Jobless man refuses to get up at 8am

[Terminator X]

Heard it the first time around, absolute disgrace! What I don't understand though is how/why he can get away with refusing work over a long period of time? Surely if you refuse a few job offers you lose benefits?

TX.

[Terminator X]

Oakey said:

blindswelledrat said:

In a round about way I think ALL benefits claimants are like Paul. Certainly applicable in the South East.
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.

I think the problem with low paid work is it just isn't worth it. I saw a job advertised recently for a cleaner at DW Sports. 6am start. 10 hours a week, minimum wage.

Pointless.

That isn't a full time job though so hardly the same thing.

TX.

[Oakey]

Terminator X said:

That isn't a full time job though so hardly the same thing.

TX.

The lack of full time jobs is also part of the problem! Even the likes of Tesco are guilty of this.

[Phil1]

crankedup said:

You jump to a hasty conclusion regarding my post, a conclusion which is wrong. You state the most obvious with your top line rant, its what 99.9% of posters will agree with which is why I haven't bothered in my post. You then take issue with the fact that I question the value of public airing of this type of red top radio nonsense.
It is NOT FOR THE MEDIA to decide right and wrong in benefits issues ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. It is for the correct authorities to administrate benefits systems. It is this type of broadcast that is, IMO, misleading the public. Do any of us know about 'Paul'? Do we know if he has mental issues? Do we know if the whole story is a 'wind-up? And you have the brass neck to have a pop at me! Give the issue some thought perhaps.

Perhaps if the majority of people reach a different conclusion than you it is perhaps because you are wrong rather than everyone else and suggesting that people's news should be controlled because they don't know how to reach your correct conclusion is depressingly patronising and authoritarian.

Or maybe I'm just reaching the wrong conclusion because I'm not giving it enough thought... or is that just you attempting to patronise someone who doesn't agree with you again?

Maybe 'Paul' is a wind-up, maybe he has mental issues, maybe there is another excuse you can come up with to try and mask something for which many posters on this thread and others have witnessed. Or maybe there is a real issue within the benefits system that needs addressing and your attempt to brush it under the carpet is ill-advised.

[blindswelledrat]

crankedup said:

blindswelledrat said:

crankedup said:

Plenty of people will be thinking all benefit recipients are like Paul, which
obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).

In a round about way I think ALL benefits claimants are like Paul. Certainly applicable in the South East.
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.

Well if you say so it must be the case.

Pop your rolley eyes back into your benefit pouch and if you disagree with me, then say why. Sarcastic comments and condescending smileys are the work of teenagers and people incapable of forming an argument

[Mojocvh]

blindswelledrat said:

I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.

Right.

Round here trying to get casual work [fruit-picking and seasonal field work] is a doddle.

If you can talk to the HR lady in POLISH.

Yep that's a FACT.

Pity about the naming and shaming rules or I'd even give you the names and phone numbers...

Bitter & definitely Twisted.

[crankedup]

Studio117 said:

It would be sad to say that all people on benefits are like this but most of them I've met are exactly that.

The work shy have become so used to this existsence that a significant drop in benefits won't lead to them going to work, we may even see an increase of petty crime and drug dealing.

The hand wringers won't ever cut the benefits, and the cycle will continue for many more generations.

Agree, we may well see a rise in petty crime, well we won't because the police stats will most likely exclude such crimes. I don't agree that 'hand wringers' will never cut benefits, its already an on going process. I only hope that the GENUINE needy are not left in the street to rot.

[crankedup]

Phil1 said:

crankedup said:

You jump to a hasty conclusion regarding my post, a conclusion which is wrong. You state the most obvious with your top line rant, its what 99.9% of posters will agree with which is why I haven't bothered in my post. You then take issue with the fact that I question the value of public airing of this type of red top radio nonsense.
It is NOT FOR THE MEDIA to decide right and wrong in benefits issues ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. It is for the correct authorities to administrate benefits systems. It is this type of broadcast that is, IMO, misleading the public. Do any of us know about 'Paul'? Do we know if he has mental issues? Do we know if the whole story is a 'wind-up? And you have the brass neck to have a pop at me! Give the issue some thought perhaps.

Perhaps if the majority of people reach a different conclusion than you it is perhaps because you are wrong rather than everyone else and suggesting that people's news should be controlled because they don't know how to reach your correct conclusion is depressingly patronising and authoritarian.

Or maybe I'm just reaching the wrong conclusion because I'm not giving it enough thought... or is that just you attempting to patronise someone who doesn't agree with you again?

Maybe 'Paul' is a wind-up, maybe he has mental issues, maybe there is another excuse you can come up with to try and mask something for which many posters on this thread and others have witnessed. Or maybe there is a real issue within the benefits system that needs addressing and your attempt to brush it under the carpet is ill-advised.

Yes I am prepared to be in a minority, but in this instance I am airing my opinion regarding this particular issue and the broader issue. As this forum is consisting in the main of Right Wing politics I actually expect to hold an opposing POV, (I'm Lib-Dem) If you wish to consider my opposing POV patronising and authoritarian thats fine by me, its only your opinion after all.
Your secondary suggestion that I have somehow inferred issues such as Pauls should be 'swept under the carpet' is completely at odds with what I have said. Go back and read again.

[crankedup]

blindswelledrat said:

crankedup said:

blindswelledrat said:

crankedup said:

Plenty of people will be thinking all benefit recipients are like Paul, which
obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).

In a round about way I think ALL benefits claimants are like Paul. Certainly applicable in the South East.
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.

Well if you say so it must be the case.

Pop your rolley eyes back into your benefit pouch and if you disagree with me, then say why. Sarcastic comments and condescending smileys are the work of teenagers and people incapable of forming an argument

When you post such a glib and idiotic remark it invites such a response, do you use a soap box at weekends also?

[alfaman]

blindswelledrat said:

crankedup said:

blindswelledrat said:

crankedup said:

Plenty of people will be thinking all benefit recipients are like Paul, which
obviously is not the case. What was the purpose of the broadcast, (or did it go out live).

In a round about way I think ALL benefits claimants are like Paul. Certainly applicable in the South East.
I honestly believe that any unemployed person could get casual low-paid work. Anybody who doesnt work chooses not to.

Well if you say so it must be the case.

Pop your rolley eyes back into your benefit pouch and if you disagree with me, then say why. Sarcastic comments and condescending smileys are the work of teenagers and people incapable of forming an argument

[how rude - why not just accept others may have an alternative view] you are missing the point that someone who has a professional / management background may have a problem securing 'low paid' or lower qualified work as the employer will assume they'll resign as soon as an appropriate role comes along.

[Studio117]

crankedup said:

Studio117 said:

It would be sad to say that all people on benefits are like this but most of them I've met are exactly that.

The work shy have become so used to this existsence that a significant drop in benefits won't lead to them going to work, we may even see an increase of petty crime and drug dealing.

The hand wringers won't ever cut the benefits, and the cycle will continue for many more generations.

Agree, we may well see a rise in petty crime, well we won't because the police stats will most likely exclude such crimes. I don't agree that 'hand wringers' will never cut benefits, its already an on going process. I only hope that the GENUINE needy are not left in the street to rot.

The many spoiling it for the few this time?

Another problem is the part time job scenario, why offer someone full time employment, when you can employ someone for under 16 hours a week and you know the taxpayer is subsidising the rest.

Does the employer pay less ni and tax by having all these people part time instead of less people full time?

[Phil1]

crankedup said:

Your secondary suggestion that I have somehow inferred issues such as Pauls should be 'swept under the carpet' is completely at odds with what I have said. Go back and read again.

Oh good, then you don't have a problem with stories like this being aired then... except for when you do...

[0000]

crankedup said:

It is NOT FOR THE MEDIA to decide right and wrong in benefits issues ON A PERSONAL LEVEL.

Sure. Individuals make for useful examples to illustrate wider problems though.

[Oakey]

Labours plan is to give everyone who has been unemployed for two years a 'temporary job' and if they refuse they'll stop their benefits.

[Mr_B]

Oakey said:

Labours plan is to give everyone who has been unemployed for two years a 'temporary job' and if they refuse they'll stop their benefits.

Never going to happen. You simply can't let people fail in this country now, no matter how stupid they are and how deliberate they are, such as the person this thread is about.
People know this and the number is going only one way.
Amazingly, the number of people who think Paul should keep his benefits and will speak out for him, and the media that would cover his story if his benefits were and say how cruel Government was for letting him starve, is not short of support and very vocal.

[Oakey]

Of course it's not going to happen, where are these 'temporary jobs' going to come from?

[Quhet]

Bloke on the radio is obviously trolling

[davepoth]

Oakey said:

Labours plan is to give everyone who has been unemployed for two years a 'temporary job' and if they refuse they'll stop their benefits.

Where do the "jobs" come from?

If there was work to be done and wages to be paid for it, there would be jobs. What would happen is that unscrupulous employers will take on these claimants to sit around drinking tea while they get a cheque from the government.

[Oakey]

davepoth said:

Where do the "jobs" come from?

If there was work to be done and wages to be paid for it, there would be jobs. What would happen is that unscrupulous employers will take on these claimants to sit around drinking tea while they get a cheque from the government.

Bingo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20905415

"Businesses would be given subsidies to hire people on a temporary basis, with those refusing a suitable job having benefits docked."

[JDRoest]

crankedup said:

You jump to a hasty conclusion regarding my post, a conclusion which is wrong. You state the most obvious with your top line rant, its what 99.9% of posters will agree with which is why I haven't bothered in my post. You then take issue with the fact that I question the value of public airing of this type of red top radio nonsense.
It is NOT FOR THE MEDIA to decide right and wrong in benefits issues ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. It is for the correct authorities to administrate benefits systems. It is this type of broadcast that is, IMO, misleading the public. Do any of us know about 'Paul'? Do we know if he has mental issues? Do we know if the whole story is a 'wind-up? A nd you have the brass neck to have a pop at me! Give the issue some thought perhaps.

Ok, so this chap is called Paul. I know one benefit claimant who hasn't looked for a job in 3-4 years - and he's only 22/23!! It's not lack of jobs because Amazon is based in his town - it's that he simply can't be arsed to get a job. But he's managed to sign off as a carer which means he doesn't have to attend the DHS office to explain why he's jobless.

(And he doesn't do any caring for the OAP either!)