The benefits class

[mr contrite]

Would you rather people on benefits just sat round on their *rses all day watching telly? I thought people like you would like the fact that some 'benefit scroungers' might be interested in doing courses to expand their horizons, or partaking in sporting activities to increase their fitness/stamina levels so they are more capable of working?

 

You can't have it all ways.

 

StarSparkle

 

 

Perhaps id rather they went looking for jobs, rather than sat round on their arses, and the career claimant is hardly likely to do any course, whereas someone actively seeking to improve their job prospects has my vote.

[willman]

Would you rather people on benefits just sat round on their *rses all day watching telly? I thought people like you would like the fact that some 'benefit scroungers' might be interested in doing courses to expand their horizons, or partaking in sporting activities to increase their fitness/stamina levels so they are more capable of working?

 

You can't have it all ways.

 

StarSparkle

 

i think that the incentive not to work - for some people -is justification not to provide it for free.

as for "people" like you i assume that is meant as some sort of insult - which tends to be your way of debating.perhaps some courses on expanding your horizons may be of use to you.

and i also never said that all people on benefits are scroungers - but some are.!!

 

everyone is entitled to hobbies - but they should be paid for equally. now if we were talking vocational courses i can fully support that those who need it, get it or free.

so perhaps "holiday Spanish" should be chargeable to all, but GCSE Spanish should be free to people who would benefit from it, it's not that difficult really.

[mr contrite]

I have just read that the newly wed Mrs Bin Laden is to be investigated for benefit fraud, for the sum of J4.31 a week.

[Mathom]

i think you may be missing the core point of mr contrite, i don't support his views in totallity but i have occasionally voiced similar emotions as have many people i know.

i have no problems with people spending money on what they want - either employed or unemployed.so if they want to smoke and not eat fine- i couldn't care less.

however i've just looked at enrolling for FE, cost of the course £390.in fairness the course would be for my personal pleasure and probably not for career progression - however were i to be in receipt of benefits , i could do the course for free. Why??

i live in NE Derbyshire - sports facilities can be accessed for free,annual gym membership is £1 - for the id card. why?

 

the free stuff - should be interview training, cv preperation etc,perhaps even motivational courses. not stuff that could be seen as an enticement not to work.

 

1. Courses are free because you need quals and skills to get jobs! That's not rocket science! You might even need to re-train, upskill or simply start from scratch on learning to read and add up - in fact a LOT of people need this!

 

However not all course are free by any stretch of the imagination and people are often prevented from going on them or from continuing once on the course, due to Byzantine benefits rules about 'availability'. For example even if your GCSE exam is looming, if you are scheduled to attend a cruddy Jobstart course, then it's Jobstart you go on, your useful GCSE be damned.

 

2. Some (but again by no means all - Sheffield's scheme is quite rare) get cheap leisure because of the link between poverty and ill-health. The scheme is offered as a way for people to get fit - maybe even get themselves fit for work once more in cases of ill health! For all the ranting and raving folk on here do about people on the Moor eating Greggs' pasties etc you'd think they would approve of something 'Nannyish' like that!

[fox20thc]

Not forgetting if you ARE employed, you can get FREE courses to improve your skills through VISION TO LEARN. Only available to the employed people.

[willman]

1. Courses are free because you need quals and skills to get jobs! That's not rocket science! You might even need to re-train, upskill or simply start from scratch on learning to read and add up - in fact a LOT of people need this!

 

 

i did state that vocational qualifications should be free.or did you not read that post before typing your criticism.

 

i also stated that "hobby" courses shouldn't be free.

[willman]

1.

 

2. Some (but again by no means all - Sheffield's scheme is quite rare) get cheap leisure because of the link between poverty and ill-health. The scheme is offered as a way for people to get fit - maybe even get themselves fit for work once more in cases of ill health! For all the ranting and raving folk on here do about people on the Moor eating Greggs' pasties etc you'd think they would approve of something 'Nannyish' like that!

 

 

so poverty is designated by being a recipient of benefit??

poor people can be unfit, employed people who can't afford leisure activities could probably do with the leisure more than the unemployed.

 

i think being stressed at work, worrying about paying bills, transport,childcare etc etc are as much of a health risk as a benefit reciepients.

poor employed eat @ Greggs aswell, although i've never offered any remark regarding anyones eating habits.

[Bago]

I'm not saying he's a troll, I'm saying he's not the kind of person I would want to know, neither is the person who suggested steralising people.

You and me both. The lynch mob hysteria has reached an all time high.

[Mathom]

i did state that vocational qualifications should be free.or did you not read that post before typing your criticism.

 

i also stated that "hobby" courses shouldn't be free.

 

Few 'hobby' courses would be free to most. However some would be free as a way of enticing certain very reluctant client groups into education by a gentle route. You'd be surprised just how many grown adults are utterly terrified of education and experts have been bashing away at solving this problem for years. For example offering 'safe' and non-threatening sewing classes to Asian women has been proven to get them interested in learning, maybe then taking a childcare class, a Basic English class and maybe then even more. You'd also be surprised at how far some adults have got to go and just how low on the scale they must begin - functional illiteracy is a huge problem.

[Mathom]

so poverty is designated by being a recipient of benefit??

poor people can be unfit, employed people who can't afford leisure activities could probably do with the leisure more than the unemployed.

 

i think being stressed at work, worrying about paying bills, transport,childcare etc etc are as much of a health risk as a benefit reciepients.

poor employed eat @ Greggs aswell, although i've never offered any remark regarding anyones eating habits.

 

Maybe so, but then you'd have to address local authorities and charities as they administer and pay for such schemes - they have little if anything to do with central government. And ultimately if the low paid need/want them then it's time for them to address their employers, possibly via Trade Unions - why should 'the taxpayer' subsidise big multi-national companies like MacDonalds or WalMart to provide healthy living schemes to their staff which they ought to be subsidising out of shareholders' fat profits? Not all companies are so tight - a lot of the bus companies for example do subsidise such schemes.