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?

Kaloki - and you know all this how? Have you had some kind of summit with media moguls who have confessed that they are in cahoots with the Government to perpetuate this message? Get real! I'm sure the Government worked hand in hand with the media to get the message out about MPs fiddling expenses too...

And as I said before, wrt girls fresh out of school in the last 2/3 years, social housing waiting lists look rather different to how they looked even 20 years ago.

The days of waiting a few months, or a couple of years for an assured tenancy in social housing are long gone imvho.

Whilst a minority may believe they will be housed in this way quite quickly if they make enough fuss , I do believe they will discover the reality is very different.

Agreed portaloo

Every time I see these threads on MN, I assume a lot of this hatred is based on envy of women who get pregnant when their fertility is at its peak and get to enjoy their children while they are still young.

Those who are in receipt of state help are vulnerable, by definition.

OP you need to go away and think about this more carefully.

Think OP, Think.

Youth unemployment at 20.3% is at the highest level since these records began ('92). Perhaps it makes sense for these girls to have their children now, so they are able to work when the job market picks up.
23.4% of the working age population dont have a job. More data herewww.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12

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.

Actually that doesn't bother me in the slightest, in many ways who's the fool in the rat race, being worked to death until your 75 for what ?
It's the fact that they expect or in fact need support from others.
Taxation is totally back to front IMO. If everyone was housed and fed on a basic level, a citizens wage of say £100 per person per household per week and then anything you earnt over and above that you keep 50% of the first 20,000, 80% of the next £40,000 and everything over £100,000 then there would be no need for anyone to steal, commit fraud or rob another person.

If you do there are sever penalties.
People would want to work hard because they would see the rewards of their efforts.
There you go I've solved the whole issue, time for bed :)

"Kaloki - and you know all this how?"

It's called reading, I can read and therefore see that there are more articles on "scroungers" than struggling genuine claimants. And that the "scrounger" storylines get more column inches and are more likely to be front cover news.

Or have you noticed a huge amount of articles on how many people are struggling? How many articles have you read about people being refused benefits based on inaccurate reports?

Are we talking about the sort of scrubbers who keep their DVDs in bookcases?

what I don't understand is why folk on high benefits aren't made to work for it. they could do pt council jobs- libraries, sanitation, parks, etc, filling the gaps in the types of jobs getting cut by councils but at no additional cost since they already get quite a bit in benefits. the kids could go to council run nurseries which would create more jobs.
I see no reason why just having a kid is a reason to get free housing and money without having to give something back to the community.

eh? Because council run nurseries cost more than someone at home on benefits!

but it wouldnt cost more cause the council would be saving the parents wage since they would be working for their benefit. so the cost of childcare is offset by the savings from getting people to work for benefits.

Ah yes chillichill - give them a job is what you are saying. I agree completely. the unemployed should be given jobs!

and dont be such a tight-arse idiot. The people must be paid for their work.

yeah, I just never understood why we just give unending benefits without getting anything back for it. if your a genuine claimer, you would have no problem working for your benefit as long as you got time to go to interviews in your chosen field. if your a scrubber, at least your not getting a free ride.

I think most of the unemployed think that too.

The maths don't add up I'm afraid. Overall, it would be an additional cost.

The claimant will still get the money. Extra money has to be found for a nursery place. A desk, a computer, insurance has to be funded as well as presumably travel and possible work clothes. And there aren't the jobs. I suppose they could do the job that someone else is doing and make them redundant but that won't help either, plus you;ll have the redundancy money.

they are getting paid in my world, you don't think free rent plus spending cash is a wage? anyway, if you think I'm tight, you don't have to live in my world.

Oh STARTING - your right. but I'm sure there is a way to reform the system that makes more sense and gets more value for the expense. I'm just not the bright spark to do it. at least not at this time of night while nursing dd.

Haven't read all of this, but my gut reaction is that the op is a person who has had a nice sheltered life and never seen the environments some people grow up in. And YABU and sexist and an idiot.

Their 'job' is hunting for a job. Thats why it is called 'jobseekers allowance'. If we give them someone else's job, we are putting that other person out of a job. Doesnt make sense, see?

What you 'get for it' is people applying to available jobs, and those jobs being filled.

Of course when you have a bunch of idiot millionaires running the country who think its a good idea to sack everyone, you are going to get an increase in unemployment.

An umemployed person being asked forced to do their old job for free would have a problem with that I think!

hey, I admitted I hadn't thought it through very well though the idea was unskilled jobs that we don't have enough of, cleaning streets and parks, so not puting someone out of a job but a nice extra for the community. or an internship to learn a skill. yes, there may be a cost involved with child care but if someone with no work experience gains some and also the confidence to work, they may get out of the system. and the children get the experience of nursery.
as a tax payer, id rather pay more and see a difference than pay less and keep people locked in a system they can't get out of.

The word 'scrubber' is a horrible nasty term. What makes you so much better than these young women, who have more often than not been raised in a similar environment to the one they end up in with their own children? These girls often have no positive role model and come from a deprived background. Perhaps you should think of the bigger picture before you label young vulnerable women as 'scrubbers'

and I know all about job seekers allowance and it sucks. the system is designed to keep people in it, not help them out. you cannot live on it so if you don't get a job quickly you wind up having to go further into the system to survive.

This is inevitably what happens when there are cut backs. People start looking around for other vulnerable groups to scapegoat.