To think that resources are being wasted on underserving scrubbers

[rezbites]

It makes me very angry to think that deserving parents, like Riven and her partner, are being denied the help the help they so clearly need when there are others in our society who are bleeding the system dry and giving nothing back. Please let me explain what I mean.

Where I live (and in other parts of the country too, I'm sure) there is a certain "underclass" of young women - you know the ones I mean - little scrubbers who clearly model themselves on Vicky Pollard - who are provided with everything by the State. They have not suffered abandonment, divorce or bereavement. They have not been made redundant or struggled to find a job - they have never tried to get one. They have chosen to become single mothers, straightout of school in many cases, so that they qualify for social housing and benefits to live on, claiming that they cannot work because they have a child. They think the world owes them a living and it is their right to claim all these things. I do not mean to suggest that they are typical of single parents or council tenants generally because I know that they are not. They are a feckless, but very visible, minority.

Why should the country waste resouces on these selfish, irresponsible deadbeats who have chosen that lifestyle, at the expense of people in genuine need of help - the disabled, the vulnerable and those who through no fault of their own have ended up in very difficult circumstances?

The benefit claimants get proper fags while the working people smoke roll ups. This country is going to the dogs!

i think teens getting pg on purpose to recieve and house and benefits is what the op refers to as 'scrubber'

i wasnt so savvy i got pg by accident and lived with the oldies, im just a semi-scrubber

Dh would like a scrubber, might sort the state of the floors

I'm new to the site, and impressed by the level of debate (mostly!). I'm assuming that the OP-see how quick I learn- was being controversial, or else my father-in-law has really got the hang of his computer. Glad to see that there is more diversity of MN user than I thought, even the odd swearer and scrubber! And ReclaimingMyInnerPeachy, you have explained capitalism to me better than Karl Marx ever could (even if he wasnt dead).

Welcome notsweating

But if I have nightmares about a zombie Karl Marx then I will blame you

ANother thing to consider is that in a seriously unequal society (where company directors get huge bonuses while cutting the wages of the lowest-paid among their employees), bashing the poor even harder will result in more crime. People who are desperate may well steal or burgle to feed their kids. They won't just expire in the gutter in a picturesque Dickensian styleee.

I have spent the last 3 days with 80 people who have been unemployed for at least a year. The stuff that some people spout about 'these people' is seriously fucked up. They have probably never even spoken to 'one' in any depth or detail.

People are people are people.

Not one of the people I have met this week would chose this life they have.

because you know the full and complete circumstances of said 'scrubbers'...you are sounding like a bit of a tosser OP...

I clicked on this thread in the hope that is was about floor scrubbers...no such luck..but then this is AIBU

This thread hit an all-time low at "there are people out there claiming benefits on purpose"

Now that's magic

It's the sense of entitlement these people claiming benefits they are entitled to which really gets my goat.

Yes, the sense of entitlement, these entitled people have is unbelievable!

I haven't had time to read all the replies to this post but I get the gist - OP is v.v unreasonable. Why, why, why are so many Mumsnetters intent on sticking up for the kind of people she is referring to? I just can't get my head around it. She has clearly stated that she is not referring to anyone who is vulnerable and in need of state help - just those who play the system (of who I know plenty). Why is it such a Mumsnet no no to speak ill of anyone in receipt of benefits? I'm genuinely confused.

Because without them people would starve cupcake.

'She has clearly stated that she is not referring to anyone who is vulnerable and in need of state help - just those who play the system (of who I know plenty).'

Who are YOU, and SHE to decide who is vulnerable and who is playing the system?

What is the criteria? Do they think they should pass an interview with you personally? Why are you holding onto the details of the past and current histories of your 'many' system players? Have you nothing better to do?

Hi goosefat - yes of course. Not disputing that.

Starting - surely you have to agree that there are a small minority who cheat the system? Why does that small fact get people like you so riled?

Example: an uncle has used his 80 year old mother in law's mobility allowance to buy a spanking new family car on the agreement he takes her places - but she gets about quite well on foot. Both him and his wife work full time.

I wish to make one last statement before leaving this post.

At no time did I refer to "the undeserving poor". I did refer to some "undeserving scrubbers" - an admittedly inflammatory term used to describe a small number of people who do choose to abuse the system.

At no time did I say that all single parents were like this, nor all benefit claimants, nor all social housing tenants. I think you will find that I stated that I do not believe that most of the above-mentioned were in any way like this. I also stated that it was only a small minority that act in this way. But in doing so they are apt to give a bad name to others who find themselves in a similar situation through no fault of their own.

At no time did I suggest that these girls should not be allowed to have children, or that their children should be taken away, or left to starve. In a civilised society such things cannot be allowed to happen. But, knowing this, there are a small minority who use this fact to highjack what was intended as avaluable safety-net for the genuinely vulnerable. All I ask is that, having had a child, these girls make some attempt to be responsible for the upkeep of their children. Most single mothers do, I know, but not the ones I am talking about.

I have no problem with anyone receiving a benefit to which they are genuinely entitled (which describes most claimants).

I have no problem with anyone who is unable to work through illness, accident, disability, or because the skills they have always used in the workplace are no longer needed. (Retraining is not an option for everyone.)

I have no problem with anyone who tops up a meagre income with benefits. At least they are taking responsibility for themselves, keeping their hand in and setting a positive example to their children.

I am not the only person who is of this opinion. There have been a few posts from people who know exactly who I am talking about. I suspect that they live in an area like I do and therefore see what I mean first-hand. No doubt their lives have been affected by the actions of these people who, according to the rest of you, do not exist.

If you still doubt the veracity of what I say, then may I point you to a television programme called "Saints and Scroungers" which illustrates the point I am trying to make by neatly juxtaposing those (and they are not all single mothers)who abuse the system for their own ends with those who are struggling to access the help they need. That is what I am on about. So if you still want to burn me at the stake, then you will have to throw the BBC on the bonfire with me(after all, you don't pay your licence fee for them to go about wantonly oppressing innocent minorities, do you.) But be warned, if you try I will turn you all into frogs!

You don't have to believe this is happening if you don't want to - But these people are out there and they are taking YOU for a chump.

You don't get mobility allowance if you can get about on foot, and even if you DID you have to still pay thousands and thousands of pounds towards the car.

I care, because I believe that those who commit fraud are not enough in number to fund the services that disabled families need, and vilifying them puts the suspicion onto genuine need cases.

For the teeny tiny number that might claim when they shouldn't, the majority of vulnerable suffer, whilst money is being wasted all over the place on maladministration by the government on setting up systems to regulate those claiming. It's just crazy.

And people who commit fraud should without a doubt be caught and punished, but I kind of feel there are far worse crimes that we should focus on, some of them committed by Local Authorities and the Government themselves.

Teeny tiny!!! Pah - come and live in my town.

Yes they did put a couple of grand towards it. Does that make it better?

OP - there is really is no point in trying to clarify what you mean on this thread now. No matter what you say you have been tarred with the 'I hate benefit claimants' brush even though it's clearly not what your post was referring to.

Do all the people in your town give you the minute details of their lives and their motivations?

Yes I'm in receipt of them all in a big black file I keep under the bed.

"So if you still want to burn me at the stake, then you will have to throw the BBC on the bonfire with me"

It's a deal!

It is this simple - the media already latches onto the minority that are seen to cheat the system, thereby detracting attention from the needy. It also means some people feel justified in questioning (usually aggressively) genuine claimants. On top of that it means people feel more able to judge people based on the tiniest of snapshots of someone else's life, rather than bothering to get the facts.

It also means that people find it easier to believe that huge amounts of benefits are claimed fraudulently, and use it as justification for cutting benefits that go to those who do need it. And are more easily led by heavily massaged figures.

Eg. there was an article before the election about how many ESA/Incapacity Benefit were denied - with the angle being "look how many fraudsters we've stopped"
What it didn't mention however was how many of those denied claims were denied wrongly, and were later reinstated through tribunals and appeals.

I agree there are people who have no aspirations, people who have seen their parents survive on benefits and can see no other future for themselves.

I can accept that there are some people who cannot see a realistic way of having a secure home of their own unless they are provided with social housing.

I agree that in our society, there are some women who have a baby before they have ever had a life job and rely on benefits to survive.

The problem is surely not that these people exist or even claim benefits their whole lives. Doesn't the problem go deeper than that?
I'd like to know how we can work towards resolving this problem, instead of vilifying the end result?
It's not so much the cost to the taxpayer 'life on benefits' which concerns me tbh. It's the lack of aspiration and hope these people must have grown up with in the first place to see living on benefits their whole lives, and not wanting to work as a viable option.
That is what concerns me. Doesn't every child deserve more than that??

I have no idea how to resolve that issue, but surely that is the issue we should be focusing on?