Lower benefits cap

[Petminder]

That's what a range means. It means that nobody is certain of the exact number, but that the number is almost certain to be within the range..

 

Nobody knows the exact number of people who died in WWII, it is estimated to between 50 million and 80 million. Are you claiming that because we don't know the exact number, it is impossible to know the range?

 

Almost certain sounds more like opinion than fact, and it is still just opinion that only a small number of total benefit claimants will be affected by the cap and that most receive much less.

[Robin-H]

Almost certain sounds more like opinion than fact, and it is still just opinion that only a small number of total benefit claimants will be affected by the cap and that most receive much less.

 

I have given you facts and figures that show, at most, only 5% of benefit claimants will be affected by the cap. You yourself have said that Google has told you the figure is 116,000 (which would equate to just over 2% being affected).

 

Do you now not believe that figure?

 

Do you now understand what a range is, and that it is indeed possible to have a range without having a precise figure?

[Petminder]

I have given you facts and figures that show, at most, only 5% of benefit claimants will be affected by the cap. You yourself have said that Google has told you the figure is 116,000 (which would equate to just over 2% being affected).

 

Do you now not believe that figure?

 

Do you now understand what a range is, and that it is indeed possible to have a range without having a precise figure?

 

Yes and in my opinion it isn't a small number, its a large numbers, it also doesn't say that most people get much less than the maximum. I'm still of the opinion that no one is going to change their opinion just because Cyclone chose to call them idiots.

[Robin-H]

Yes and in my opinion it isn't a small number, its a large numbers, it also doesn't say that most people get much less than the maximum. I'm still of the opinion that no one is going to change their opinion just because Cyclone chose to call them idiots.

 

As I have already stated, nobody is questioning whether 116,000 is a large number but whether or not it is a large proportion of the total number.

[Petminder]

As I have already stated, nobody is questioning whether 116,000 is a large number but whether or not it is a large proportion of the total number.

 

Cyclone said "Only an idiot would think that many people are receiving that much. And you said, only a small number of total benefit claimants will be affected by the cap (as most receive much less)

 

 

I'm of the opinion that 116,000 is a large number and still of the opinion that calling people idiots doesn't change their opinion. You still haven't backed up your claim that most receive much less.

[Robin-H]

Cyclone said "Only an idiot would think that many people are receiving that much. And you said, only a small number of total benefit claimants will be affected by the cap (as most receive much less)

 

 

I'm of the opinion that 116,000 is a large number and still of the opinion that calling people idiots doesn't change their opinion. You still haven't backed up your claim that most receive much less.

 

I think it comes down to how to interpret their use of the word 'number'. I think they mean number as in proportion, a small number of the total - therefore a small number when judged against the total number (which is a round about way of saying proportion).

 

Perhaps they meant small number because they thought that 116,000 (or whatever figure they were using) was a small number regardless of the total amount, although given the context I think that is unlikely.

 

Perhaps they would care to enlighten us?

[Anna B]

So you believe the facts and figures when they support something you believe (that cases of mental health issues are increasing) but claim that facts and figures can be manipulated to prove anything when I present some that challenge what you believe?

 

For the record, I believe that cases of mental health issue are increasing, but I believe it is largely for the reason I stated.

 

I'm not sure what your second statement means. Like I said, I agree that some cases of depression, anxiety and stress will be because of unemployment or uncertain work, therefore having first hand experience of that wouldn't change my opinion at all.

 

i am sometimes accused of posting on here without backing it up with evidence. When I try it is also turned against me ,so damned if I do, damned if I don't.

 

I prefer to judge by my own experiences and what I hear from people I know, (I do volunteer work, and also know a lot of people who work in various benefit fields,) although of course this would be dismissed merely as anecdotal evidence and not worth a light. So what do you want?

 

I recently went to the Showroom cinema to see 'I, Daniel Blake,' Ken Loach's latest film that won the Palme d'Or at Cannes film festival. It is about one decent, hard-working man's fight with the farce that is the British benefits system and what it does to him. Outside the Cinema post it notes are provided for people to write their reactions to the film. The entire wall is papered with these notes and there is barely a space for any more. I wish you would see the film and read them. You would find them an education. Unfortunately I don't suppose you will.

 

Also there has recently been a report that's come from the EU castigating the British benefits system and saying how bad its implementation and treatment of people is. Then there is the document hushed up by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for the current system, which puts the rise in suicides and deaths firmly at his door.

 

And soon, coming to people near you, the £28 a week cuts to the sick and disabled, who are already poor and baring the brunt of the cuts to services and really can't go much lower.

 

It never stops. But maybe I am just imagining it all....

Edited November 14, 2016 by Anna B

[Robin-H]

i am sometimes accused of posting on here without backing it up with evidence. When I try it is also turned against me ,so damned if I do, damned if I don't.

 

I prefer to judge by my own experiences and what I hear from people I know, (I do volunteer work, and also know a lot of people who work in various benefit fields,) although of course this would be dismissed merely as anecdotal evidence and not worth a light. So what do you want?

 

I recently went to the Showroom cinema to see 'I, Daniel Blake,' Ken Loach's latest film that won the Palme d'Or at Cannes film festival. It is about one decent, hard-working man's fight with the farce that is the British benefits system and what it does to him. Outside the Cinema post it notes are provided for people to write their reactions to the film. The entire wall is papered with these notes and there is barely a space for any more. I wish you would see the film and read them. You would find them an education. Unfortunately I don't suppose you will.

 

Also there has recently been a report that's come from the EU castigating the British benefits system and saying how bad its implementation and treatment of people is. Then there is the document hushed up by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for the current system, which puts the rise in suicides and deaths firmly at his door.

 

And soon, coming to people near you, the £28 a week cuts to the sick and disabled, who are already poor and baring the brunt of the cuts to services and really can't go much lower.

 

It never stops. But maybe I am just imagining it all....

 

I have already seen the film Anna, I saw it back in October. Please don't presume things about me.

[Anna B]

I have already seen the film Anna, I saw it back in October. Please don't presume things about me.

 

And that's all you have to say about my post? Rather a small point to make about a big issue.

[Robin-H]

And that's all you have to say about my post? Rather a small point to make about a big issue.

 

I'm not sure what you want me to say Anna. We were discussing whether or not the rise in mental health issues was due to (as you claimed) unemployment and uncertain work.

 

I provided facts and figures that would suggest that there is not a correlation between the two (such as unemployment falling and people working on zero hour contracts or people who are self employed being more satisfied than people in full employment).

 

You then said that facts and figures can be used to show anything you like.

 

I then asked if that was only true of facts and figures that you didn't agree with, or whether the ones you use are equally as fallible.

 

You then said you prefer to judge things by your own experience. If you prefer that that that is fine, that is your prerogative. However, seeing as the only thing that you are willing to take notice of is your own experience, there really is nothing I can say.