To ask you to object to this? Pre-paid benefits cards

[LuisSuarezTeeth]

a step too far

We're talking about human beings.

Thanks Arsenic and those that have already signed.

Signed.

Stunned that anyone wouldn't sign. Even if it doesn't affect me (which I doubt very much that it will but who knows?) why would I wish this on anyone else?

It could be any member of my family, a friend, a work colleague, anyone I know, love, respect, somewhere down the line. Would I want to see them treated like a sub-standard human being? No.

Are we going to hand out gold stars to sew on clothing with the cards too, just to make sure that everyone is fully aware of who the scumbags are?

Jesus wept.

It also occurs to me that, whether the card will not swipe for alcohol purchases or whether shop staff have to refuse them, it's asking frontline retail staff to police the purchases of desperate addicts. Not something I'd want to do for national minimum wage.

That such a good point joan the general public can already be arssey to deal with, I wouldn't fancy that either.

Oh yes, I've just had a quick Google....Privatised prisons, and disconcertingly, both NHS pathology services and school dinners . Don't look too closely at the contents of those pies, kids.....

(that was regarding Sodexo, btw!)

There was a voucher scheme in 2002 that was scrapped which gave vouchers to asylum seekers instead of money. It failed dismally and certainly in Kent, there was a black market in these vouchers. Why on earth has it been revived again? Have signed.

Ionacat, that scheme was scrapped twice but revived as the Azure card scheme.

Last time I was a hospital inpatient Sodexo had the contract for doing the hospital food. I ordered the 2 egg salad to receive some limp lettuce and half an egg. Stingy bastards.

Singed. It's absolutely disgusting. It's the second one I've signed in relation to these awful things today. Have shared on FB too, though people are keeping very quiet over it.

If you want to encourage addicts to stay away from drugs/alcohol, then put in place the correct means of doing so. More support workers, one-on-one mentors, counselling, evening groups, NHS run rehab centers, more police, better drugs awareness in schools, etc. Fork out for the help and then advertise the shit out of it. Oh wait, no. We couldn't do that. It would cost too much. And as the dregs of our society, it's far better and much cheaper to just give them flashing neon fucking cards that basically state "I'm a lesser human being and a lost cause to boot". Cards that would likely be detrimental to the health of many people desperate enough to sell them on for their next fix At least by doing this, you would be targeting the small percentage of people in these situations in a more positive way, without causing huge upset, further humiliation and future struggles to the rest of the people who sadly have the misfortune of being caught up in the benefits system.

I am so angry at this even being talked about by a government who use taxpayers money to fund their 'expenses'. Expenses my arse. If they're going to enforce PBC's, they need to have them, too. After all, it's the TAXPAYER paying for their second homes, their food expenses, their travelling expenses, etc. One rule for all, Ian, you utter shitbag

The only people who have successfully cut my relatives drugs use are the police. After the most recent drugs raid he has had to quit dealing. There has been a marked improvement in him since then. He is still using, but not the same quantity of drugs as when he had his dealing enterprise going on, as he now has less cash to spend on them.

Are we going to hand out gold stars to sew on clothing with the cards too, just to make sure that everyone is fully aware of who the scumbags are?

Whisk, I do seriously worry that it's heading that way.

I haven't read all the details of this scheme, but do think any government needs to look at all the possible options.

We want a benefits system that works and given the rising population, it needs to work highly efficiently.

I don't think we can rule out considering new ways of delivering to help to those that really need it.

Without removing their choices, Downtheroad

Can we afford to meet the preferred choice of every person involved?

If efficiency is the aim downtheroad, why add another layer of administration on top of the existing system?

We have to Downtheroad we are humans. Not doing so dehumanises us. Those on benefits, in particular those with disabilities are already designated other. Once a group is designated other it becomes somehow safe to persecute said group, allowing this to happen allows that to happen.

I'll keep repeating - nobody has asked us how we budget. This cannot possibly be intended to help or support claimants, nor even to improve efficiency. Benefits are currently paid through BACS: how much more efficient can you get? And it can't be meant to help us budget because no-one knows how we budget.

So ... what's the aim, exactly?

Quite so, joan, Dawn, Garlic.

This proposal looks like costing a lot of money. If the aim is purely social (it must be) it doesn't look like it will even achieve that.

It's not about "meeting every choice", it's about removing the few choices left to those claiming the allowances and immediately rendering them incapable, across the board, of making sensible financial decisions.

Dr Max Pemberton, psychiatrist and life-long socialist, says benefits cards are what he's been waiting for for years for his addict patients.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/maxpemberton/11142179/Iain-Duncan-Smith-has-made-a-smart-choice-to-help-addicts.html

He doesn't say how this will help this patients.

But is fulsome on how it matches his views that taxpayers should dictate what recipients spend money on.

He also calls objectors to the scheme "breathtakingly naive" and failing to acknowledge the complexities of the situation, while, er, himself being breathtakingly naive and failing to acknowledge the complexities of the situation.

Doncha just love the "my dad was a milkman so any old rubbish I come out with must be socialist" types?

Doncha just love the "my dad was a milkman so any old rubbish I come out with must be socialist" types?

I want to squeeze their adorable little cheeks pausing

I have something more to say about this, but haven't the energy today to put together coherently.

But it's about the fact that "choice" is being touted as utterly essential in all OTHER areas of taxpayer funded services.

Parents must be able to choose schools.

Patients must be able to choose treatments. NHS money is, as we speak, currently being handed out as "personal budgets" - trumpeted as a wonderful thing that patients can choose to spend NHS money on a massage.

And this is being rolled out, to enable the privatised NHS model where the patient pays any willing provider who has paid for use the NHS brandname. So even people who may be quite cognitively and functionally impaired are being trusted to buy complex products like medical treatment with public money.

Yet we're not trusted to buy groceries?

So the question is, who benefits?

Who benefits from the restriction of subsistence expenditure to "pay to play" stores, and from the introduction of a new, massive layer of bureaucracy?

And who benefits from the de-restriction of NHS expenditure so that it needn't be spent at accountable, not-for-profit, integrated public health services but can instead flow into private coffers?

In both cases, it's the private businesses.

Very big businesses love central government contracts. Small and medium businesses are excluded by the cost and connections required by the bidding process, and the "customer" is the govt dept the deal is signed with: after that, you can treat the actual service users like dirt. ATOS a prime example.

So what you see is a class of company emerging whose core business is farming govt contracts. Doesn't matter what it's for - prisons, school dinners, GP surgeries in East London. Of COURSE a company like Sodexo have the Azure card contract: if it wasn't them, it would be Serco, G4S, ATOS, KPMG...

The rhetoric of "choice" is merely a tool cynically mobilised in whichever direction suits a particular scheme.

maleficent overlord

He got one thing right then

I don't see the problem with the cards, these people should be grateful that they are being supported by the workers when they receive hand-outs.

Original Territt

Can you explain where the claimants' NI contributions went then?