ElasticMan Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Does that make my point any better? No. Its still totally unjustified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scentral Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Understanding the reasons why people became involved is not the same as excusing it. That's exactly the kind of blinkered thinking that will only ensure that these riots happen again and again. Course it is. Tell you what, let's interview a few more social workers and professors. That way, we'll never have any riots again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElasticMan Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Course it is. Tell you what, let's interview a few more social workers and professors. That way, we'll never have any riots again... Yes it is. Unless you want it to happen again, you find out WHY it happened in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 That's because its far easier for the police to identify and charge people who are already known to them. Most of those involved have not been charged - and that's because they were, and remain, unknown to the police. Its far more valuable to find out who these people who are and why they became involved than finding out about those the police already know about. Not sure if it's far more valuable, catching them all and deterring them ALL is better than just getting those who've never done it before... Yes it is. Unless you want it to happen again, you find out WHY it happened in the first place. But asking those criminals is virtually pointless. What the police pick on them just because they commit crime! Come on, get a grip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 In the case of the person mentioned above my post. He claimed he couldn't find a job. It's reasonable to infer from that, that he is claiming Job Seeker's allowance. Going on an international holiday is making him, in the words of the job centre, unavailable for work therefore no longer entitled to JSA. I don't know that he's receiving JSA, he was also complaining about the fact that EMA was also a concern. I can't argue on facts that aren't clear. If he is claiming JSA he'll lose it if he's not available to sign on wont he. Either way it's no reason to suggest that a holiday should be outlawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 In the case of the person mentioned above my post. He claimed he couldn't find a job. It's reasonable to infer from that, that he is claiming Job Seeker's allowance. Going on an international holiday is making him, in the words of the job centre, unavailable for work therefore no longer entitled to JSA. A fair point to which I will concede and revise. People on benefits should have their international travel suspended UNTIL they can prove that they have an interview/job offer that requires such travel. Does that make my point any better? A few problems there. People on benefits can also have up to £3000 in savings before it affects their benefits. Going on holiday abroad is not much different to going on holiday in this country as we are now in an electronic age where job-search is mainly done on line anyway. Flying back from a European country could be much quicker than getting from, lets say the North to the South of Britain as far as travelling to an interview is concerned. Being abroad you can still be actively seeking work and be available for work. If you do sign off to go on holiday then JSA will be suspended for that period and when you return you get "fast tracked" back into the system. So, no real reason to suspend benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 The lad was on benefits, probably still is. I thought you could arrange a holiday whilst on benefits. You just need to be available for say 50 weeks of the year whilst claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 The lad was on benefits, probably still is. I thought you could arrange a holiday whilst on benefits. You just need to be available for say 50 weeks of the year whilst claiming. No, you are not entitled under DWP rules for a 2 week break but you can arrange one. The only criteria is that you are actively seeking work (job-search etc) and that you are available for work while on it. Taking a laptop and a dongle means you meet that requirement even if you fly to Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Applications to Uni have dropped by 15% so far. I promise you there will be a lot of talent there. To say that only those who shouldn't apply anyway will be put off, is not correct. I already know of very capable youngsters who are saying that University education is out of reach for them. £50,000 is a daunting amount to them, especially when there is no guarentee of a job. I attended University as a mature student, and there is no way I would have put the family finances at risk if I was expected to pay that much. That is an issue however the fees are not. If they have any understanding they will know that with no job they will pay nothing/zero/no charge. Its very easy to understand. If they can't why are they thinking of uni? There is no financial risk, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The fees are unpayable whenever you have no job or a job below they £25k? limit. If you are talking about loans other than the student loan then again that is a separate issue but for fees there is no risk whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Applications to Uni have dropped by 15% so far. I promise you there will be a lot of talent there. To say that only those who shouldn't apply anyway will be put off, is not correct. I already know of very capable youngsters who are saying that University education is out of reach for them. £50,000 is a daunting amount to them, especially when there is no guarentee of a job. I attended University as a mature student, and there is no way I would have put the family finances at risk if I was expected to pay that much. It's disgraceful. Even Thatcher believed that the less fortunate should get a crack at bettering themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.