Cyclone Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 You're clearly on one with this! Rather than banging on about there being no human rights laws about giving handouts to those that won't work - try listening to the principle point being made I.e. The claim that they will stop Benefits will never be followed through, because they wouldn't get away with letting people starve. Again - I'm on your side with this - don't be so blinded by trying to make a point I disagree, I think they will go through with it. I also think that you're wrong that there is any legal reason that they couldn't (which you've said twice). I'm not on one, I just think you're wrong about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 what i saw on the news about it ( 3rd strike and no money for 3 years) is complete and utter cack. yes its hardline, yes itll appease the right wingers BUT how do they think people are going to live? if they cant / wont get a job, and wont get any dole whats that leave? handouts from family? what if their family wont or they dont have family then what? desperate times require desperate methods, people are gonna turn to crime in the hundreds / thousands, even a million? crime figures are gonna go through the roof You think that there are a million people actually refusing to work? Better that they are flushed out now and dealt with if it's true, I think it might be more in the range of thousands though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Right sort of argument for why they won't / can't do it - don't think you'll win cyclone over with it tho i dont care what cyclone thinks I think the crime rate will rise immeasurably, and begging too, thereby completely destroying the measures the past governments have taken to bring the levels down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 You think that there are a million people actually refusing to work? Better that they are flushed out now and dealt with if it's true, I think it might be more in the range of thousands though. not just wont work, theres plenty that cant actually get a job for whatever reason maybe a million is an over exageration, but its gonna be a fair wack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davehunt Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 I think in the end it will become a very watered down version. Whose head will roll when the family of the first person who dies from malnutrition sues the government on the basis that , they (government) stopped all benefits and therefore couldn't afford to buy food and died. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying everyone or anyone would end up doing that - but which prime minister is ever going to take that risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 not just wont work, theres plenty that cant actually get a job for whatever reason maybe a million is an over exageration, but its gonna be a fair wack Three strikes won't apply to someone who can't find a job 'for whatever reason'. It will apply to people who refuse an offer of work 3 times. Seriously, you need to understand the proposal before you comment on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 I think in the end it will become a very watered down version. Whose head will roll when the family of the first person who dies from malnutrition sues the government on the basis that , they (government) stopped all benefits and therefore couldn't afford to buy food and died. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying everyone or anyone would end up doing that - but which prime minister is ever going to take that risk It'd be a very short court action ending up with a judge stating that the state isn't obliged to feed people (although if suffering from malnutrition they would get health treatment on the NHS). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Three strikes won't apply to someone who can't find a job 'for whatever reason'. It will apply to people who refuse an offer of work 3 times. Seriously, you need to understand the proposal before you comment on it! so youve been told its only for people who REFUSE, you carry on believing it i was on the dole 18 years, ive been screwed by em, ive had my dole stopped, i know to a certain extent how they work what about those that CANT get a job but the dole say are refusing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davehunt Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 It'd be a very short court action ending up with a judge stating that the state isn't obliged to feed people (although if suffering from malnutrition they would get health treatment on the NHS). Still missing the point Stubborn git. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davehunt Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 It'd be a very short court action ending up with a judge stating that the state isn't obliged to feed people (although if suffering from malnutrition they would get health treatment on the NHS). You've only got to look at those doleis with 8 / 10 kids. The state is obliged to house them sufficiently. It the same premise, the state has to satisfactorily look after people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.