Tebbit says young unemployed should pull weeds for benefits.

[RonJeremy]

And some claimants get double that amount for doing sod all.

 

The level of the benefits cap is:

 

£500 a week for couples (with or without children living with them)

£500 a week for single parents whose children live with them

£350 a week for single adults who don’t have children, or whose children don’t live with them

 

This is the utterly outrageous situation. I have an employee who, on the birth of his 3rd (may have been 4th) child, was told by his benefit advisor to give up work. He would be much better off. He didn't and is now doing quite well. He was not on minimum wage by any stretch of the imagination, I cant remember the exact figure but he was earning something like 21-23K possibly more I cant remember exactly. No wonder we attract people from all over the world as benefit tourists and "asylum seekers".

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2014 at 21:12 ----------

 

I like it how SUPER SCROUNGER Benyon is pictured in the linked article in the OP pulling Ragwort.

 

If some poor sod on the dole who is forced to pay NI and income tax before unfortunately finding themselves unemployed due to structural unemployment, is forced to pull weeds to cover their social security.

 

Then how much labour should Richard Benyon be forced to carry out?

 

He gets £625 000 a year in housing benefit and has had millions in CAP.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2014 at 21:06 ----------

 

 

The benefit cap does not apply to those claiming CAP benefits, or housing benefit as a landlord.

You call him a superscrounger? does that mean you think everyone claiming benefits is a scrounger then?

[Bonzo77]

Making the unemployed and criminals do the same work, for free??!! This can only be good for the moral of the poor young kids....not!

 

This kind of idea can only come from an institutionalised toff who's totally detached from the rest of society! What a crap idea!

[tzijlstra]

I don't see the point in making them pull up weeds, but I do see a point in teaching them how to be a responsible employee and, more importantly, how to remain employable. People tend to forget these days that this was a gap filled by military service in the past.

 

Although I don't think conscription should be reintroduced, there is a solid case for social conscription, getting youngsters to help out in our hospitals, care homes, schools, homeless shelters, parks and so on. The amount of undergraduates I encounter that never had a paid job in their life is scary.

[SavannahP]

So as they have experience (not sure what you're basing this on) they get to do MORE work for free rather than trying to get a real job? You're not tebbits PR man are you?

 

People that can't find work comes from all walks of life, some have worked for years and are deemed past it by some, and some have done no work at all, so it would make perfect sense to have those that have worked supervising those that haven't.

Edited October 22, 2014 by SavannahP

[Boothybabe]

Most of the unemployed can afford to smoke weed so why not make them pull a different variety.

[Jonny5]

I don't see the point in making them pull up weeds, but I do see a point in teaching them how to be a responsible employee and, more importantly, how to remain employable

I think that's the thing to focus on.

 

I don't think the persistent labelling of the unemployed on this forum as scroungers is at all helpful

Edited October 22, 2014 by Jonny5

[taxman]

I don't see the point in making them pull up weeds, but I do see a point in teaching them how to be a responsible employee and, more importantly, how to remain employable. People tend to forget these days that this was a gap filled by military service in the past.

 

Although I don't think conscription should be reintroduced, there is a solid case for social conscription, getting youngsters to help out in our hospitals, care homes, schools, homeless shelters, parks and so on. The amount of undergraduates I encounter that never had a paid job in their life is scary.

 

But people are already employed doing those things. Why should they lose their jobs just so their bosses can get cheap labour?

[tzijlstra]

But people are already employed doing those things. Why should they lose their jobs just so their bosses can get cheap labour?

 

I think you will see that if this were introduced it would actually create extra jobs. On top of that, the places I mentioned are public institutions, we currently pay for that labour twice.

[ANGELFIRE1]

No work, then no benefits paid. That means everyone, the incomers to our fine Country and the idle home grown parasites who sit at home and wait for the dole to fall through the letterbox.

 

Maybe then we could afford to pay our disabled an amount they could live on.

 

Angel1.

[Stan Tamudo]

Most of the unemployed can afford to smoke weed so why not make them pull a different variety.

 

They could wrap it up in a bit of newspaper and call it Dandelion and Murdoch!