Lower benefits cap

[Cyclone]

Sure, the numbers that the papers reported are only MY opinion. They actually phoned me up and asked me to make up a number for them.

It's not abuse to think that someone who refuses to check the facts is an idiot. It's an accurate description.

There is no debate about these numbers. You can't debate against facts. The cap will only affect a minority of benefit claimants, and only an uninformed idiot would think that the cap means that many people can claim that amount.

 

Originally Posted by Anna B View Post

This benefit cap is designed to make it look as if those on benefits receive these sorts of amounts.

No it is not, and it cannot do so to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

If that isn't you Petminder, then I fell some small amount of sympathy for you. But at least you've learnt now that most people will not be affected by the cap.

[Petminder]

Sure, the numbers that the papers reported are only MY opinion. They actually phoned me up and asked me to make up a number for them.

It's not abuse to think that someone who refuses to check the facts is an idiot. It's an accurate description.

There is no debate about these numbers. You can't debate against facts. The cap will only affect a minority of benefit claimants, and only an uninformed idiot would think that the cap means that many people can claim that amount.

 

 

No it is not, and it cannot do so to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

If that isn't you Petminder, then I fell some small amount of sympathy for you. But at least you've learnt now that most people will not be affected by the cap.

No one said the number is wrong, it is your opinion that the number is a small number and that anyone with a different opinion is an idiot. I repeat that some people will think that a number over 100,000 is a large number and thinking that doesn't make them a stupid idiot.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by Anna B View Post

This benefit cap is designed to make it look as if those on benefits receive these sorts of amounts.

Only an uninformed idiot would come to that conclusion.

[Obelix]

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.

 

Well you rather are hoist with your own petard Anna... post#212 - your words - "Facts and figures can be manipulated to prove or disprove anything."

 

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....

 

Or perhaps "Facts and figures can be manipulated to prove or disprove anything."

[Robin-H]

No one said the number is wrong, it is your opinion that the number is a small number and that anyone with a different opinion is an idiot. I repeat that some people will think that a number over 100,000 is a large number and thinking that doesn't make them a stupid idiot.

 

As I have repeatedly explained, nobody is debating whether or not the number 100,000 is large or not. That would be a completely pointless argument without the context.

 

100,000 people winning the jackpot on the lottery would be an extraordinarily large number (as there are normally only 1 or 2 winners). 100,000 winning some sort of prize (£2 or a lucky dip or something) would be a very small number, as well over a million people normally win something.

 

100,000 people out of 5 million would be a small number. Perhaps proportion (as I said earlier) would be a better way of describing it, but as I expected, this is exactly how Cyclone meant it, stating..

 

The reports I've seen HAVE given a number though (perhaps it's just an estimate in the middle of a range though), and it's a small number in comparison to the number who claim benefits.

 

If only 5% are affected by the cap, then that's a small minority, right

 

Are we clear now?

[phil752]

As I have repeatedly explained, nobody is debating whether or not the number 100,000 is large or not. That would be a completely pointless argument without the context.

 

100,000 people winning the jackpot on the lottery would be an extraordinarily large number (as there are normally only 1 or 2 winners). 100,000 winning some sort of prize (£2 or a lucky dip or something) would be a very small number, as well over a million people normally win something.

 

100,000 people out of 5 million would be a small number. Perhaps proportion (as I said earlier) would be a better way of describing it, but as I expected, this is exactly how Cyclone meant it, stating..

 

The reports I've seen HAVE given a number though (perhaps it's just an estimate in the middle of a range though), and it's a small number in comparison to the number who claim benefits.

 

If only 5% are affected by the cap, then that's a small minority, right

 

Are we clear now?

 

5% is a small number,we have to be careful in dismissing it as its only 5% that will be affected, how many family's is that going to give hardship to, what is in place to rehouse these into more affordable appropriate accommodation. People banter numbers about and forget the human element.

[Petminder]

As I have repeatedly explained, nobody is debating whether or not the number 100,000 is large or not. That would be a completely pointless argument without the context.

 

100,000 people winning the jackpot on the lottery would be an extraordinarily large number (as there are normally only 1 or 2 winners). 100,000 winning some sort of prize (£2 or a lucky dip or something) would be a very small number, as well over a million people normally win something.

 

100,000 people out of 5 million would be a small number. Perhaps proportion (as I said earlier) would be a better way of describing it, but as I expected, this is exactly how Cyclone meant it, stating..

 

The reports I've seen HAVE given a number though (perhaps it's just an estimate in the middle of a range though), and it's a small number in comparison to the number who claim benefits.

 

If only 5% are affected by the cap, then that's a small minority, right

 

Are we clear now?

 

Cyclone did call everyone an idiot if they thought it was a small number.

[Anna B]

Only an uninformed idiot would come to that conclusion.

 

No, the uninformed might come to that conclusion. That doesn't make them idiots, simply uninformed.

 

You'd be surprised how many people have no interest in politics and take things at face value. Not on SF of course, most of the people who answer threads like this are informed (if they aren't when they started they soon will be,) and I think that gives a false impression of the public in general. Some of them have got interesting lives.

[Cyclone]

Staying uninformed is a choice, and it's an idiotic one.