denlin Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 How many hours is classed as full time because the last time I had to sign on when doing temping anything over 16 hours was classed as full time and claim was suspended if I worked more than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulo n Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 i cant stand scroungers but has this so-called story anything to back its self up?id never trust anything the daily mail says,these people are cameron types through and through! "i dint vote for the t***! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squiggs Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Your attempt at textual exegesis is less than convincing, not least because it fails to catch a glimpse of the big elephant lumbering about the estate, the elephant being the fact that almost 30% of the residents of this estate are deemed to be unfit for work. What, getting on for 1 in 3 people on the estate can't work because they are too ill? I think will avoid Washwood Heath in the future, on the grounds that i might be suddenly struck down by some mysterious illness. Simply explained: People on incapacity are usually on low income Low income people are limited to where they can afford to live Areas with a predominantly low-income population will therefore have a higher proportion of IB claimants You also ignored the second part, where I pointed out that the DM said "some people who work might have been left out by mistake" in other words "we know that this story is factully incorrect" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Yes - and I was just pointing out that people are worth more than money. It's not about money you're right. It's about a person being willing to look after themselves when they can. I reckon most of the people in the article could survive without money. After all life is about so much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It's not about money you're right. It's about a person being willing to look after themselves when they can. I reckon most of the people in the article could survive without money. After all life is about so much more. Gotcha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Which doesn't excuse benefit fraud out tax fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogey Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Of course the problem is that if you can't work for whatever reason you are likely to be dependant on the state for things like your housing/ income. Since such housing tends to be concentrated in estates it is to be absolutely expected that you will find strong concentrations of people in similar situations. The real question is how does the actual number of people in these situations compare to the population as a whole. If you're really worried about where taxpayers money is going, I think the biggest payouts recently have been to the richest and not the poor. And several of those rich people are probably responsible for the situation that has created large numbers of jobless benefit claimants recently. I reckon you send should invoices for taxpayers money in an envelope of scathing bile to, - The Richest, Unassailable House Poor Free Lane Another Strata of society England Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.