HeadingNorth Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 If it's a targeted crackdown on abuse of the system that would be welcome. If they are trying to portray all under-25 recipients of the benefit as somehow abusing the system that would be out of order. But none of that is relevant to what the OP seems to want to complain about. He appears to think that a crackdown is only a crackdown when it's a justified one on a universally-accepted evil. The government could crack down on cabbages, and it would correctly be described as a crackdown for all that it would be an utterly ludicrous thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted June 24, 2012 Author Share Posted June 24, 2012 But none of that is relevant to what the OP seems to want to complain about. He appears to think that a crackdown is only a crackdown when it's a justified one on a universally-accepted evil. The government could crack down on cabbages, and it would correctly be described as a crackdown for all that it would be an utterly ludicrous thing to do. I think I1L2T3 puts it better than me. There are negative connotations with the term 'crackdown', I personally feel. As I1L2T3 raises, it IS a term associated with 'abuse' of a system, and it is wrong of the BBC to adopt the word, even if the word DOES appear on a policy document somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 But none of that is relevant to what the OP seems to want to complain about. He appears to think that a crackdown is only a crackdown when it's a justified one on a universally-accepted evil. The government could crack down on cabbages, and it would correctly be described as a crackdown for all that it would be an utterly ludicrous thing to do. Like I said above the 'crackdown on welfare' terminology seems odd. If they had said 'crackdown on welfare abuse' it would have made more sense. It looks like poor journalism which is why I said we have to wait for what the government actually has to say. Read my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I think I1L2T3 puts it better than me. There are negative connotations with the term 'crackdown', I personally feel. But there aren't. Your feeling is unjustified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 But none of that is relevant to what the OP seems to want to complain about. He appears to think that a crackdown is only a crackdown when it's a justified one on a universally-accepted evil. The government could crack down on cabbages, and it would correctly be described as a crackdown for all that it would be an utterly ludicrous thing to do. To a certain extent though 'crackdown' does have connotations of being a control of some kind of wrong doing. For example you wouldn't call it a crackdown on cabbages unless cabbages were doing something wrong such as masquerading as brocolli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheffieldCCH Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 They should crackdown on tax thieves before hitting the poorest. A very valid point. I take it you mean tax avoiders? The multi national corporates and self employed "claim for everything" being the first groups of people to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 It's only kite-flying. If their private polls show it to be an unpopular measure then you can forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheffieldCCH Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 It's only kite-flying. If their private polls show it to be an unpopular measure then you can forget it. I hope so, I would rather see a tougher stance in other areas. A lot of young people in our country have been crippled enough in employment opportunity,by not living in the right postcode to gain a good education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 It's only kite-flying. If their private polls show it to be an unpopular measure then you can forget it. This ^^^ Plus the fact that the real root of the problem is that HB goes through the pockets of the recipients then into landlord's pockets. Thus propping up those who really can afford to stand on their own two feet. Anyone with two houses or more, doesn't need help from the state. If the Tories propose this in conjunction with rent controls, they have a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheffieldCCH Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 This ^^^ Plus the fact that the real root of the problem is that HB goes through the pockets of the recipients then into landlord's pockets. Thus propping up those who really can afford to stand on their own two feet. Anyone with two houses or more, doesn't need help from the state. If the Tories propose this in conjunction with rent controls, they have a winner. So the answer is only to pay housing benefit to state registered social housing landlords? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.