egafd.com

Not sure who 6 is having a go at me or you David but if it was me he can shove the Hitler reference up his fucking arse.

Lots of questions and to be honest I am not that shocked by some, if you'll forgive me silly responses, especially life of Riley.

Having wrote at length on this in places where it matters I won't do a full war and peace here but just to clarify.

"Cripples shouldn't get paid less for being cripples".

If crippled and entitled to the benefit then they get it - that simple.

"Have you seen the unemployment figures...."

Employment figure mean fuck all there is opportunity to create steeping stone jobs. - that simple.

Loopholes are closed - that simple (if I recall I mentioned exploitation).

In light of 6's pathetic rant I won't be replying again but do remember it isn't those looking at the benefit system who are the problem it's those on it who exploited it who are the problem.

We didn't deal with it and because we didn't the Tories are but as per usual they are doing it with the fist that smashes all not just those who should be being dealt with.

You can blame cunts like this for giving the government the amunition they need to lay into the genuine claimants.







Mind you it would be nice to see some covert video footage of multi-billionaire cunts WHO NEVER pay a penny in UK tax being knobbled by the authorities. Of course Hell will freeze over before we see such a thing posted on Youtube.

Hiya,
Okey dokey. I guess in summary I just think if anyone works, whether they are disabled or otherwise, they should get the going rate for the job from a wage perspective.

I am not in favour of people getting base benefits instead of a wage when they are working unless it is a recognised, bona fide charity and the people themselves have made the decision to do that.

THe reason for this is that if it is going to be a stepping stone to a job, then they need to employed on a realistic basis.

Otherwise basically it is free labour for employers, whether council or private company, funded by the taxpayer. And the majority of employers at the end of the "trial employment period" or whatever, will find a reason not to carry on employing that person if it means paying them themselves rather than the state paying for them.

I don't see how you can do away with the loopholes. Companies will just say, sorry we have had a downturn in business etc etc and then miraculously try to get someone else subsidised by the state later on.

Cheers
D

number 6 wrote:

> What pleasure do people get from saying to a disabled person
> who is struggling with their life we will cut off your benefits
> unless you do this job, tell me what pleasure they get from it?
> Are they so mean minded they begrudge even a person who is
> genuinely disabled from getting benefits just because they
> could possibly do a job where they will probably be bullied or
> humiliated just so they dont have to support them out of taxes.
> To be like this you must have a really fucked up,downright mean
> mindset. Adolf thought along those lines,work sets you free and
> all that,he ended up working millions to death who should never
> have been working,perhaps you agree with that to?


Hmmmmm posted at 12:07.....hard day at WORK Number 6?

Lots of issues here ....

As stated the first is fairly analysing who is disabled hence entitled to receive adequate benefits for a reasonable standard of living and who is just work shy.
Of course there will always be border line cases but generally visual physical and severe mental disabilities are clear cut but assessment is often much harder when a disability be it mental or physical ( e.g. pain or fatigue) with no outward signs is claimed.

Many disabled are capable of some work and of these many would prefer to work. Assuming a suitable job is available the first issue is can they independently travel followed by what facilities and support are required.
However with our current unemployment and no government policy to create jobs so cutting both unemployment and our reliance on imports despite l
equal opportunities legalisation the disabled will always be at a huge disadvantage. Also the work shy can get away with presenting themselves to employers in way that makes then unsuitable or undesirable for the job they are being considered for.

Another issue is different government departments having different outlooks e.g. to the department of employment every person who is categorised as disabled and on disability benefit is one less to count for the unemployed figure.


As to employee rights for those starting employment your point is valid when following a suitable induction and training the person is then capable of doing the job.
However as my company has found recently just because someone has a first class honours degree in a relevant subject, which should mean they have the ability to learn, understand and discern, in reality for the last six months they have just been a burden showing little sign of being able to do the work required relatively independently despite several staff cumilitively spending many hours with them. Hence why new staff are taken initially on a 3 month contract and in this case the lifeline of second 3 month contract was given.

Gusset, I think it's the definition of 'disabled' they are looking at. Some people who claim they are, aren't, and can work. As I said at the top, the genuine should not be thrown off the Benefit, but the freeloaders should be. The problem is trying to establish who is and who isn't. The freeloaders are going to do their best to convince the assessor they are for real, and the real ones will try to convey that too. The assessor will have a hard job, and I hope no genuine claimants are kicked off.

number6,

The Tories won't dismantle the Welfare State, I am sure. They didn't in the 1980s or 90s so I'm sure they wont now. They certainly don't like the Welfare State as it is, they didn't years ago either, but it seems we go from one extreme to the other with one party to the next. The Tories tighten everything up whereas Labour allow everyone to go on Benefit. I'm sure the Welfare State will exist at the end of this term of Tory government. A lot of these problems of mass Benefit dependency go back to the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher put most of the manual workforce on Benefit, and many were put on Incapacity in order to massage the unemployment figures.

I suppose people could go on the Dole while they wait for their appeal to be heard, assuming they are allowed to. I think it is very wrong that Benefit could just be stopped like that. One problem is that everyone in the Cabinet is a millionaire and doesn't really get what it is like to struggle, but then again John Major (a man who was once on the Dole himself, and grew up quite poor) didn't get it either. I can see rioting happening with this, and also (and I really hope not, but it could) even suicides. They need to have a policy of giving British people jobs in Britain first - rather than allowing foreigners to flood in and take jobs. I know that often foreign people are the only ones who will do the jobs and that many Brits are lazy, but they can't realistically kick people off Benefit when there are no jobs for them to take. We were completely betrayed by Blair and Brown. All this 'British jobs for British people' was a total lie.

I fear that some of the things that happened in the 1980s may never be undone. Thatcher took people who had worked hard all their lives, like countless generations of their family before them, and said to them they must stop working and go on Benefit. People reluctantly did, and got used to it. Some communities have been so used to that ever since that it is hard to get them to embrace the opposite - ie working.

andy,

*I don't blame politicians for being fuckwits I blame fuckwits who claim when they don't have to.

*The solution is for everyone receiving benefits to work, unless they are incapable of doing anything.

This is the problem, how the weed out the freeloaders. In the forthcoming assessments some freeloaders will convince the assessor they are for real and be allowed to remain on Benefit, some genuine people wont and they'll be chucked off. One problem is the issue of rent, how someone who is unskilled can get a low paid job and continue to sustain their flat is beyond me (especially in London). They'll lose their home. I think the Government are in a near impossible situation.