Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@hovis Your reply someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim You make the same mistake as Johnny. Saying an activity should be demeaning is not not same as demeaning a person. I wouldnt encourage demeaning and mocking a person on benefits who sumpyk doesn't want tk work. But benefits shouldn't be an encouraged lifestyle. But should be a factor that is demeaning and want to make a person work and but rely on the state. Pip is a state benefit yes. But nothing I said in my statements would demean a person. Again there were u days between the original demeaning replies, then my reply. I can only assume Johnny meant me. Because for some reason with that threadnexisting fkr 7 days he decided not to reply to the op. But directly after I'd made my point. I think it's a fair assumption to make." I'm not a grammar expert, but my reading is "I want benefits to cause someone to lose their dignity" is not that different to "I want that person to lose their dignity". It's not a hill I'm going to die in tho. But thank you for clarifying your angle. I can't comment on Johnny's motive. I can easily see it as coming from a place of anger at the original comment as being some attack on you. It was a comment that particular grated with me too. I think it demeans a person to say they should live off foodstamps and that's it's. My views are left/liberal tho. I accept other views even if a while heartedly disagree. But it was a comment that stuck for me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Benefits should be demeaning"" To which I replied... "Why? Why the spite? Absolutely there are people out there who are lazy and milk the system. There are those who are taking benefits despite having cash in hand sources of income. But there are also genuine hard working people who through no fault of their own lose their job and then struggle to find another job for all manner of reasons. You want to demean them! Seriously!!!!" I categorically do not think benefits (of any kind) should be demeaning. People should be treated with respect...except anyone caught cheating the system, they should have the book thrown at them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnny last thread ran out. What you said in your final reply "I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned. Someone said benefits should be demeaning. Try having a read of the thread. Maybe you could apologise for insulting me when you have time?" What you said in aprevipus reply "I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned" I am sorry to say, you did saybin the benefits thread people said you deserved to be demeaned. There is a difference between saying something should be demeaning. And we should demean a person. Demeaning a person is attacking that person and their character An activity being demeaning is not an attack on a direct individual. Maybe you can apologise when you habe time?" I don't know what's a quote and what isn't from this splurge of text. Did you apologise for insulting me in there somewhere? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnny last thread ran out. What you said in your final reply "I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned. Someone said benefits should be demeaning. Try having a read of the thread. Maybe you could apologise for insulting me when you have time?" What you said in aprevipus reply "I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned" I am sorry to say, you did saybin the benefits thread people said you deserved to be demeaned. There is a difference between saying something should be demeaning. And we should demean a person. Demeaning a person is attacking that person and their character An activity being demeaning is not an attack on a direct individual. Maybe you can apologise when you habe time? I don't know what's a quote and what isn't from this splurge of text. Did you apologise for insulting me in there somewhere?" They're both your quotes Johnny my man. I think you need to apologise to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@hovis Your reply someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim You make the same mistake as Johnny. Saying an activity should be demeaning is not not same as demeaning a person. I wouldnt encourage demeaning and mocking a person on benefits who sumpyk doesn't want tk work. But benefits shouldn't be an encouraged lifestyle. But should be a factor that is demeaning and want to make a person work and but rely on the state. Pip is a state benefit yes. But nothing I said in my statements would demean a person. Again there were u days between the original demeaning replies, then my reply. I can only assume Johnny meant me. Because for some reason with that threadnexisting fkr 7 days he decided not to reply to the op. But directly after I'd made my point. I think it's a fair assumption to make.I'm not a grammar expert, but my reading is "I want benefits to cause someone to lose their dignity" is not that different to "I want that person to lose their dignity". It's not a hill I'm going to die in tho. But thank you for clarifying your angle. I can't comment on Johnny's motive. I can easily see it as coming from a place of anger at the original comment as being some attack on you. It was a comment that particular grated with me too. I think it demeans a person to say they should live off foodstamps and that's it's. My views are left/liberal tho. I accept other views even if a while heartedly disagree. But it was a comment that stuck for me. " Yes. You appear not to be a grammar expert. A demeaning activity, is not the same as demeaning some one It's not a judgement of the person.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnny last thread ran out. What you said in your final reply "I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned. Someone said benefits should be demeaning. Try having a read of the thread. Maybe you could apologise for insulting me when you have time?" What you said in aprevipus reply "I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned" I am sorry to say, you did saybin the benefits thread people said you deserved to be demeaned. There is a difference between saying something should be demeaning. And we should demean a person. Demeaning a person is attacking that person and their character An activity being demeaning is not an attack on a direct individual. Maybe you can apologise when you habe time? I don't know what's a quote and what isn't from this splurge of text. Did you apologise for insulting me in there somewhere? They're both your quotes Johnny my man. I think you need to apologise to me." I need to apologise to you for you insulting me? Sure, sorry about that pal, although if I'm honest, I don't know what I could do differently next time seeing as it was you who insulted me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not warranted, but when I stated PIP wasn't related to work or benefits, I was sloppily implying it wasn't a means tested benefit and one can claim whether on benefits or working." Fair amelia. Your reply read that PIP wasn't a state benefit. Glad for the clarity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnny last thread ran out. What you said in your final reply "I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned. Someone said benefits should be demeaning. Try having a read of the thread. Maybe you could apologise for insulting me when you have time?" What you said in aprevipus reply "I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned" I am sorry to say, you did saybin the benefits thread people said you deserved to be demeaned. There is a difference between saying something should be demeaning. And we should demean a person. Demeaning a person is attacking that person and their character An activity being demeaning is not an attack on a direct individual. Maybe you can apologise when you habe time? I don't know what's a quote and what isn't from this splurge of text. Did you apologise for insulting me in there somewhere? They're both your quotes Johnny my man. I think you need to apologise to me. I need to apologise to you for you insulting me? Sure, sorry about that pal, although if I'm honest, I don't know what I could do differently next time seeing as it was you who insulted me." I didn't insult you. I quoted what you claimed. I asked you to back it up. Because. We have the evidence in the thread. You couldn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Johnny last thread ran out. What you said in your final reply "I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned. Someone said benefits should be demeaning. Try having a read of the thread. Maybe you could apologise for insulting me when you have time?" What you said in aprevipus reply "I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned" I am sorry to say, you did saybin the benefits thread people said you deserved to be demeaned. There is a difference between saying something should be demeaning. And we should demean a person. Demeaning a person is attacking that person and their character An activity being demeaning is not an attack on a direct individual. Maybe you can apologise when you habe time? I don't know what's a quote and what isn't from this splurge of text. Did you apologise for insulting me in there somewhere? They're both your quotes Johnny my man. I think you need to apologise to me. I need to apologise to you for you insulting me? Sure, sorry about that pal, although if I'm honest, I don't know what I could do differently next time seeing as it was you who insulted me. I didn't insult you. I quoted what you claimed. I asked you to back it up. Because. We have the evidence in the thread. You couldn't. " Okay. Let's go over this again. You thought I was referring to you in a previous thread. I wasn't, and corrected you assumption. That should be the end. Then you said "I assume you again have forgotten how to read." Which is an insult. Everything after that, has just been confusing, I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@hovis Your reply someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim You make the same mistake as Johnny. Saying an activity should be demeaning is not not same as demeaning a person. I wouldnt encourage demeaning and mocking a person on benefits who sumpyk doesn't want tk work. But benefits shouldn't be an encouraged lifestyle. But should be a factor that is demeaning and want to make a person work and but rely on the state. Pip is a state benefit yes. But nothing I said in my statements would demean a person. Again there were u days between the original demeaning replies, then my reply. I can only assume Johnny meant me. Because for some reason with that threadnexisting fkr 7 days he decided not to reply to the op. But directly after I'd made my point. I think it's a fair assumption to make.I'm not a grammar expert, but my reading is "I want benefits to cause someone to lose their dignity" is not that different to "I want that person to lose their dignity". It's not a hill I'm going to die in tho. But thank you for clarifying your angle. I can't comment on Johnny's motive. I can easily see it as coming from a place of anger at the original comment as being some attack on you. It was a comment that particular grated with me too. I think it demeans a person to say they should live off foodstamps and that's it's. My views are left/liberal tho. I accept other views even if a while heartedly disagree. But it was a comment that stuck for me. Yes. You appear not to be a grammar expert. A demeaning activity, is not the same as demeaning some one It's not a judgement of the person. "I see this is where English struggles versus others. I'd see it as demanding someone in the temporary state (estar for Spanish) rather than in the permanent state (ser). I am d*unk versus I am a d*unk. I haven't at any point seen it as a judgement of a person. I do see that you can demeans someone by giving them a demeaning activity. I would ask the question what is the purpose/benefit of making benefits demeaning (rather than just at a level that incentives going back to work when possible). There's an intent here I'd would like to understand. But as it is, you've explained your position. I understand why you were defending a position that seemed odd to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@hovis Your reply someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim You make the same mistake as Johnny. Saying an activity should be demeaning is not not same as demeaning a person. I wouldnt encourage demeaning and mocking a person on benefits who sumpyk doesn't want tk work. But benefits shouldn't be an encouraged lifestyle. But should be a factor that is demeaning and want to make a person work and but rely on the state. Pip is a state benefit yes. But nothing I said in my statements would demean a person. Again there were u days between the original demeaning replies, then my reply. I can only assume Johnny meant me. Because for some reason with that threadnexisting fkr 7 days he decided not to reply to the op. But directly after I'd made my point. I think it's a fair assumption to make.I'm not a grammar expert, but my reading is "I want benefits to cause someone to lose their dignity" is not that different to "I want that person to lose their dignity". It's not a hill I'm going to die in tho. But thank you for clarifying your angle. I can't comment on Johnny's motive. I can easily see it as coming from a place of anger at the original comment as being some attack on you. It was a comment that particular grated with me too. I think it demeans a person to say they should live off foodstamps and that's it's. My views are left/liberal tho. I accept other views even if a while heartedly disagree. But it was a comment that stuck for me. Yes. You appear not to be a grammar expert. A demeaning activity, is not the same as demeaning some one It's not a judgement of the person. I see this is where English struggles versus others. I'd see it as demanding someone in the temporary state (estar for Spanish) rather than in the permanent state (ser). I am d*unk versus I am a d*unk. I haven't at any point seen it as a judgement of a person. I do see that you can demeans someone by giving them a demeaning activity.
I would ask the question what is the purpose/benefit of making benefits demeaning (rather than just at a level that incentives going back to work when possible). There's an intent here I'd would like to understand.
But as it is, you've explained your position. I understand why you were defending a position that seemed odd to me. "Yes this us what u am explaining. It would be a demeaning act. But no one is demeaning the person. This is a difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's go over this again. "I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned" ^The above is what you said in your final reply "I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned" ^What you said in your reply underneath me So which is it. Did " people" ( more than 1 person) ( and only myself and one other mentioned pip. Say wamski deserved to be demeaned Or did you not? Because both of your quotes contradict each other. " This post makes no sense. What's this got to do with you insulting me? Why are you trying to win some weird semantic arguement that you seem to have invented out of thin air. As I've mentioned to you several times now, I was not at any point referring to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@hovis Your reply someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim You make the same mistake as Johnny. Saying an activity should be demeaning is not not same as demeaning a person. I wouldnt encourage demeaning and mocking a person on benefits who sumpyk doesn't want tk work. But benefits shouldn't be an encouraged lifestyle. But should be a factor that is demeaning and want to make a person work and but rely on the state. Pip is a state benefit yes. But nothing I said in my statements would demean a person. Again there were u days between the original demeaning replies, then my reply. I can only assume Johnny meant me. Because for some reason with that threadnexisting fkr 7 days he decided not to reply to the op. But directly after I'd made my point. I think it's a fair assumption to make.I'm not a grammar expert, but my reading is "I want benefits to cause someone to lose their dignity" is not that different to "I want that person to lose their dignity". It's not a hill I'm going to die in tho. But thank you for clarifying your angle. I can't comment on Johnny's motive. I can easily see it as coming from a place of anger at the original comment as being some attack on you. It was a comment that particular grated with me too. I think it demeans a person to say they should live off foodstamps and that's it's. My views are left/liberal tho. I accept other views even if a while heartedly disagree. But it was a comment that stuck for me. Yes. You appear not to be a grammar expert. A demeaning activity, is not the same as demeaning some one It's not a judgement of the person. "Hi Morley, I do not agree with that but I get what you are saying. If an activity is in and off itself demeaning then the person experiencing that activity will feel demeaned. You cannot separate the activity from the reaction to that activity. And I honestly do not think the OP that brought up the point meant for anything other than the person in receipt of benefits to feel demeaned. Personally I prefer not to let bad apples determine the way all people are treated. For example, someone who has worked for 25 years paying tax and NI who finds themselves without a job should be treated with respect and helped to find employment. No ifs. No buts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's go over this again. "I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned" ^The above is what you said in your final reply "I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned" ^What you said in your reply underneath me So which is it. Did " people" ( more than 1 person) ( and only myself and one other mentioned pip. Say wamski deserved to be demeaned Or did you not? Because both of your quotes contradict each other. This post makes no sense. What's this got to do with you insulting me? Why are you trying to win some weird semantic arguement that you seem to have invented out of thin air. As I've mentioned to you several times now, I was not at any point referring to you. " If you think you aren't contradicting yourself there. Then I think my point about your reading is correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's go over this again. "I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned" ^The above is what you said in your final reply "I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned" ^What you said in your reply underneath me So which is it. Did " people" ( more than 1 person) ( and only myself and one other mentioned pip. Say wamski deserved to be demeaned Or did you not? Because both of your quotes contradict each other. This post makes no sense. What's this got to do with you insulting me? Why are you trying to win some weird semantic arguement that you seem to have invented out of thin air. As I've mentioned to you several times now, I was not at any point referring to you. If you think you aren't contradicting yourself there. Then I think my point about your reading is correct." I can confirm, I don't think anything of your nonsensical, unrelated, irrelevant question. If you're unable to converse without insulting people. Then there's absolutely no point in engaging in any discussion with you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@hovis Your reply someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim You make the same mistake as Johnny. Saying an activity should be demeaning is not not same as demeaning a person. I wouldnt encourage demeaning and mocking a person on benefits who sumpyk doesn't want tk work. But benefits shouldn't be an encouraged lifestyle. But should be a factor that is demeaning and want to make a person work and but rely on the state. Pip is a state benefit yes. But nothing I said in my statements would demean a person. Again there were u days between the original demeaning replies, then my reply. I can only assume Johnny meant me. Because for some reason with that threadnexisting fkr 7 days he decided not to reply to the op. But directly after I'd made my point. I think it's a fair assumption to make.I'm not a grammar expert, but my reading is "I want benefits to cause someone to lose their dignity" is not that different to "I want that person to lose their dignity". It's not a hill I'm going to die in tho. But thank you for clarifying your angle. I can't comment on Johnny's motive. I can easily see it as coming from a place of anger at the original comment as being some attack on you. It was a comment that particular grated with me too. I think it demeans a person to say they should live off foodstamps and that's it's. My views are left/liberal tho. I accept other views even if a while heartedly disagree. But it was a comment that stuck for me. Yes. You appear not to be a grammar expert. A demeaning activity, is not the same as demeaning some one It's not a judgement of the person.
Hi Morley, I do not agree with that but I get what you are saying.
If an activity is in and off itself demeaning then the person experiencing that activity will feel demeaned. You cannot separate the activity from the reaction to that activity.
And I honestly do not think the OP that brought up the point meant for anything other than the person in receipt of benefits to feel demeaned.
Personally I prefer not to let bad apples determine the way all people are treated. For example, someone who has worked for 25 years paying tax and NI who finds themselves without a job should be treated with respect and helped to find employment. No ifs. No buts."this is where I am. Just less well expressed ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@hovis Your reply someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim You make the same mistake as Johnny. Saying an activity should be demeaning is not not same as demeaning a person. I wouldnt encourage demeaning and mocking a person on benefits who sumpyk doesn't want tk work. But benefits shouldn't be an encouraged lifestyle. But should be a factor that is demeaning and want to make a person work and but rely on the state. Pip is a state benefit yes. But nothing I said in my statements would demean a person. Again there were u days between the original demeaning replies, then my reply. I can only assume Johnny meant me. Because for some reason with that threadnexisting fkr 7 days he decided not to reply to the op. But directly after I'd made my point. I think it's a fair assumption to make.I'm not a grammar expert, but my reading is "I want benefits to cause someone to lose their dignity" is not that different to "I want that person to lose their dignity". It's not a hill I'm going to die in tho. But thank you for clarifying your angle. I can't comment on Johnny's motive. I can easily see it as coming from a place of anger at the original comment as being some attack on you. It was a comment that particular grated with me too. I think it demeans a person to say they should live off foodstamps and that's it's. My views are left/liberal tho. I accept other views even if a while heartedly disagree. But it was a comment that stuck for me. Yes. You appear not to be a grammar expert. A demeaning activity, is not the same as demeaning some one It's not a judgement of the person.
Hi Morley, I do not agree with that but I get what you are saying.
If an activity is in and off itself demeaning then the person experiencing that activity will feel demeaned. You cannot separate the activity from the reaction to that activity.
And I honestly do not think the OP that brought up the point meant for anything other than the person in receipt of benefits to feel demeaned.
Personally I prefer not to let bad apples determine the way all people are treated. For example, someone who has worked for 25 years paying tax and NI who finds themselves without a job should be treated with respect and helped to find employment. No ifs. No buts."I get where you and hovis are coming form. But in the English language and for me and many others there is a difference. I dont want to be om benefits. I want to work and earn more money than scrap a life off the state. I would.find that activity demeaning to me. This for me is different to me demeaning a person for using benefits and saying they're scum and work shy as possible means of demeaning them for using tbe benefit. Ones a direct attack on the person for using it. The other is how using it would make me feel. My problem is that working for the building society in AML and financial crime. I was on 20k a year. I saw people with downs syndrome with PiP and several other benefits having their money stole n by carers and they would get around 25k a year. All after tax. There's no way for me...that I as a functioning 40 hour a week worker. Should get less than this individual who can't work, can't appreciate the value of the money, doesn't spend it. This was where ? for me state benefits was backwards. I had to report people on benefits who were saving up for breast augmentation. She had Ehlers Danlos never worked. But she bought new breaststroke while I again a functioning member of society working 40 hours a week. Paid half my " disposable "income in rent and was left with about £500 a month to live off. I ams lrry but for me.cthisnis where this system got out of hand. Benefits were no longer about helping you get by, when you lost your job until you got another, the transformed into something that encouraged no work,relying on others and self indulgence Universal credit though hated has had an impact on this as now all these 20 or so departments were rolled into 1. I believe in aiding those with downs, ehlers etc. But bot to the point they have 10k in their savings account to be stole n by carers or get new t!ts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's go over this again. "I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned" ^The above is what you said in your final reply "I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned" ^What you said in your reply underneath me So which is it. Did " people" ( more than 1 person) ( and only myself and one other mentioned pip. Say wamski deserved to be demeaned Or did you not? Because both of your quotes contradict each other. This post makes no sense. What's this got to do with you insulting me? Why are you trying to win some weird semantic arguement that you seem to have invented out of thin air. As I've mentioned to you several times now, I was not at any point referring to you. If you think you aren't contradicting yourself there. Then I think my point about your reading is correct. I can confirm, I don't think anything of your nonsensical, unrelated, irrelevant question. If you're unable to converse without insulting people. Then there's absolutely no point in engaging in any discussion with you. " If you can't see your contradiction. I can't help you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@hovis Your reply someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim You make the same mistake as Johnny. Saying an activity should be demeaning is not not same as demeaning a person. I wouldnt encourage demeaning and mocking a person on benefits who sumpyk doesn't want tk work. But benefits shouldn't be an encouraged lifestyle. But should be a factor that is demeaning and want to make a person work and but rely on the state. Pip is a state benefit yes. But nothing I said in my statements would demean a person. Again there were u days between the original demeaning replies, then my reply. I can only assume Johnny meant me. Because for some reason with that threadnexisting fkr 7 days he decided not to reply to the op. But directly after I'd made my point. I think it's a fair assumption to make.I'm not a grammar expert, but my reading is "I want benefits to cause someone to lose their dignity" is not that different to "I want that person to lose their dignity". It's not a hill I'm going to die in tho. But thank you for clarifying your angle. I can't comment on Johnny's motive. I can easily see it as coming from a place of anger at the original comment as being some attack on you. It was a comment that particular grated with me too. I think it demeans a person to say they should live off foodstamps and that's it's. My views are left/liberal tho. I accept other views even if a while heartedly disagree. But it was a comment that stuck for me. Yes. You appear not to be a grammar expert. A demeaning activity, is not the same as demeaning some one It's not a judgement of the person.
Hi Morley, I do not agree with that but I get what you are saying.
If an activity is in and off itself demeaning then the person experiencing that activity will feel demeaned. You cannot separate the activity from the reaction to that activity.
And I honestly do not think the OP that brought up the point meant for anything other than the person in receipt of benefits to feel demeaned.
Personally I prefer not to let bad apples determine the way all people are treated. For example, someone who has worked for 25 years paying tax and NI who finds themselves without a job should be treated with respect and helped to find employment. No ifs. No buts.
I get where you and hovis are coming form.
But in the English language and for me and many others there is a difference.
I dont want to be om benefits. I want to work and earn more money than scrap a life off the state. I would.find that activity demeaning to me.
This for me is different to me demeaning a person for using benefits and saying they're scum and work shy as possible means of demeaning them for using tbe benefit.
Ones a direct attack on the person for using it.
The other is how using it would make me feel.
My problem is that working for the building society in AML and financial crime.
I was on 20k a year.
I saw people with downs syndrome with PiP and several other benefits having their money stole n by carers and they would get around 25k a year. All after tax.
There's no way for me...that I as a functioning 40 hour a week worker. Should get less than this individual who can't work, can't appreciate the value of the money, doesn't spend it.
This was where ? for me state benefits was backwards.
I had to report people on benefits who were saving up for breast augmentation.
She had Ehlers Danlos never worked. But she bought new breaststroke while I again a functioning member of society working 40 hours a week. Paid half my " disposable "income in rent and was left with about £500 a month to live off.
I ams lrry but for me.cthisnis where this system got out of hand. Benefits were no longer about helping you get by, when you lost your job until you got another, the transformed into something that encouraged no work,relying on others and self indulgence
Universal credit though hated has had an impact on this as now all these 20 or so departments were rolled into 1.
I believe in aiding those with downs, ehlers etc. But bot to the point they have 10k in their savings account to be stole n by carers or get new t!ts
"First of all and totally tangential (and for avoidance of doubt, this is meant to be a friendly bit of joshing) Morley for the love of God can you get your phone fixed! I think your screen is broken and autocorrect doing odd things. My eyes are straining reading that 
As I say...a joke!
I do get what you are saying. Without a doubt there are people out there for whom living on benefits has become a lifestyle choice. There are people who know how to milk the system. There are people committing benefit fraud. But I do not think that is the majority and I have an issue with those bad apples dictating the experience felt by genuine people on hard times.
I am not surprised by your story of carers taking people’s disability allowance and someone saving for a boob job. But did that represent a majority? Surely they are outliers?
As you shared hers are two anecdotes personal to me...
1. My father was in military, a para, hard as nails. On leaving military he worked as a trade. For c.25 years be paid his taxes and NI. Then he made the decision to change jobs and a few months later the firm went under and he lost his job. It took him several months to find work. He was genuinely looking. He was (is) a proud man. It all came good in the end. However, I do not think he should have felt remotely demeaned and should have been treated with respect. However, he did have a few stories of how he was spoken to at the “dole office” that I thought were disgusting.
2. I have been unemployed once in my life after being madd redundant. However, due to having a pay out I was not entitled to any benefits, which was fine and I knew this. However, I was still required to “sign on” every fortnight (or week I can’t remember) to prove I was job hunting because my mortgage insurance covered job loss and they needed evidence. Standing in that queue then being asked the set questions certainly felt demeaning the first time. However, my situation was different and I was told “don’t worry we have to ask but we know none of this applies to someone like you!” As it was the whole thing acted as a catalyst and after couple of months (ish) I moved abroad for a while. Had time of my life. Ended up meeting people who I subsequently started two businesses with.
So that may be a clumsy way of saying...not everyone on benefits is a scrounger low life waste of space and do not deserve to feel demeaned.
Throw the book at fraudsters but treat everyone else with respect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@hovis Your reply someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim You make the same mistake as Johnny. Saying an activity should be demeaning is not not same as demeaning a person. I wouldnt encourage demeaning and mocking a person on benefits who sumpyk doesn't want tk work. But benefits shouldn't be an encouraged lifestyle. But should be a factor that is demeaning and want to make a person work and but rely on the state. Pip is a state benefit yes. But nothing I said in my statements would demean a person. Again there were u days between the original demeaning replies, then my reply. I can only assume Johnny meant me. Because for some reason with that threadnexisting fkr 7 days he decided not to reply to the op. But directly after I'd made my point. I think it's a fair assumption to make.I'm not a grammar expert, but my reading is "I want benefits to cause someone to lose their dignity" is not that different to "I want that person to lose their dignity". It's not a hill I'm going to die in tho. But thank you for clarifying your angle. I can't comment on Johnny's motive. I can easily see it as coming from a place of anger at the original comment as being some attack on you. It was a comment that particular grated with me too. I think it demeans a person to say they should live off foodstamps and that's it's. My views are left/liberal tho. I accept other views even if a while heartedly disagree. But it was a comment that stuck for me. Yes. You appear not to be a grammar expert. A demeaning activity, is not the same as demeaning some one It's not a judgement of the person.
Hi Morley, I do not agree with that but I get what you are saying.
If an activity is in and off itself demeaning then the person experiencing that activity will feel demeaned. You cannot separate the activity from the reaction to that activity.
And I honestly do not think the OP that brought up the point meant for anything other than the person in receipt of benefits to feel demeaned.
Personally I prefer not to let bad apples determine the way all people are treated. For example, someone who has worked for 25 years paying tax and NI who finds themselves without a job should be treated with respect and helped to find employment. No ifs. No buts.
I get where you and hovis are coming form.
But in the English language and for me and many others there is a difference.
I dont want to be om benefits. I want to work and earn more money than scrap a life off the state. I would.find that activity demeaning to me.
This for me is different to me demeaning a person for using benefits and saying they're scum and work shy as possible means of demeaning them for using tbe benefit.
Ones a direct attack on the person for using it.
The other is how using it would make me feel.
My problem is that working for the building society in AML and financial crime.
I was on 20k a year.
I saw people with downs syndrome with PiP and several other benefits having their money stole n by carers and they would get around 25k a year. All after tax.
There's no way for me...that I as a functioning 40 hour a week worker. Should get less than this individual who can't work, can't appreciate the value of the money, doesn't spend it.
This was where ? for me state benefits was backwards.
I had to report people on benefits who were saving up for breast augmentation.
She had Ehlers Danlos never worked. But she bought new breaststroke while I again a functioning member of society working 40 hours a week. Paid half my " disposable "income in rent and was left with about £500 a month to live off.
I ams lrry but for me.cthisnis where this system got out of hand. Benefits were no longer about helping you get by, when you lost your job until you got another, the transformed into something that encouraged no work,relying on others and self indulgence
Universal credit though hated has had an impact on this as now all these 20 or so departments were rolled into 1.
I believe in aiding those with downs, ehlers etc. But bot to the point they have 10k in their savings account to be stole n by carers or get new t!ts
First of all and totally tangential (and for avoidance of doubt, this is meant to be a friendly bit of joshing) Morley for the love of God can you get your phone fixed! I think your screen is broken and autocorrect doing odd things. My eyes are straining reading that
As I say...a joke!
I do get what you are saying. Without a doubt there are people out there for whom living on benefits has become a lifestyle choice. There are people who know how to milk the system. There are people committing benefit fraud. But I do not think that is the majority and I have an issue with those bad apples dictating the experience felt by genuine people on hard times.
I am not surprised by your story of carers taking people’s disability allowance and someone saving for a boob job. But did that represent a majority? Surely they are outliers?
As you shared hers are two anecdotes personal to me...
1. My father was in military, a para, hard as nails. On leaving military he worked as a trade. For c.25 years be paid his taxes and NI. Then he made the decision to change jobs and a few months later the firm went under and he lost his job. It took him several months to find work. He was genuinely looking. He was (is) a proud man. It all came good in the end. However, I do not think he should have felt remotely demeaned and should have been treated with respect. However, he did have a few stories of how he was spoken to at the “dole office” that I thought were disgusting.
2. I have been unemployed once in my life after being madd redundant. However, due to having a pay out I was not entitled to any benefits, which was fine and I knew this. However, I was still required to “sign on” every fortnight (or week I can’t remember) to prove I was job hunting because my mortgage insurance covered job loss and they needed evidence. Standing in that queue then being asked the set questions certainly felt demeaning the first time. However, my situation was different and I was told “don’t worry we have to ask but we know none of this applies to someone like you!” As it was the whole thing acted as a catalyst and after couple of months (ish) I moved abroad for a while. Had time of my life. Ended up meeting people who I subsequently started two businesses with.
So that may be a clumsy way of saying...not everyone on benefits is a scrounger low life waste of space and do not deserve to feel demeaned.
Throw the book at fraudsters but treat everyone else with respect."I agree I don't think your father should be demeanded. But as I say it should be demeaning to do unless you have no pride because for me you should want a better life and to live more comfortably. Benefits should not be a way of living. The same with your personal example. You don't want to live on that amount of money and go back every 2 weeks. So for me that's the act of claiming demeaning. Not that any one demeaned you yourself for doing it. This is where there's a difference in Johnny's interpretation and what was originally claimed. If benefits acts aren't demeaning if they are well paid. Then where is the encouragement to find employment. Benefits are there to pick you up when you fall. Not provide a lifestyle choice. The above stories were 2 of about 400 cases i dealt with at my time at the building society. The worst was " Bishop of Peckham " gilbert deya. We ginslly managed to get rid of him back to kenya on other charges than the trafficking But he still got benefits. While selling aldi cooking oil as a miracle cure for cancer. There are stills everal cases I'm not allowed tk talk about involving high profile celebrities. ( it amazes you how stupid people genuoenpremier league footballer falling for the princess/ beauty queen of Nigeria type scams) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But in the English language and for me and many others there is a difference." There are various dictionary descriptors for the word demeaning but generally they conform to this... “damaging or lowering the character, status, or reputation of someone or something“ So if claiming benefits is a demeaning experience then the person will feel demeaned as per my earlier point. They are inseparable. Semantics aside though, I think we are not actually disagreeing but are in fact simply walking down parallel tracks with slightly different points to make. I totally agree that to someone with pride and a hard work ethic (such as you, me, my father) having to claim benefits will feel demeaning. That is because it goes against our personal ethics and view on life. My point is that the process should not be designed to be demeaning. I think that is insulting and lacks respect to people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. I think the OP that started this was advocating a system/process that was demeaning to all because there are bad apples frauding/milking the system. While I want those apples dealt with I do not want to see decent people demeaned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Won’t quote getting too long, but I need to address this point... But in the English language and for me and many others there is a difference. There are various dictionary descriptors for the word demeaning but generally they conform to this... “damaging or lowering the character, status, or reputation of someone or something“ So if claiming benefits is a demeaning experience then the person will feel demeaned as per my earlier point. They are inseparable. Semantics aside though, I think we are not actually disagreeing but are in fact simply walking down parallel tracks with slightly different points to make. I totally agree that to someone with pride and a hard work ethic (such as you, me, my father) having to claim benefits will feel demeaning. That is because it goes against our personal ethics and view on life. My point is that the process should not be designed to be demeaning. I think that is insulting and lacks respect to people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. I think the OP that started this was advocating a system/process that was demeaning to all because there are bad apples frauding/milking the system. While I want those apples dealt with I do not want to see decent people demeaned. " I think we disagree on the language. I see it differently.fair enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Won’t quote getting too long, but I need to address this point... But in the English language and for me and many others there is a difference. There are various dictionary descriptors for the word demeaning but generally they conform to this... “damaging or lowering the character, status, or reputation of someone or something“ So if claiming benefits is a demeaning experience then the person will feel demeaned as per my earlier point. They are inseparable. Semantics aside though, I think we are not actually disagreeing but are in fact simply walking down parallel tracks with slightly different points to make. I totally agree that to someone with pride and a hard work ethic (such as you, me, my father) having to claim benefits will feel demeaning. That is because it goes against our personal ethics and view on life. My point is that the process should not be designed to be demeaning. I think that is insulting and lacks respect to people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. I think the OP that started this was advocating a system/process that was demeaning to all because there are bad apples frauding/milking the system. While I want those apples dealt with I do not want to see decent people demeaned. I think we disagree on the language. I see it differently.fair enough. " I am using dictionary terms though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Won’t quote getting too long, but I need to address this point... But in the English language and for me and many others there is a difference. There are various dictionary descriptors for the word demeaning but generally they conform to this... “damaging or lowering the character, status, or reputation of someone or something“ So if claiming benefits is a demeaning experience then the person will feel demeaned as per my earlier point. They are inseparable. Semantics aside though, I think we are not actually disagreeing but are in fact simply walking down parallel tracks with slightly different points to make. I totally agree that to someone with pride and a hard work ethic (such as you, me, my father) having to claim benefits will feel demeaning. That is because it goes against our personal ethics and view on life. My point is that the process should not be designed to be demeaning. I think that is insulting and lacks respect to people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. I think the OP that started this was advocating a system/process that was demeaning to all because there are bad apples frauding/milking the system. While I want those apples dealt with I do not want to see decent people demeaned. I think we disagree on the language. I see it differently.fair enough. I am using dictionary terms though?" It wouldn't be a dictionary term. It would be a grammatical use. An activity being demeaning. Is not the same as demeaning some one. So given we are on a kink site. If I piss on you. That act for many is demeaning/ degrading. But has no personal judgement for myself or others. If I say God you're f*cking disgusting I can't believe you're into being pissed on. That's me demeaning and judging you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Won’t quote getting too long, but I need to address this point... But in the English language and for me and many others there is a difference. There are various dictionary descriptors for the word demeaning but generally they conform to this... “damaging or lowering the character, status, or reputation of someone or something“ So if claiming benefits is a demeaning experience then the person will feel demeaned as per my earlier point. They are inseparable. Semantics aside though, I think we are not actually disagreeing but are in fact simply walking down parallel tracks with slightly different points to make. I totally agree that to someone with pride and a hard work ethic (such as you, me, my father) having to claim benefits will feel demeaning. That is because it goes against our personal ethics and view on life. My point is that the process should not be designed to be demeaning. I think that is insulting and lacks respect to people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. I think the OP that started this was advocating a system/process that was demeaning to all because there are bad apples frauding/milking the system. While I want those apples dealt with I do not want to see decent people demeaned. I think we disagree on the language. I see it differently.fair enough. I am using dictionary terms though? It wouldn't be a dictionary term. It would be a grammatical use. An activity being demeaning. Is not the same as demeaning some one. So given we are on a kink site. If I piss on you. That act for many is demeaning/ degrading. But has no personal judgement for myself or others. If I say God you're f*cking disgusting I can't believe you're into being pissed on. That's me demeaning and judging you." Interesting angle but I cannot agree. In that scenario the person is consenting to be demeaned as they enjoy it and want it. A person claiming benefits cannot want to be demeaned or enjoy it surely? You point is all about personal judgement as to whether an act done to you/me/another person is demeaning. That will depend on the person making the judgement. Here is another descriptor... “To demean someone is to insult them. To demean is to degrade or put down a person or thing.” So per my earlier point, do you think the process/system should be demeaning regardless of your personal circumstances? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Won’t quote getting too long, but I need to address this point... But in the English language and for me and many others there is a difference. There are various dictionary descriptors for the word demeaning but generally they conform to this... “damaging or lowering the character, status, or reputation of someone or something“ So if claiming benefits is a demeaning experience then the person will feel demeaned as per my earlier point. They are inseparable. Semantics aside though, I think we are not actually disagreeing but are in fact simply walking down parallel tracks with slightly different points to make. I totally agree that to someone with pride and a hard work ethic (such as you, me, my father) having to claim benefits will feel demeaning. That is because it goes against our personal ethics and view on life. My point is that the process should not be designed to be demeaning. I think that is insulting and lacks respect to people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. I think the OP that started this was advocating a system/process that was demeaning to all because there are bad apples frauding/milking the system. While I want those apples dealt with I do not want to see decent people demeaned. I think we disagree on the language. I see it differently.fair enough. I am using dictionary terms though? It wouldn't be a dictionary term. It would be a grammatical use. An activity being demeaning. Is not the same as demeaning some one. So given we are on a kink site. If I piss on you. That act for many is demeaning/ degrading. But has no personal judgement for myself or others. If I say God you're f*cking disgusting I can't believe you're into being pissed on. That's me demeaning and judging you. Interesting angle but I cannot agree. In that scenario the person is consenting to be demeaned as they enjoy it and want it. A person claiming benefits cannot want to be demeaned or enjoy it surely? You point is all about personal judgement as to whether an act done to you/me/another person is demeaning. That will depend on the person making the judgement. Here is another descriptor... “To demean someone is to insult them. To demean is to degrade or put down a person or thing.” So per my earlier point, do you think the process/system should be demeaning regardless of your personal circumstances?" "A person claiming benefits cannot want to be demeaned or enjoy it surely?" This is what I am trying to describe to you. No one was demeaning them in the thread as per the accusations. They were saying the activity should be demeaning. They weren't saying the person wanted to be demeaned Or enjoyed it. I genuinely don't know how further to explain this. Other than that kinks scenario. People can be into degradation such as sph. They enjoy the activity of a bull humiliating them It doesn't mean that I as a person watching that want to demean them for their sph kink | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning." Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us." P.S. the OP we are referring to said "Benefits should be demeaning" So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses." P.P.S. Just went back and looked at the other thread and the OP followed up with... "Everyone in full time employment should earn a livable wage. Others should be supported. However, if that support is in the form of vouchers or food delivery in a van labelled "Social Food Bank" or similar is not a problem. The shame will push those who can work to do so. Those who won't probably won't care." So they were advocating for the system/process to be demeaning to those in receipt by not giving them money and only vouchers etc. In other words creating a social stigma if shame for daring to be out of work. Not trusting these people to be able to manage money. Making sure neighbours and fellow shoppers know you don’t have a job! Fuck me if that isn’t demeaning a person! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. P.P.S. Just went back and looked at the other thread and the OP followed up with... Everyone in full time employment should earn a livable wage. Others should be supported. However, if that support is in the form of vouchers or food delivery in a van labelled "Social Food Bank" or similar is not a problem. The shame will push those who can work to do so. Those who won't probably won't care. So they were advocating for the system/process to be demeaning to those in receipt by not giving them money and only vouchers etc. In other words creating a social stigma if shame for daring to be out of work. Not trusting these people to be able to manage money. Making sure neighbours and fellow shoppers know you don’t have a job! Fuck me if that isn’t demeaning a person!" and to add, that is a huge distance from a discussion on the level of benefits. This isn't whether it is fair that someone on PIP etc gets more than someone in a bank. Or what the difference should be. It was whether the person should even received money and autonomy. It was about creating shame. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not warranted, but when I stated PIP wasn't related to work or benefits, I was sloppily implying it wasn't a means tested benefit and one can claim whether on benefits or working. Fair amelia. Your reply read that PIP wasn't a state benefit. Glad for the clarity " I appreciate that you inferred that but it wasn't thus stated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us." Yes it related to what what Johnny claimed was going on and what was actually being said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ironically I went to get my new specs fitted and on radio 4 ( the big question) at 11.50 they were discussing it. So if you have tome today I'd advise going and listening " Benefit Fraud? Or whether the process/system should be demeaning? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses." I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. " Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”." Regarding the OP and food vouchers. I have no problems here. I dont think mo ey should EVER be given out by the state. Food/food vouchers/ heating paid for. fine. With people struggling to make ends meet. I disagree with oayments into bank accounts. We saw a 4 fold jump in rent arrears Oakington money directly into tenants accounts than the landlords. Which started the mass evictions in early 2010s. My mother worked for Conwy County Council and implemented a policy where. People visiting Wales used to ask a council for mo EU for train tickets home( yes back in 2005 you could do this) because they'd lost their train tickets back to liverpool Manchester etc. She implemented a policy of buying the tickets for them. And bot giving them the money. Immediately the claims fell 95% in year 1 I will never really agree with handing out money. I will agree on support. Paying heating/ electricity/ water/ subsidising food with £70 weekly shops...fine But giving direct cash. No. I think that policy is and always has been a disaster | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”. Regarding the OP and food vouchers. I have no problems here. I dont think mo ey should EVER be given out by the state. Food/food vouchers/ heating paid for. fine. With people struggling to make ends meet. I disagree with oayments into bank accounts. We saw a 4 fold jump in rent arrears Oakington money directly into tenants accounts than the landlords. Which started the mass evictions in early 2010s. My mother worked for Conwy County Council and implemented a policy where. People visiting Wales used to ask a council for mo EU for train tickets home( yes back in 2005 you could do this) because they'd lost their train tickets back to liverpool Manchester etc. She implemented a policy of buying the tickets for them. And bot giving them the money. Immediately the claims fell 95% in year 1 I will never really agree with handing out money. I will agree on support. Paying heating/ electricity/ water/ subsidising food with £70 weekly shops...fine But giving direct cash. No. I think that policy is and always has been a disaster " We will have to disagree as I think vouchers or a branded food van (as per OP) is highly stigmatising and demeaning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”. Regarding the OP and food vouchers. I have no problems here. I dont think mo ey should EVER be given out by the state. Food/food vouchers/ heating paid for. fine. With people struggling to make ends meet. I disagree with oayments into bank accounts. We saw a 4 fold jump in rent arrears Oakington money directly into tenants accounts than the landlords. Which started the mass evictions in early 2010s. My mother worked for Conwy County Council and implemented a policy where. People visiting Wales used to ask a council for mo EU for train tickets home( yes back in 2005 you could do this) because they'd lost their train tickets back to liverpool Manchester etc. She implemented a policy of buying the tickets for them. And bot giving them the money. Immediately the claims fell 95% in year 1 I will never really agree with handing out money. I will agree on support. Paying heating/ electricity/ water/ subsidising food with £70 weekly shops...fine But giving direct cash. No. I think that policy is and always has been a disaster We will have to disagree as I think vouchers or a branded food van (as per OP) is highly stigmatising and demeaning." That's fine. I've seen the other side and abuseof the system in my job and form my mother's role. For me benefits were always just for topping you up between roles and ofcourse when some one permanently can't work. Keeping them housed fed and sheltered. Nothing more. Not for ps5 purchases, books jobs etc etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”. Regarding the OP and food vouchers. I have no problems here. I dont think mo ey should EVER be given out by the state. Food/food vouchers/ heating paid for. fine. With people struggling to make ends meet. I disagree with oayments into bank accounts. We saw a 4 fold jump in rent arrears Oakington money directly into tenants accounts than the landlords. Which started the mass evictions in early 2010s. My mother worked for Conwy County Council and implemented a policy where. People visiting Wales used to ask a council for mo EU for train tickets home( yes back in 2005 you could do this) because they'd lost their train tickets back to liverpool Manchester etc. She implemented a policy of buying the tickets for them. And bot giving them the money. Immediately the claims fell 95% in year 1 I will never really agree with handing out money. I will agree on support. Paying heating/ electricity/ water/ subsidising food with £70 weekly shops...fine But giving direct cash. No. I think that policy is and always has been a disaster We will have to disagree as I think vouchers or a branded food van (as per OP) is highly stigmatising and demeaning. That's fine. I've seen the other side and abuseof the system in my job and form my mother's role. For me benefits were always just for topping you up between roles and ofcourse when some one permanently can't work. Keeping them housed fed and sheltered. Nothing more. Not for ps5 purchases, books jobs etc etc." What about those with a disability and cannot work full-time, are they not allowed a little in the bank, or buy a ps5? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”. Regarding the OP and food vouchers. I have no problems here. I dont think mo ey should EVER be given out by the state. Food/food vouchers/ heating paid for. fine. With people struggling to make ends meet. I disagree with oayments into bank accounts. We saw a 4 fold jump in rent arrears Oakington money directly into tenants accounts than the landlords. Which started the mass evictions in early 2010s. My mother worked for Conwy County Council and implemented a policy where. People visiting Wales used to ask a council for mo EU for train tickets home( yes back in 2005 you could do this) because they'd lost their train tickets back to liverpool Manchester etc. She implemented a policy of buying the tickets for them. And bot giving them the money. Immediately the claims fell 95% in year 1 I will never really agree with handing out money. I will agree on support. Paying heating/ electricity/ water/ subsidising food with £70 weekly shops...fine But giving direct cash. No. I think that policy is and always has been a disaster We will have to disagree as I think vouchers or a branded food van (as per OP) is highly stigmatising and demeaning. That's fine. I've seen the other side and abuseof the system in my job and form my mother's role. For me benefits were always just for topping you up between roles and ofcourse when some one permanently can't work. Keeping them housed fed and sheltered. Nothing more. Not for ps5 purchases, books jobs etc etc. What about those with a disability and cannot work full-time, are they not allowed a little in the bank, or buy a ps5?" Do you mean they can work part time? Or they can't work at all. If the state fully takes care of them. Then no. Using downs syndrome as an example I am sorry but if you can't work. You should not be better off than some one working 40 hours a week after paying full private market rent utilities food etc. These are luxury items and not necessities. Should so.ething cha ge. E.g that individual not live by themselves and require a carer and going I to a Home with shared amenities and lower costs. I've no problem with shared PlayStation etc. But sadly we are moving from That idea. The state should only be intervening really when you are out into temporary adverse conditions. It shouldn't be a way of life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”. Regarding the OP and food vouchers. I have no problems here. I dont think mo ey should EVER be given out by the state. Food/food vouchers/ heating paid for. fine. With people struggling to make ends meet. I disagree with oayments into bank accounts. We saw a 4 fold jump in rent arrears Oakington money directly into tenants accounts than the landlords. Which started the mass evictions in early 2010s. My mother worked for Conwy County Council and implemented a policy where. People visiting Wales used to ask a council for mo EU for train tickets home( yes back in 2005 you could do this) because they'd lost their train tickets back to liverpool Manchester etc. She implemented a policy of buying the tickets for them. And bot giving them the money. Immediately the claims fell 95% in year 1 I will never really agree with handing out money. I will agree on support. Paying heating/ electricity/ water/ subsidising food with £70 weekly shops...fine But giving direct cash. No. I think that policy is and always has been a disaster We will have to disagree as I think vouchers or a branded food van (as per OP) is highly stigmatising and demeaning. That's fine. I've seen the other side and abuseof the system in my job and form my mother's role. For me benefits were always just for topping you up between roles and ofcourse when some one permanently can't work. Keeping them housed fed and sheltered. Nothing more. Not for ps5 purchases, books jobs etc etc. What about those with a disability and cannot work full-time, are they not allowed a little in the bank, or buy a ps5? Do you mean they can work part time? Or they can't work at all. If the state fully takes care of them. Then no. Using downs syndrome as an example I am sorry but if you can't work. You should not be better off than some one working 40 hours a week after paying full private market rent utilities food etc. These are luxury items and not necessities. Should so.ething cha ge. E.g that individual not live by themselves and require a carer and going I to a Home with shared amenities and lower costs. I've no problem with shared PlayStation etc. But sadly we are moving from That idea. The state should only be intervening really when you are out into temporary adverse conditions. It shouldn't be a way of life." They can work part-time. It was implied. If they couldn't work at all, I would have stated they couldn't work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”. Regarding the OP and food vouchers. I have no problems here. I dont think mo ey should EVER be given out by the state. Food/food vouchers/ heating paid for. fine. With people struggling to make ends meet. I disagree with oayments into bank accounts. We saw a 4 fold jump in rent arrears Oakington money directly into tenants accounts than the landlords. Which started the mass evictions in early 2010s. My mother worked for Conwy County Council and implemented a policy where. People visiting Wales used to ask a council for mo EU for train tickets home( yes back in 2005 you could do this) because they'd lost their train tickets back to liverpool Manchester etc. She implemented a policy of buying the tickets for them. And bot giving them the money. Immediately the claims fell 95% in year 1 I will never really agree with handing out money. I will agree on support. Paying heating/ electricity/ water/ subsidising food with £70 weekly shops...fine But giving direct cash. No. I think that policy is and always has been a disaster We will have to disagree as I think vouchers or a branded food van (as per OP) is highly stigmatising and demeaning. That's fine. I've seen the other side and abuseof the system in my job and form my mother's role. For me benefits were always just for topping you up between roles and ofcourse when some one permanently can't work. Keeping them housed fed and sheltered. Nothing more. Not for ps5 purchases, books jobs etc etc. What about those with a disability and cannot work full-time, are they not allowed a little in the bank, or buy a ps5? Do you mean they can work part time? Or they can't work at all. If the state fully takes care of them. Then no. Using downs syndrome as an example I am sorry but if you can't work. You should not be better off than some one working 40 hours a week after paying full private market rent utilities food etc. These are luxury items and not necessities. Should so.ething cha ge. E.g that individual not live by themselves and require a carer and going I to a Home with shared amenities and lower costs. I've no problem with shared PlayStation etc. But sadly we are moving from That idea. The state should only be intervening really when you are out into temporary adverse conditions. It shouldn't be a way of life. They can work part-time. It was implied. If they couldn't work at all, I would have stated they couldn't work." Then they can improve their part time employment and get better paid jobs just like people I full time employment do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”. Regarding the OP and food vouchers. I have no problems here. I dont think mo ey should EVER be given out by the state. Food/food vouchers/ heating paid for. fine. With people struggling to make ends meet. I disagree with oayments into bank accounts. We saw a 4 fold jump in rent arrears Oakington money directly into tenants accounts than the landlords. Which started the mass evictions in early 2010s. My mother worked for Conwy County Council and implemented a policy where. People visiting Wales used to ask a council for mo EU for train tickets home( yes back in 2005 you could do this) because they'd lost their train tickets back to liverpool Manchester etc. She implemented a policy of buying the tickets for them. And bot giving them the money. Immediately the claims fell 95% in year 1 I will never really agree with handing out money. I will agree on support. Paying heating/ electricity/ water/ subsidising food with £70 weekly shops...fine But giving direct cash. No. I think that policy is and always has been a disaster We will have to disagree as I think vouchers or a branded food van (as per OP) is highly stigmatising and demeaning. That's fine. I've seen the other side and abuseof the system in my job and form my mother's role. For me benefits were always just for topping you up between roles and ofcourse when some one permanently can't work. Keeping them housed fed and sheltered. Nothing more. Not for ps5 purchases, books jobs etc etc. What about those with a disability and cannot work full-time, are they not allowed a little in the bank, or buy a ps5? Do you mean they can work part time? Or they can't work at all. If the state fully takes care of them. Then no. Using downs syndrome as an example I am sorry but if you can't work. You should not be better off than some one working 40 hours a week after paying full private market rent utilities food etc. These are luxury items and not necessities. Should so.ething cha ge. E.g that individual not live by themselves and require a carer and going I to a Home with shared amenities and lower costs. I've no problem with shared PlayStation etc. But sadly we are moving from That idea. The state should only be intervening really when you are out into temporary adverse conditions. It shouldn't be a way of life. They can work part-time. It was implied. If they couldn't work at all, I would have stated they couldn't work. Then they can improve their part time employment and get better paid jobs just like people I full time employment do. " I still earn less than the living wage  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I genuinely don't know how else to explain it to you. No one I the thread demeaned any one using benefits. But what they said was that benefits should feel demeaning. Ah ok so you are only focused on what was said in the thread rather than the topic as a whole? That wasn’t clear to me. In terms of the thread, only the OP can really say what they meant. We are just superimposing our own thought processes. Can we talk about the wider topic though. Do you think the process/system for claiming benefits should be demeaning (ie a person will feel demeaned by the process/system)? That isn’t the same as whether you or I would find it demeaning because our values are such that simply having to claim benefits regardless of what the experience and process was like would still feel demeaning to us. P.S. the OP we are referring to said Benefits should be demeaning So didn’t use the word feel. So that can be read in multiple ways. I read that as “benefits should be demeaning per se” rather than “it would feel demeaning to me” so to me that was a comment on how the process/system should work. The OP didn’t clarify in subsequent responses. I think if you re read the old thread you will see where I am questioning Johnny. Particularly on my quotations of his postings. He was saying we the posters were demeaning the person. Ok I get that. However, I moved on some time back from that to talk about the wider issue and what the person was implying by saying “benefits should be demeaning”. Regarding the OP and food vouchers. I have no problems here. I dont think mo ey should EVER be given out by the state. Food/food vouchers/ heating paid for. fine. With people struggling to make ends meet. I disagree with oayments into bank accounts. We saw a 4 fold jump in rent arrears Oakington money directly into tenants accounts than the landlords. Which started the mass evictions in early 2010s. My mother worked for Conwy County Council and implemented a policy where. People visiting Wales used to ask a council for mo EU for train tickets home( yes back in 2005 you could do this) because they'd lost their train tickets back to liverpool Manchester etc. She implemented a policy of buying the tickets for them. And bot giving them the money. Immediately the claims fell 95% in year 1 I will never really agree with handing out money. I will agree on support. Paying heating/ electricity/ water/ subsidising food with £70 weekly shops...fine But giving direct cash. No. I think that policy is and always has been a disaster We will have to disagree as I think vouchers or a branded food van (as per OP) is highly stigmatising and demeaning. That's fine. I've seen the other side and abuseof the system in my job and form my mother's role. For me benefits were always just for topping you up between roles and ofcourse when some one permanently can't work. Keeping them housed fed and sheltered. Nothing more. Not for ps5 purchases, books jobs etc etc. What about those with a disability and cannot work full-time, are they not allowed a little in the bank, or buy a ps5? Do you mean they can work part time? Or they can't work at all. If the state fully takes care of them. Then no. Using downs syndrome as an example I am sorry but if you can't work. You should not be better off than some one working 40 hours a week after paying full private market rent utilities food etc. These are luxury items and not necessities. Should so.ething cha ge. E.g that individual not live by themselves and require a carer and going I to a Home with shared amenities and lower costs. I've no problem with shared PlayStation etc. But sadly we are moving from That idea. The state should only be intervening really when you are out into temporary adverse conditions. It shouldn't be a way of life. They can work part-time. It was implied. If they couldn't work at all, I would have stated they couldn't work. Then they can improve their part time employment and get better paid jobs just like people I full time employment do. " I work on the social housing in sussex and see both ends of this from the single mum with 5 children struggling but doing her best to family's with 2 children where the parents are not well on PIP doing very nicely. To a elderly friend how has to spend money as he will have to much in the bank to receive all his benefits. It's so complicated now it is hard to fix. But it can't be right that some one on benefits has more disposable income than a working family. But the out laying problem is single healthy men are intiteld to sweet fuck all.. As a single male you would struggle to even get on a housing list if you where homeless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover." The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover. The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be?" I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover. The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be?" what I think it should be, enough to live a decent life, 30, 35 grand a year, not sure if that is enough really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover. The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant ". Lots of people have to survive on £21000 per annum. In any event if there are children in many cases both partners are working so the income then becomes £42000. In many cases children often receive help from their grandparents . It is called taking responsibility. Increased wages simply mean everyone has to pay more for goods. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover. The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant . Lots of people have to survive on £21000 per annum. In any event if there are children in many cases both partners are working so the income then becomes £42000. In many cases children often receive help from their grandparents . It is called taking responsibility.
Increased wages simply mean everyone has to pay more for goods. "You're not doing a wind up ok. Well we are paying more anyway more mortgage rates, more amenities, more tax the highest ever from a low tax government, more on clothes food, drink, just more more and more and you say we will only pay more if wages are higher in goods and services. Whilst denying hard working people a decent living whilst their managers live it up. Shit in the water, and they want us to pay for an upgrade when they took a loan and gave that loan to shareholders. higher rail fares higher fees to travel, ULEZ it just goes on and on. All this whilst wages decrease, I would say it is a shit show for the poor but they are drinking and bathing in shit anyway are not we all. I could go on and on but my fingers are getting tired. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover. The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant . Lots of people have to survive on £21000 per annum. In any event if there are children in many cases both partners are working so the income then becomes £42000. In many cases children often receive help from their grandparents . It is called taking responsibility.
Increased wages simply mean everyone has to pay more for goods. "Missed families, the divorce rate is through the roof at this time as relationships breakdown due to the everyday pressures of living, single parent families are rising as people do not want the hassle of marriage it is just to expensive to be married and expensive to get out of marriage. From your comments I wonder what your world view of this is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover. The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be?" i hadnt done the maths but has made me realise I should have asked morley when he was a bank clerk! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be?" "I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant "I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort. I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant
I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort.
I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill."I would feel rich if I earned anywhere near £18,000. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover. The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant . Lots of people have to survive on £21000 per annum. In any event if there are children in many cases both partners are working so the income then becomes £42000. In many cases children often receive help from their grandparents . It is called taking responsibility.
Increased wages simply mean everyone has to pay more for goods.
Missed families, the divorce rate is through the roof at this time as relationships breakdown due to the everyday pressures of living, single parent families are rising as people do not want the hassle of marriage it is just to expensive to be married and expensive to get out of marriage.
From your comments I wonder what your world view of this is."It is hardly up to society or the taxpayer to pick up the tab for single parent families . The whole point of marriage is to provide stability and a favourable environment in which to bring up children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover. The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant . Lots of people have to survive on £21000 per annum. In any event if there are children in many cases both partners are working so the income then becomes £42000. In many cases children often receive help from their grandparents . It is called taking responsibility.
Increased wages simply mean everyone has to pay more for goods.
Missed families, the divorce rate is through the roof at this time as relationships breakdown due to the everyday pressures of living, single parent families are rising as people do not want the hassle of marriage it is just to expensive to be married and expensive to get out of marriage.
From your comments I wonder what your world view of this is. It is hardly up to society or the taxpayer to pick up the tab for single parent families . The whole point of marriage is to provide stability and a favourable environment in which to bring up children. "MMM ok I see what you mean, but and there always is. we you me and the other posters on here do support these people, single families, single men, and guess what we support people who are in full-time employment, I say again full-time employment, and those on zero hours contracts. Because employers do not want to pay a fair wage and it seems the government support this. So we pay the extra, we are filling the gap, in your circumstance I would support you if you applied for extra benefits due to your financial circumstances. I wouldn't blame you far from it I would be giving the government and your employer hell for not paying you a decent wage, and your circumstance. Either way we are all being taken for mugs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meanwhile employers do not have to pay a fair wage and their profits increase, these profits are funnelled into tax havens which the UK will never recover. The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant . Lots of people have to survive on £21000 per annum. In any event if there are children in many cases both partners are working so the income then becomes £42000. In many cases children often receive help from their grandparents . It is called taking responsibility.
Increased wages simply mean everyone has to pay more for goods.
Missed families, the divorce rate is through the roof at this time as relationships breakdown due to the everyday pressures of living, single parent families are rising as people do not want the hassle of marriage it is just to expensive to be married and expensive to get out of marriage.
From your comments I wonder what your world view of this is. It is hardly up to society or the taxpayer to pick up the tab for single parent families . The whole point of marriage is to provide stability and a favourable environment in which to bring up children. "I am like you single, but I do have children yes their expensive but that's my choice an expensive one but my choice ha. I get your point about marriage, so what has gone wrong with respect to marriage. I am told it is due to everyday stress, financial stress not seeing the other half due to long working hours and other factors marriage is expensive there is a price on love and relationships which should not be allowed. Can I say from the little you have told me about you my view of you is wrong I thought you were a well off tory who didn't have a clue about life, a conversation can change relationships, I am glad we had a chat without bravo. cheers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant
I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort.
I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill."It's certainly. Not a poor wage at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant
I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort.
I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill.
It's certainly. Not a poor wage at all."But still those on that wage claim benefits, so if you don't mind filling the gap which you are then crack on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£20,319 is the minimum/living wage. Yes please. I'd be ecstatic." Well I wouldn't be so that's why I strived to earn more. That isn't my point though I see the mimimum wage as a ploy to keep wages down and in the hands of employers and refusing the right to strike for more, I will put amazon as an example. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£20,319 is the minimum/living wage. Yes please. I'd be ecstatic. Well I wouldn't be so that's why I strived to earn more. That isn't my point though I see the mimimum wage as a ploy to keep wages down and in the hands of employers and refusing the right to strike for more, I will put amazon as an example. " My salary, if I could work full-time, is much more, but I cannot. I went to uni to earn more, but life has a way of throwing curve balls. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked for 45 years,paid full stamp and tax,that’s why I deserved PIP even though it was the worst 6 months trying to get it ,but for my sister and family I may have given up " You're looking at that the wrong way round. You deserve to get PIP because you're disabled. It doesn't matter how much you paid into the system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked for 45 years,paid full stamp and tax,that’s why I deserved PIP even though it was the worst 6 months trying to get it ,but for my sister and family I may have given up You're looking at that the wrong way round. You deserve to get PIP because you're disabled. It doesn't matter how much you paid into the system." Is there merit though in a policy that does reflect what people have paid in? I do not know details but I believe in Holland your unemployment benefits reflect your tax and NI equivalent and you get 80% of your last salary for first few months then it reduces over time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked for 45 years,paid full stamp and tax,that’s why I deserved PIP even though it was the worst 6 months trying to get it ,but for my sister and family I may have given up " I'm still trying. And didn't start when first entitled as thought it was means tested. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked for 45 years,paid full stamp and tax,that’s why I deserved PIP even though it was the worst 6 months trying to get it ,but for my sister and family I may have given up You're looking at that the wrong way round. You deserve to get PIP because you're disabled. It doesn't matter how much you paid into the system." very true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£20,319 is the minimum/living wage. Yes please. I'd be ecstatic. Well I wouldn't be so that's why I strived to earn more. That isn't my point though I see the mimimum wage as a ploy to keep wages down and in the hands of employers and refusing the right to strike for more, I will put amazon as an example. My salary, if I could work full-time, is much more, but I cannot. I went to uni to earn more, but life has a way of throwing curve balls." I understand, but you're still ok and leading a good life I expect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£20,319 is the minimum/living wage. Yes please. I'd be ecstatic. Well I wouldn't be so that's why I strived to earn more. That isn't my point though I see the mimimum wage as a ploy to keep wages down and in the hands of employers and refusing the right to strike for more, I will put amazon as an example. My salary, if I could work full-time, is much more, but I cannot. I went to uni to earn more, but life has a way of throwing curve balls. I understand, but you're still ok and leading a good life I expect." No not ok. No not leading a good life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£20,319 is the minimum/living wage. Yes please. I'd be ecstatic. Well I wouldn't be so that's why I strived to earn more. That isn't my point though I see the mimimum wage as a ploy to keep wages down and in the hands of employers and refusing the right to strike for more, I will put amazon as an example. My salary, if I could work full-time, is much more, but I cannot. I went to uni to earn more, but life has a way of throwing curve balls. I understand, but you're still ok and leading a good life I expect. No not ok. No not leading a good life." Well I am sorry to hear that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£20,319 is the minimum/living wage. Yes please. I'd be ecstatic. Well I wouldn't be so that's why I strived to earn more. That isn't my point though I see the mimimum wage as a ploy to keep wages down and in the hands of employers and refusing the right to strike for more, I will put amazon as an example. My salary, if I could work full-time, is much more, but I cannot. I went to uni to earn more, but life has a way of throwing curve balls. I understand, but you're still ok and leading a good life I expect. No not ok. No not leading a good life. Well I am sorry to hear that." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked for 45 years,paid full stamp and tax,that’s why I deserved PIP even though it was the worst 6 months trying to get it ,but for my sister and family I may have given up You're looking at that the wrong way round. You deserve to get PIP because you're disabled. It doesn't matter how much you paid into the system. Is there merit though in a policy that does reflect what people have paid in? I do not know details but I believe in Holland your unemployment benefits reflect your tax and NI equivalent and you get 80% of your last salary for first few months then it reduces over time." In the UK between 1966 and 1982 claimants received additional support based on earnings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked for 45 years,paid full stamp and tax,that’s why I deserved PIP even though it was the worst 6 months trying to get it ,but for my sister and family I may have given up You're looking at that the wrong way round. You deserve to get PIP because you're disabled. It doesn't matter how much you paid into the system. Is there merit though in a policy that does reflect what people have paid in? I do not know details but I believe in Holland your unemployment benefits reflect your tax and NI equivalent and you get 80% of your last salary for first few months then it reduces over time.In the UK between 1966 and 1982 claimants received additional support based on earnings. " I did not know that! That, to me, seems a fairer model. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I worked for 45 years,paid full stamp and tax,that’s why I deserved PIP even though it was the worst 6 months trying to get it ,but for my sister and family I may have given up You're looking at that the wrong way round. You deserve to get PIP because you're disabled. It doesn't matter how much you paid into the system. Is there merit though in a policy that does reflect what people have paid in? I do not know details but I believe in Holland your unemployment benefits reflect your tax and NI equivalent and you get 80% of your last salary for first few months then it reduces over time.In the UK between 1966 and 1982 claimants received additional support based on earnings. I did not know that! That, to me, seems a fairer model." A discussion article for you . tract The abolition in 1982 of the Earnings-Related Supplement (ERS) to unemployment benefit, which had been introduced in 1966, left the UK with no element of income support for the unemployed linked to previous earnings. The ERS scheme represents an important case study of economic and social policy but it has been little researched hitherto. The paper examines the history of ERS, showing how the original legislation and subsequent development produced a benefit that bore little relation to schemes in other countries. Unpublished administrative data on the receipt of ERS are used to help document the scheme's failings, and the paper closes by placing ERS within the context of the development of unemployment insurance in Britain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks. But I'm alive, thanks to foreign health services and definitely not our NHS " Me too thank God. NHS fobbed me off, but overseas health service diagnosed and treated superbly. Our 'national treasure' NHS is mediocre at best and diabolical at worst. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because our NHS is severely underfunded,the Tories are doing their best to destroy it so their sponsors can make profits from them " I don't believe our NHS is underfunded. I believe that it's scope is too wide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because our NHS is severely underfunded,the Tories are doing their best to destroy it so their sponsors can make profits from them I don't believe our NHS is underfunded. I believe that it's scope is too wide. " I agree. My simplistic view is the NHS is there to save lives...only! For example, A&E, cancer treatment, heart bypass etc. Anything cosmetic or elective is a no unless the cosmetic is the result of an accident that saw you need to be in A&E. Now of course there will be outliers. Of course there will be the argument that some cosmetic procedures are necessary for a person’s mental health. But I think that all needs severely tightening up. Plus zero treatment (except legit A&E) for anyone who is not a Brit Cit or taxpayer in UK. Mandatory health insurance for all visitors or no entry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because our NHS is severely underfunded,the Tories are doing their best to destroy it so their sponsors can make profits from them I don't believe our NHS is underfunded. I believe that it's scope is too wide. I agree. My simplistic view is the NHS is there to save lives...only! For example, A&E, cancer treatment, heart bypass etc. Anything cosmetic or elective is a no unless the cosmetic is the result of an accident that saw you need to be in A&E. Now of course there will be outliers. Of course there will be the argument that some cosmetic procedures are necessary for a person’s mental health. But I think that all needs severely tightening up. Plus zero treatment (except legit A&E) for anyone who is not a Brit Cit or taxpayer in UK. Mandatory health insurance for all visitors or no entry." Agreed. I would goa. Step further and remove mental health from generic NHS budget. By all means allow it a budget by not for 'feel good' cosmetic procedures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do we need to look at others ,it is our NHS Pat or are you one of their sponsors?" . I would have thought that in most situations you review performance or benchmark it against selected criteria. If we can improve performance or reduce cost we should be exploding the feasibility of the proposed solution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do we need to look at others ,it is our NHS Pat or are you one of their sponsors?. I would have thought that in most situations you review performance or benchmark it against selected criteria. If we can improve performance or reduce cost we should be exploding the feasibility of the proposed solution. " I’d rather we did not explode anything in relation to the NHS! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In addition to the rigours checks suggested on who is using the NHS and proof of entitlement before any services are supplied we need to consider the funding systems adopted in other Eurpesn countries . Part privatisation would lead to greater control and improved services . We should have specialist divisions within the servive . The existing funding system was designed for a different era . We all have to recognise that the provision of a health service is expensive. Other European Countries have tackled the issue more succcessfully that the UK. Sometimes in life you have to recognise that you made the wrong decision. A break up of the NHS would mean greater accountability and better services . Anyone who disagrees might need to examine how other European countries tackle the issue. " It has been looked at. Total mixed bag and comparing apples with pears. If you refocused the scope of NHS along lines myself and Feisty say above, you wouldn’t need to privatise the core services. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In addition to the rigours checks suggested on who is using the NHS and proof of entitlement before any services are supplied we need to consider the funding systems adopted in other Eurpesn countries . Part privatisation would lead to greater control and improved services . We should have specialist divisions within the servive . The existing funding system was designed for a different era . We all have to recognise that the provision of a health service is expensive. Other European Countries have tackled the issue more succcessfully that the UK. Sometimes in life you have to recognise that you made the wrong decision. A break up of the NHS would mean greater accountability and better services . Anyone who disagrees might need to examine how other European countries tackle the issue. It has been looked at. Total mixed bag and comparing apples with pears. If you refocused the scope of NHS along lines myself and Feisty say above, you wouldn’t need to privatise the core services." . It would be intersting to know why we should not benchmark ourselves against other European countries.? Anyone resident in the Republic of Ireland could not simply turn up at a hospital and expect to be treated free of charge. Provision of medical care is very expensive. We need to examine every method available in order to make the provision of services more cost effective . We can only do that by bench marking ourselves against other European countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In addition to the rigours checks suggested on who is using the NHS and proof of entitlement before any services are supplied we need to consider the funding systems adopted in other Eurpesn countries . Part privatisation would lead to greater control and improved services . We should have specialist divisions within the servive . The existing funding system was designed for a different era . We all have to recognise that the provision of a health service is expensive. Other European Countries have tackled the issue more succcessfully that the UK. Sometimes in life you have to recognise that you made the wrong decision. A break up of the NHS would mean greater accountability and better services . Anyone who disagrees might need to examine how other European countries tackle the issue. It has been looked at. Total mixed bag and comparing apples with pears. If you refocused the scope of NHS along lines myself and Feisty say above, you wouldn’t need to privatise the core services. . It would be intersting to know why we should not benchmark ourselves against other European countries.? Anyone resident in the Republic of Ireland could not simply turn up at a hospital and expect to be treated free of charge. Provision of medical care is very expensive. We need to examine every method available in order to make the provision of services more cost effective . We can only do that by bench marking ourselves against other European countries. " It has been done many times. Generally on health outcomes the NHS comes out around 10th (ish) place but when you factor in cost and value for money it jumps up the “league table”. When I get a chance I will see if I can find a link. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In addition to the rigours checks suggested on who is using the NHS and proof of entitlement before any services are supplied we need to consider the funding systems adopted in other Eurpesn countries . Part privatisation would lead to greater control and improved services . We should have specialist divisions within the servive . The existing funding system was designed for a different era . We all have to recognise that the provision of a health service is expensive. Other European Countries have tackled the issue more succcessfully that the UK. Sometimes in life you have to recognise that you made the wrong decision. A break up of the NHS would mean greater accountability and better services . Anyone who disagrees might need to examine how other European countries tackle the issue. It has been looked at. Total mixed bag and comparing apples with pears. If you refocused the scope of NHS along lines myself and Feisty say above, you wouldn’t need to privatise the core services. . It would be intersting to know why we should not benchmark ourselves against other European countries.? Anyone resident in the Republic of Ireland could not simply turn up at a hospital and expect to be treated free of charge. Provision of medical care is very expensive. We need to examine every method available in order to make the provision of services more cost effective . We can only do that by bench marking ourselves against other European countries. It has been done many times. Generally on health outcomes the NHS comes out around 10th (ish) place but when you factor in cost and value for money it jumps up the “league table”. When I get a chance I will see if I can find a link." . How many teams are in the league table. ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In addition to the rigours checks suggested on who is using the NHS and proof of entitlement before any services are supplied we need to consider the funding systems adopted in other Eurpesn countries . Part privatisation would lead to greater control and improved services . We should have specialist divisions within the servive . The existing funding system was designed for a different era . We all have to recognise that the provision of a health service is expensive. Other European Countries have tackled the issue more succcessfully that the UK. Sometimes in life you have to recognise that you made the wrong decision. A break up of the NHS would mean greater accountability and better services . Anyone who disagrees might need to examine how other European countries tackle the issue. It has been looked at. Total mixed bag and comparing apples with pears. If you refocused the scope of NHS along lines myself and Feisty say above, you wouldn’t need to privatise the core services. . It would be intersting to know why we should not benchmark ourselves against other European countries.? Anyone resident in the Republic of Ireland could not simply turn up at a hospital and expect to be treated free of charge. Provision of medical care is very expensive. We need to examine every method available in order to make the provision of services more cost effective . We can only do that by bench marking ourselves against other European countries. It has been done many times. Generally on health outcomes the NHS comes out around 10th (ish) place but when you factor in cost and value for money it jumps up the “league table”. When I get a chance I will see if I can find a link.. How many teams are in the league table. ? " Depends which time research was done but I believe it was EU and EEA members. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In addition to the rigours checks suggested on who is using the NHS and proof of entitlement before any services are supplied we need to consider the funding systems adopted in other Eurpesn countries . Part privatisation would lead to greater control and improved services . We should have specialist divisions within the servive . The existing funding system was designed for a different era . We all have to recognise that the provision of a health service is expensive. Other European Countries have tackled the issue more succcessfully that the UK. Sometimes in life you have to recognise that you made the wrong decision. A break up of the NHS would mean greater accountability and better services . Anyone who disagrees might need to examine how other European countries tackle the issue. It has been looked at. Total mixed bag and comparing apples with pears. If you refocused the scope of NHS along lines myself and Feisty say above, you wouldn’t need to privatise the core services." Core services do not need privatising. We need to go back and make core services priority. As things stand, the NHS cannot be fixed, something I don't believe can ever happen unless we can remove a lot of services and take it back to basics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In addition to the rigours checks suggested on who is using the NHS and proof of entitlement before any services are supplied we need to consider the funding systems adopted in other Eurpesn countries . Part privatisation would lead to greater control and improved services . We should have specialist divisions within the servive . The existing funding system was designed for a different era . We all have to recognise that the provision of a health service is expensive. Other European Countries have tackled the issue more succcessfully that the UK. Sometimes in life you have to recognise that you made the wrong decision. A break up of the NHS would mean greater accountability and better services . Anyone who disagrees might need to examine how other European countries tackle the issue. It has been looked at. Total mixed bag and comparing apples with pears. If you refocused the scope of NHS along lines myself and Feisty say above, you wouldn’t need to privatise the core services. . It would be intersting to know why we should not benchmark ourselves against other European countries.? Anyone resident in the Republic of Ireland could not simply turn up at a hospital and expect to be treated free of charge. Provision of medical care is very expensive. We need to examine every method available in order to make the provision of services more cost effective . We can only do that by bench marking ourselves against other European countries. It has been done many times. Generally on health outcomes the NHS comes out around 10th (ish) place but when you factor in cost and value for money it jumps up the “league table”. When I get a chance I will see if I can find a link.. How many teams are in the league table. ? Depends which time research was done but I believe it was EU and EEA members." The UK has been ranked 16th in a wide ranging assessment of 35 national health systems in Europe, just below Portugal (13th), the Czech Republic (14th) and Estonia (15th). Switzerland topped the latest rankings, followed by the Netherlands and then Norway, while in last place was Albania, preceded by Romania and Hungary. The rankings were published in the 2018 survey by the Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI),1 which has been producing annual assessments of the performance of national healthcare systems in Europe since 2005. The results were based on 46 indicators grouped under six headings: patient … | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The minimum wage is £10.42 for an adult, which equates to around £21,800 per year. That seems like a fair wage to me. What do you think it should be? I see the minimum wage as a way of keeping check on wage growth for millions of people, denying them their rights to a fair wage. 21,000 if you can live on that good for you I wouldn't get out of bed in a heatwave for that, that is a poverty wage from the victorian era inflated to todays prices, which still needs a benefit top up from ours truly to help those on those kind of wages survive, just survive, not live a reasonable life, pay a mortgage, feed their children, buy clothes, pay bills, food you know it is not enough behave yourself. wind up merchant
I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort.
I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill."It depends where you live, inner city london you would struggle, up north you might be better off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort. I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill." "It depends where you live, inner city london you would struggle, up north you might be better off." That's true enough. In some parts of Wales / North England you can get a mortgage and buy a house with minimum wage earnings. In London you'd struggle to live at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort. I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill. It depends where you live, inner city london you would struggle, up north you might be better off. That's true enough. In some parts of Wales / North England you can get a mortgage and buy a house with minimum wage earnings. In London you'd struggle to live at all." This is true. In Armley in Leeds. You can buy a house on minimum wage. 80k for a 2 bed end of terrace. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort. I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill. It depends where you live, inner city london you would struggle, up north you might be better off. That's true enough. In some parts of Wales / North England you can get a mortgage and buy a house with minimum wage earnings. In London you'd struggle to live at all. This is true. In Armley in Leeds. You can buy a house on minimum wage. 80k for a 2 bed end of terrace." Wouldn’t even buy you a garage in London (or most of the South East) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort. I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill. It depends where you live, inner city london you would struggle, up north you might be better off. That's true enough. In some parts of Wales / North England you can get a mortgage and buy a house with minimum wage earnings. In London you'd struggle to live at all. This is true. In Armley in Leeds. You can buy a house on minimum wage. 80k for a 2 bed end of terrace. Wouldn’t even buy you a garage in London (or most of the South East)" I wouldnt even think tk try and live in London if the best job I can get is minimum wage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort. I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill. It depends where you live, inner city london you would struggle, up north you might be better off. That's true enough. In some parts of Wales / North England you can get a mortgage and buy a house with minimum wage earnings. In London you'd struggle to live at all. This is true. In Armley in Leeds. You can buy a house on minimum wage. 80k for a 2 bed end of terrace. Wouldn’t even buy you a garage in London (or most of the South East) I wouldnt even think tk try and live in London if the best job I can get is minimum wage." I'm in London on minimum wage. It's a struggle, I have a new (and very long mortgage). It's doable if you're very very frugal, which I am. At some point though I'm sure I'll be sick of it and have to move somewhere cheaper! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm in London on minimum wage. It's a struggle, I have a new (and very long mortgage). It's doable if you're very very frugal, which I am. At some point though I'm sure I'll be sick of it and have to move somewhere cheaper!" Well done you, for being sensible and getting your life sorted out. It can't be easy, and I'm impressed that you've managed it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort. I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill. It depends where you live, inner city london you would struggle, up north you might be better off. That's true enough. In some parts of Wales / North England you can get a mortgage and buy a house with minimum wage earnings. In London you'd struggle to live at all. This is true. In Armley in Leeds. You can buy a house on minimum wage. 80k for a 2 bed end of terrace. Wouldn’t even buy you a garage in London (or most of the South East) I wouldnt even think tk try and live in London if the best job I can get is minimum wage. I'm in London on minimum wage. It's a struggle, I have a new (and very long mortgage). It's doable if you're very very frugal, which I am. At some point though I'm sure I'll be sick of it and have to move somewhere cheaper!" Agreed well done on living a life that has ensured you can buy somewhere you want to live. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I live on about £18,000 per year. Mostly because I made some sensible decisions when I was younger, so I don't have a mortgage, or kids, and I'm not interested in fashion of any sort. I really don't think that £21,800 is a poor wage, for doing basic simple non-skilled work. If you want more, go and learn a skill. It depends where you live, inner city london you would struggle, up north you might be better off. That's true enough. In some parts of Wales / North England you can get a mortgage and buy a house with minimum wage earnings. In London you'd struggle to live at all. This is true. In Armley in Leeds. You can buy a house on minimum wage. 80k for a 2 bed end of terrace. Wouldn’t even buy you a garage in London (or most of the South East) I wouldnt even think tk try and live in London if the best job I can get is minimum wage. I'm in London on minimum wage. It's a struggle, I have a new (and very long mortgage). It's doable if you're very very frugal, which I am. At some point though I'm sure I'll be sick of it and have to move somewhere cheaper! Agreed well done on living a life that has ensured you can buy somewhere you want to live." Definitely not where I want to live, but it's a start | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
