Skint Britain: Friends without Benefits on C4

[amrscot]

Is anybody else watching this?

One of the couples take their dog out to hunt rabbits and squirrels that they can eat.

They've just shown him with a dead rabbit he has caught skinning it in the kitchen

Horrendous..

ONS also counted workfare as being in work.

It is better for the person concerned to be contributing to their own living costs and contributing to the social fabric of the country

So unemployed people aren't part of society as they don't 'Contribute to the social fabric'?

Jeez no wonder we so 'othered'
Not part of society
Judged for painting our nails
Should be grateful for out pittance.

Should we all doth our caps to out massers as they ride by on their horses?

Good to know Copper. It would be ok then if carers dropped off their cared for at A and E and Job Centres en masse on Monday then. Just quit their caring role just like that.

There are more ways to contribute to society than just monetary. As you would find out if my suggestion in this post became a reality.

UC is NOT NOT NOT an out of work benefit

UC is NOT NOT NOT an out of work benefit

The people who would theoretically quit work (who would then be sanctioned, so in that scenario would presumably be a deterrent?) - and move out leaving 'evil' landlords to pay their own mortgages - where are they all going to live if they all can't or refuse, to pay the evil landlords?

UC is NOT NOT NOT an out of work benefit

UC is NOT NOT NOT an out of work benefit

I think most people (or at least those with an ounce of common sense) should understand that UC isn't an out of work benefit. Many people on low paid or unreliable jobs, are on UC. I worked in Tesco on a Flexi contract which meant one week I had 10hrs and the next I'd have 50. Was impossible to plan for, unsocial and generally shit. As a single person under 25 I couldn't apply for much, indeed they were quite good and most weeks I worked 30plus hours, so if I did qualify the faffing letting them know what I was working and my earnings etc wouldn't have been worth it. No doubt my colleagues who had children might have been on UC. Children they'd already had before working in Tesco, who chose Tesco because there aren't many alternatives. I do agree that the 'taxpayer' (whoever that is - most uc claimants pay tax) shouldn't pay for children born after the 2 child cap and support that in some ways, but what do you do about existing children, let them starve? Also the 2 child cap makes sense logically, but on a feminist level - is it right to tell a woman that if she gets pregnant with her 3rd she should have a termination? Of course not. But by the same token, many families cannot afford another child and having children is not a right, it's a responsibility. Its a double edged sword

Madein1995

Who said they're moving out?

It can take months to get sitting tenants out and with the courts full of case of eviction it will take even longer.

A lot of councils tell tenants to do just that.

I used to think "why do they spend all their money on fags" and "look at the size of their TVs". I'd never seen poverty in real life. Now, I've still never encountered the link of poverty in these shoes but all I feel is so sorry for them, these small things are all they have.

Tinker, can you show me where I said that unemployed people are not part of society?
Stop putting words in people's mouths.
I say exactly what I mean and don't need you to misinterpret it for me.

Helena, everybody knows that UC is not only an out of work benefit.

@swingofthings
Thank you for your good luck wishes. And I agree. Best wishes to you too.

I presumed they would be moving out in that scenario as they would have quit their jobs, presumably got sanctioned - your post suggests they wouldn't pay rent as the LL would have to pay for their mortgage.

Admittedly I probably presumed that as I wouldn't dream of staying somewhere and not paying rent and dragging through a lengthy court process. Unbelievable that councils are advising this. How is it fair to anyone involved? Surely with months of arrears the claimants credit rating would be affected and they might struggle to private rent, or get any form of credit, for a while? And I thought I read somewhere that some councils, if someone gets in arrears and gets evicted, class it as making themselves intentional homeless and the amount of help given is limited?

Definitely think the council's should stop giving this advice. Not fair on LL but not particularly fair to claimant. I'm sure it's worrying and stressful doing that and most people (if they're like me) would much prefer not to drag things out, make things complicated and just get the help they need. But they have to do that process as otherwise council won't home them. At which point their credit rating is buggered

Perhaps the best solution would be those theoretical claimants didn't quit their jobs. They wouldn't have the stress and worry of a dragged out court process. They wouldn't be sanctioned, at least not for quitting their job. They wouldn't make a bad name for themselves amongst private landlords in the local area, who are already refusing to rent to people on UC. They wouldn't end up with a bad credit rating, and they wouldn't face eviction and possible court fees to repay.

The council's really need to change their advice

Helena, I said "contributing to the SOCIAL FABRIC of the country".
I did not say " contributing to society", which is something entirely different.

blue really hope you're not serious with that post. Agreed the environment had an impact on children, and perhaps an active addict, someone with serious violence or self control issues, should not be able to procreate until they have accessed support.. but people change. Vulnerable people can change and become good potential parents with support. Of course in some situations SS will always be involved and neglect and abuse, even if a contributing factor of which is poverty, is a terrible place to bring up a child.

But what's the answer, forced sterilisation? Condoms and the pill etc do not always work. Sterilisation opens a whole other can of worms such as human rights. Not ok.

And genes, seriously?! A person from a shit background can better themselves you know. With support. Many of the singers and entertainers from years gone by, the 50s, 60s, 70s, came from pretty poor backgrounds. There's a local copper in my area whose parents were drug addicts and dealers, and in the papers most months for a family member getting sent down!

Just because you are born in a certain environment and to certain people, doesn't mean you can't succeed. Yes it's affected. The first 5yrs of a child's life are the most important. A families values and beliefs shape a child's own beliefs and values and ultimately their life. But there are ways out. Things like early intervention from SS and other safeguarding professionals, Sure Start, etc etc. Let's not write off all our young born in tragic circumstances. Instead let's try to help them?

Coppersulphate

Please explain, as you understand it, the difference between contributing to the fabric of society and contributing to society.

Is this an awkward silence?

Im starting to think theres a bit of sock puppetry going on this thread

Contributing to the fabric of society means making a contribution (usually financial) to those services (like police, fire services, border force) and structures (like roads, schools, public buildings) which are necessary for the functioning of our society and which benefit society as a whole.

Contributing to society means doing something (which could be working, volunteering, voting, raising children etc.) which benefits or adds to everyone's general experience and well being.

What is sock puppetry please?

And I'm still waiting to have ODFOD and fuckknuckle explained.

Okay so you said:

But it is still better to be working than claiming benefits. It is better for the person concerned to be contributing to their own living costs and contributing to the social fabric of the country.

Yes..

But you then say:
Contributing to the fabric of society means making a contribution (usually financial) to those services (like police, fire services, border force) and structures (like roads, schools, public buildings) which are necessary for the functioning of our society and which benefit society as a whole.

Right.. so.. I'll spell it out really really easily, if you need help, ask a grown up to read it to you.

Contributing to the fabric of society means:

making a contribution (usually financial)
In the United Kingdom, that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is tax called VAT.
In simple terms, when a person spends money on anything, a little of the money they paid goes to Jolly Mr Tax Man.
More disposable income a person has, the more they buy, the more VAT they pay, the more Jolly Mr Tax Man gets. This is paid by everyone whether employed, unemployed or a purple fizzy unicorn in a tutu.

With me so far, complex.isnt it? Have a little down a second.

Better?

Good.

to those services (like police, fire services, border force)
This is what grown ups pay 'Council Tax' for. Each tenant or homeowner, employed or not, has a 'Council Tax' bill they have to pay to fund all manner of things

and structures (like roads, schools, public buildings) which are necessary for the functioning of our society and which benefit society as a whole.

Now these things are partly funded by general tax, which comes from many many places that I won't go into. We all pay into general tax in this country one way or another. Through VAT, tax on cigarettes, tax on fuel, council tax, Vehicle excise duty so on and so forth.

Now...

Test time, please use a pencil and answer the following question:

Would an unemployed person give more to Jolly Mr Tax Man if:
A) their benefits were a little higher so they had more disposable income and therefore bought more things.
B)their benefits were lower so they had less disposable income and therefore bought less things.

Complicated question, you have three days to formulate your answer.
Good luck.