Would using the benefits system as a weapon,good way to beat extremists ?

[holly11]

This would be so easy to implement, regardless of which area of the political spectrum they come from. It seems these men have far too much energy, far too much spending money (in benefits payments) and of course far too much time.

 

So how easy would it be to combat the extremists using their own benefits as the main weapon? Lets look at this.

 

Lets say the extremist was on Jobseekers allowance, would it not be an obvious solution for “jobcentre plus” to find these people a job, a job that involved long shifts and so would reduce the amount of spare time these people had. Would it not also channel the excess energy these men have into something more worthwhile?

 

It seems such an obvious solution – get these people a job. Of course, if these people refused to take the job they would of course no longer be entitled to benefits and so getting any job would be their utmost concern, rather than preaching hatred.

 

Of course the “too much money” problem would also be solved, our would be extremist would find that the minimum wage x 48 hours each week (less taxes) would leave him far worse off than he would be if he stayed on benefits. This would then pose another problem for the extremist to worry about – ie, paying the bills, paying the rent, food on the table and of course the cost of getting to work. If the extremist had these problems to contend with, would this not focus the mind in dealing with everyday tasks, as opposed to spreading venom into the community?

 

The time factor, there is nothing worse than work for getting in the way of your interests, most of us would enjoy additional free time to persue the things that interest us

 

Using benefits as the weapon, the best way to beat extremism?

[Tony Erikson]

Anybody claiming benefits and found guilty of a crime should have their benefits stopped.

 

I believe in not biting the hand that feeds you. All benefit claimants rely on a working society to get their benefits. We should come down extra hard on them if they break the rules of that society.

 

Especially if any of those crimes directly affect a person paying into the system. Like the working.

[chem1st]

Financial repression is widespread in our society.

 

People are denied access to land, housing, food etc.

 

We have a lack of allotments for one.

 

Surely allowing people access to allotments would allow them to spend their time productively.

 

Why waste money financially repressing people. Liberate those whom want to better themselves, allow people to do PRODUCTIVE work.

 

Give everyone a citizens income, and limit the cost of certain financial instruments.

 

Repression creates hate. I personally dislike the state as it prices me out of motoring via 'insurance', out of growing my own food by not providing allotments, and by supporting the housing market at detriment to myself.

 

Fighting extremism with financial repression is only going to make things worse.

[holly11]

Tony erickson

 

The problem with punishment, is that it would involve human rights and then could make things worse for us all (think rapists etc....)

 

Simply using the current rules as a means to stopping peoples ability to preach hatred, would be far more effective and be almost impossible for a human rights lawyer to get round.

[Tony Erikson]

Tony erickson

 

The problem with punishment, is that it would involve human rights and then could make things worse for us all (think rapists etc....)

 

Simply using the current rules as a means to stopping peoples ability to preach hatred, would be far more effective and be almost impossible for a human rights lawyer to get round.

 

Once you are found guilty of a crime against another human your "human" rights go out of the window. Why reward filthy behaviour of any sort?

[chem1st]

Once you are found guilty of a crime against another human your "human" rights go out of the window. Why reward filthy behaviour of any sort?

 

Shouldn't you have an 'eye for an eye' stance on human rights.

 

The theif who denies other peoples property rights, should lose his own property rights.

[HeadingNorth]

Once you are found guilty of a crime against another human your "human" rights go out of the window.

 

But they don't. By their very definition, human rights are those rights which cannot be removed from you no matter what your behaviour, simply because you are a human being.

[Tony Erikson]

But they don't. By their very definition, human rights are those rights which cannot be removed from you no matter what your behaviour, simply because you are a human being.

 

Now Headingnorth stop being so reasonable. I agree by definition they can't but there is a point when the rules of the civilised should only apply to the civilised surely? How about society rights. As in you have a right to expect society to help you out with the welfare state and all but as soon as you break the rules of said society you forfeit your society right.

[Tony Erikson]

Shouldn't you have an 'eye for an eye' stance on human rights.

 

The theif who denies other peoples property rights, should lose his own property rights.

 

Eye for an eye always gets dirty Chem1st. In denying the denier surely your setting yourself up for a denial of the same order?

[chem1st]

Eye for an eye always gets dirty Chem1st. In denying the denier surely your setting yourself up for a denial of the same order?

 

Perhaps, but if the punishment is fair and just.

 

A man whom steals £100, if forced to repay £100 cannot complain.