusing welfare. The amount of fraud in the welfare system is about 0.7%. Before everyone rushes to condemn me that is the latest figure. If only we could say that only 0.7% of MPs were on the fiddle! Spurs Fan
  • Score: 2

5:22pm Wed 9 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
BeardyBill wrote:
@ A Baron-Cohen "However if parents made the conscious decision to have a disabled child, then obviously they should be made to bear the cost of their decision"......I'm genuinely shocked, I thought support for eugenics sort of fizzled out with the demise of the Third Reich. I bet you think you look really smart in your black shirt
I think you should read my comment more carefully before rushing into making such a silly claim.
I am not and never will support Eugenics, however if the parents decide to have a disabled child despite scans showing any anomalies, then it is the responsibility of the parents, let me explain.
They have been given all the tools and opportunities to make an informed decision and I applaud them for making it, however it would be very wrong to shift the cost of their decision onto the community, this is not what Welfare is about.
The idea is about responsibility, and passing the buck is not what Welfare should be about, it is a safety net for people falling on hard times at no fault of their own.
We should be very proud of the Welfare we have to offer. It is a great idea but we are abusing it, it is time to get back to the basics and for people to take back ownership of their destiny.
I did read your comment carefully - what do you mean by active choice? Let's not mince words, you mean abortion. That my friend is eugenics. I suggest you get back to polishing your jackboots.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: @ A Baron-Cohen "However if parents made the conscious decision to have a disabled child, then obviously they should be made to bear the cost of their decision"......I'm genuinely shocked, I thought support for eugenics sort of fizzled out with the demise of the Third Reich. I bet you think you look really smart in your black shirt[/p][/quote]I think you should read my comment more carefully before rushing into making such a silly claim. I am not and never will support Eugenics, however if the parents decide to have a disabled child despite scans showing any anomalies, then it is the responsibility of the parents, let me explain. They have been given all the tools and opportunities to make an informed decision and I applaud them for making it, however it would be very wrong to shift the cost of their decision onto the community, this is not what Welfare is about. The idea is about responsibility, and passing the buck is not what Welfare should be about, it is a safety net for people falling on hard times at no fault of their own. We should be very proud of the Welfare we have to offer. It is a great idea but we are abusing it, it is time to get back to the basics and for people to take back ownership of their destiny.[/p][/quote]I did read your comment carefully - what do you mean by active choice? Let's not mince words, you mean abortion. That my friend is eugenics. I suggest you get back to polishing your jackboots. BeardyBill
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree