Jump to content

JSA, Income Support, ESA and Child benefit all to be CUT


Recommended Posts

No, I choose to believe my eyes when I was made redundant and had to sign on for a short period. There was a huge number of knuckle dragging chavs queuing up for their byfortnightly signing on session. I never saw any of them looking at the job points and if I was an employer, I wouldn't employ a single one of them.

 

I chatted to the staff about how things changed over the recession and how the influx of people who want to work had changed his job.

 

So, if I had seen it with my own eyes and the people working in the Job Centre was of the same opinion. I think its pretty close to the truth.

 

If I went to Manchester when gay pride was on I wouldn't go home thinking everybody in Manchester had turned gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no intention of reading an entire link and trying to divine your meaning from it - for this reason as well you know the rules state you shouldnt just post a bare link. It's irrelevant as it's from a single source anyway as you say and the Guardian is so lefty it's meaningless (like your take on anything from the Telegraph remember...)

 

Either post something for discussion and explain why or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a few. Sorry to send you to the daily mail but it's first I found. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2195174/Britain-340-000-households-EVER-job.html

 

I don't know the percentage of them that are in the overall unemployment figures but in these times of austerity why are we wasting money on people who don't want to work ? If they were unemployed 10 years ago, chances they'll be unemployed in another 10. Spend money on those who have been unemployed for more than 6 months but less than 2 years where their skills are still relevant.

 

20k permanently workless homes, (although it doesn't say that they are claiming or what they can claim).

 

Compared to 30 million households.

 

I'd give "quite a few", I won't agree with "plenty".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20k permanently workless homes, (although it doesn't say that they are claiming or what they can claim).

 

Compared to 30 million households.

 

I'd give "quite a few", I won't agree with "plenty".

 

 

 

From the link

Number of households where no one has EVER had a job falls by 20,000 but that's still 340,000 homes which have always been supported by taxpayers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.