The benefits class

[Mr Prime]

If you can work, then you should work.

 

We shouldn't give benefits to those who are more than capable of working.

 

The 1979 definition of unemployed was "not working but fit to work" but it has changed around 30 times since then.

 

There has always been 4 classes: Upper, middle, working and under. It just happens that today the underclass has expanded back to Victorian proportions, it started when we got a Victorian PM back in...1979.

[Mr Prime]

As for entitlement, everyone is entitled to benefits if they fall on hard times for some reason, and no-one should be made to feel ashamed if they claim legitimately. The subtext to your thread is that people who claim benefits = crooks. Choose a title that applies to those you mean, not one that condemns thousands who have done no wrong.

 

 

Whoah there, entitlement is a big word. The welfare state was created by a government that ruled a society where 95% of the population would always be in work through personal pride. Today someone can Keith Miller style choose a low grade slob lifestyle funded by the system and when challenged say "but I'm entitled to those benefits", they are not actually entitled at all but the state is morally obliged to hand over rather than see them or their kids starve. Short of having a secret police dragging people into forced labour thats always going to happen. Personal pride is not what it was and I would estimate that the underclass now occupies around 10-15% of the population who simply dont care about their environment, their appearance or what anyone thinks of them.

[mikey10]

Why does it matter?

 

 

Why doesnt it?

[mikey10]

Ugh, I am now convinced that Mr Contrite IS the new Bartfarst.

 

Typical Daily Mail reading scum who hates the world and everyone in it who doesn't fit in what his definition of what is "normal"...

 

Define "normal" though?!

 

 

Thats nonesence really. i read the mail but think there are deserving claimants and then the scroungers. by not accepting that some are scroungers your argument is as weak as someone who claims all people on benefits are scroungers. your both wrong.

[discodown]

Why doesnt it?

I just don't see the relevance of comparing Bangladeshi's and Indians. I admit it might be me not seeing your point

[mr contrite]

Ugh, I am now convinced that Mr Contrite IS the new Bartfarst.

 

Typical Daily Mail reading scum who hates the world and everyone in it who doesn't fit in what his definition of what is "normal"...

 

Define "normal" though?!

 

So would it be acceptable for me to class you as benefit claiming scum?

[purdyamos]

I chose the benefits class deliberately, scroungers should be shopped, it is those who give the genuinely needy a bad name, not me.

 

That's exactly what I'm objecting to. You have deliberately chosen to attack everyone who is in receipt of a benefit, by definition. That is disgusting.

 

Whoah there, entitlement is a big word.

 

Yes it is a big word. And in the context of the current benefits system, as applied to all those who are claiming legitimately, it is the correct word. There is nothing immoral or illegal in someone claiming state benefits if they have hit hard times - which can happen to ANYONE. A society should be judged on how it treats the vulnerable, and the welfare state should be seen as a mark of our civilisation. Clamp down on the ones who abuse it, but for god's sake stop lumping everyone together as detritus. It is despicable and inhumane.

 

But thanks for proving my point that many people see ANYONE in reciept of any benefit as automatically being slobs/scroungers.

 

I happen to believe that while people are in the benefits system (for whatever reason at all) they should receive compulsory contraceptive shots for the duration of their claim. But I also believe that the never-ending persecution of the genuinely sick and vulnerable in society should end. And that will never end as long as people like you and Mr Contrite perpetuate the offensive generalisation that every recipient of benefits is workshy scum.

[Mr Prime]

Read it agan sister. I agree with you, I am only criticising the abusers who have paid nowt but then say they are entitled though I acknowledge that its better they abuse than they be physically battered into forced labour like some kind of despot state. Contraceptive shots sounds rather facistic though, removal of the right to reporduce?

 

Bores like Mr Contrite are just attention seekers who are being given the oxygen of replies when they dont deserve the oxygen of oxygen.

[purdyamos]

I just don't see the relevance of comparing Bangladeshi's and Indians. I admit it might be me not seeing your point

 

I think there is a point to be made in as much as this: Pakistanis/Bangladeshis/Indians are from the same racial group. The excuse made for the low achievement of one group is often simply put down to racism, but that argument is weakened when a physically identical ethnic group achieves a significantly different outcome from the other. That would point to there being a cultural difference in explaining the disparity - such as English speaking being ubiquitous in one ethnic group, as mentioned previously, but far less common in the other, even when children grow up in this country. Many British born children don't hear English at all until they get to school. A situation which I find shocking, but has nothing to do with inherent race prejudice.

[mr contrite]

Thats nonesence really. i read the mail but think there are deserving claimants and then the scroungers. by not accepting that some are scroungers your argument is as weak as someone who claims all people on benefits are scroungers. your both wrong.

 

I have never said that everyone who claims (my taxes) benefits is a scrounger, but there is a large number who are, they may be legally entitled to the benefits, but that doesnt make it acceptable.