AIBU to be really annoyed at benefits Britain characters

[Fatallyshy]

Boo hoo your children won't get the latest games consoles while you spend all your time with them but you don't you prat about with your mates getting drunk. While me and my partner work all hours we can to pay the bills we cannot afford the dog (that you have) the new games consoles the holidays and in a few month we won't be able to afford the rent, or the heating.

Aibu to wantt a better life than the those one the dole when I work for everything I have?

Hey! Benefit sex! "The benefit-dominatrix enters her benefits-dungeon playfully brandishing her benefits-whip"

There could be episodes for swinging, fetishes, BDSM. What a ratings winner!

Whoahh Fideliney. I have dibs on that one.

I didn't watch the programme. I have worked with plenty of former miners and their wives and families. Far too many of them were too proud and to obstinate to move on and accept that things had changed, and the Labour government were all too happy to allow them to live on benefits with few conditions attached. Now the Tories are cracking the whip a little people seem to be getting upset as if a life on benefits is some kind of entitlement.

Tuscon the chap featured tonight wanted to work, or at least what was left of him.

Darn it. Don't suppose you want to collaborate cozie?

There will always be a portion of society unemployed. Does it really matter who that is? Of course on a personal level, yes it does, it is not good for a persons mental health or self esteem to be long term unemployed, but on a state level it costs us no more to pay 1 person welfare for 12 years, than 12 people for 1 year.

I find it sad that people judge the "under class" do you never take the time to wonder what, exactly went so wrong in their lives that they are 'happy' to exist this way? Because it is existing, long term unemployment is not living.

Imo, we should be giving more money to these people in the form of courses, qualifications, therapy, family support, decent housing and living standards etc. We need to teach them that are worth more, not kick them while they are down.

Again, I didn't see the programme. But what had this man been doing for the considerable amount of time between the steelworks closing and this programme being made?

I think the dog was called Giro. Honestly how many people could survive if they were made redundant and had to live on £70 JSA. Once the redundancy money was used for bills etc it's soup and the foodbank or sell anything of value. Long term unemployment is a very big problem in a lot of places. Here in the S.W, we rely on the weather so the holiday makers will come. There is very little other work.

Tucson I might watch his portion again with both eyes to see if they gave more detail (although it was hardly a quality offering). How anyone would conclude he was anything other than a casualty of outside forces though, I have no idea. As D0in say there are bound to be some.

Fideliney even if you watch the programme again, people like Tucson won't believe a word you have to say. In fact there are many people unemployed in Sheffield, and very few jobs, particularly if you are looking for a NMW job.

OP Perhaps if you looked at the reasons they want their kids to have the latest whatever, it would help, or what they go without to provide that, or how much debt they find themselves in.

Tucson
All the time you have a go at those people on benefits, you count the disabled in with that number, the ill and those genuinely unable to work. Perhaps you could differentiate a little more instead of falling hook, line and sinker for the government's insidious little storyline. You too, Luis.

Me dawn ?

Oh I see. The sarcasm in my post wasn't apparent - sorry dawn

there are many people unemployed in Sheffield, and very few jobs

If there were no benefits system, a significant number of those people would move elsewhere, and would have jobs. Perhaps we should have a rule that in any town that is in the top 20% for unemployment, claims for JSA are not allowed, instead you can claim the cost of moving to somewhere better. I wouldn't make it a blanket rule, I would start off with applying it to single young people applying for JSA for the first time, and gradually widen application as far as was deemed necessary/acceptable.

I watched the first episode. The only thing that I felt was sadness for the baby girl Porcia(sp?). Her parents were struggling for money but yet they thought that it was a good idea to get a dog. Why?

I spent a few years on benefits and I do get annoyed at some people who claim benefits because they have no interest in working and feel entitled and that results in everyone being portrayed that way.

FraidyCat, you need to really think through what would happen if you said, OK, no-one in X town can claim JSA.

What would happen if you wanted to open and staff a new business?

What would happen to the existing shops and businesses as people moved away?

What would happen to wages and working conditions in the town if employers had their staff over a barrel like that?

What would happen to the unemployment rate in Y town when all these jobseekers moved in? What would happen to the availability of housing/GPs/schools?

And that's before we even start thinking about the actual, y'know, people involved, like how you afford to move to a more expensive city when you have no money, and no bugger wants to let to folks on HB. And where all the jobs would come from.

So your idea, while superficially appealing to benefits-bashers, would cause huge disruption and social upheaval, for little to no practical gain.

Actually, that sounds familiar... do you work for the current government by any chance?!

I have to say, I look at others who earn more and do occasionally feel envy and wish I had their lives and their financial security. I have never - not once - been envious of the people shown on these programmes.

^^ as in envious of their financial situations.

MayFairyKing

I look at one or two of these episodes if I notice that they are on. I watch only to keep in mind how lucky I am. I do wonder though why taxpayers should have to pay for unnecessary items, for instance, a dog, fancy electronic equipment (just because Johnny up the road has one), holidays. Holidays are not essential in my view. Anyone remember when a day at the seaside was a 'holiday' and a real treat? If they want to lie in the sun, what's the matter with the garden?

As for cigarettes, perhaps smokers should carry a card of some sort and have to produce it when buying cigarettes. If they have no card, they are not entitled to cigarettes or other form of smoking (pipes included).

I suppose it depends on what you consider unnecessary.

I have a dog. If, for whatever reason, I lost my job and claimed JSA, I'd not get rid of him. If nothing else, rescues are bursting at the seams already.

A card to prove what Happy? Tax paid last year? That could get complicated. Very very few benefits claimants actually take holidays. There's no evidence for it.

I found it funny that the dogs name was "Giro".

Brilliant. I wish I'd thought of it.

When the little boy went missing I did wonder why his mother didn't seem more concerned and why it was the other girl running around crying whilst the mum apparently did nothing .

you need to really think through what would happen if you said, OK, no-one in X town can claim JSA

I spent a lot of time elaborating that I didn't actually mean no-one. I think you stopped reading to soon. Even after this measure, this town would still have higher unemployment than others, just not as high as before. (As soon as it stopped being in the worst one-fifth of towns for unemployment, the measure would stop applying.)

What would happen if you wanted to open and staff a new business?

Non-issue, see above.

What would happen to wages and working conditions in the town if employers had their staff over a barrel like that?

For my measures to continue applying, the town would have to have worse unemployment than 80% of the country. So in terms of market forces operating on employment, the measure would make no difference.

What would happen to the unemployment rate in Y town when all these jobseekers moved in? What would happen to the availability of housing/GPs/schools?

Are you really arguing that no town population can ever change, not even by 2 or 3 percent spread over a number of years? Towns change by more than that all the time.

And that's before we even start thinking about the actual, y'know, people involved, like how you afford to move to a more expensive city when you have no money, and no bugger wants to let to folks on HB.

Which is why I specifically said the cost of moving would have to be covered.

And where all the jobs would come from.

OK you've persuaded me. If you live in an area with no job vacancies, it's preferable to spend the rest of your life on benefits rather than move to where there are some.

I spent a lot of time elaborating

Well, one long sentence, anway.

Fraidy try and put yourself in the shoes of someone with no money. HOW do you just upsticks and speculatively move areas if you are a destitute council tenant?

Bearing in mind that none of these people have been issued with crystal balls. Thay don't know at any point that there isn't a job round the corner in their home town.