Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35792999)

LOL
Just because I said shelf stacker to the woman?

so if I phoned up a car wash place and said 'car sponger' you'd say we don't have any car sponger jobs but we did have car washer jobs?

---------- Post added at 14:24 ---------- Previous post was at 14:23 ----------



You can't smell over the internet. must be coming from your end ;)

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793005)

Would you object to them performing work that benefits the community, litter picking etc?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35793013)

No.
but as I said a long time ago. criminals get the same job of litter picking and paying back to society.

and will take away the jobs that the councils employ people to do already?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793018)

So, buy your own logic should criminals be paid the minimum wage?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35793019)

What?
no it's a punishment.



What?
So by your logic if nobody dropped litter then we wouldn't need any council staff. and you'd probably give me something substantial to discuss other than rubbish (no pun intended)

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793020)

OK let me put it another way

Prisoners who work, should they be paid the minimum wage?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35793021)

No.



That's logical.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793024)

Why not, their punishment is so be sent to prison. Their work allows them to gain new skills etc. for if/when they're eventually released? Why should they not be paid the minimum wage?

Some of the good produced go towards large multinationals such as Tesco are they stopping people from getting jobs ??

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35793027)

Ok. you have a point. pay them a wage.
but I think they should get more than the minimum wage.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793029)

Lets take this logically a step further

Should they make a contribution from their wage, towards the costs of their incarceration ?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35793032)

No. they should be allowed to keep it for all that hard work they've done. so they can buy soap, sweets and crisps with it.

and when they go on day trips to parks and stuff they can buy ice creams.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793033)

And the serious answer is?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793033)

And the serious answer is?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35793036)

They should not be paid the minimum wage. and then from this they should not make a contribution to their holiday bed and board. because in doing so makes some people think that the same therefore applies to benefit claimants.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35793051)

Could I point out that you are trying to have a rational discussion with an irrational person, and he's dragging you down to his level and wearing you down with his long, long experience at that level...... ;)

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793054)

So basically you know I'm right you just can't bring yourself to say it

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35792948)

Paying claimants the minimum wage would bring a whole lot of baggage of employment rights and costs with them. In those circumstance, companies would want to be more fussy about who they took on. The idea is meant to be giving people without job experience some experience so they have something to put on their CV.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793020)

OK let me put it another way

Prisoners who work, should they be paid the minimum wage?

Litter etc. will always be dropped

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35793126)

Oh you mean like the baggage they should have when employing someone?

Thats not a reason,

So not only do you think they shouldnt be paid a fair amount of money but you now also think they shouldnt have any rights in the workplace?

Its as if you think they a lower class of people with less rights.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35793138)

if tesco dont like risks associated with such a program they could opt-out.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35793126)

Oh you mean like the baggage they should have when employing someone?

Thats not a reason,

So not only do you think they shouldnt be paid a fair amount of money but you now also think they shouldnt have any rights in the workplace?

Its as if you think they a lower class of people with less rights.

---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 23:45 ----------



Are people on JSA convicted criminals then? Thats news to me.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35793059)

Seriously your logic is flawed. it's the kind of logic that Cameron, his men and the media use to brainwash people into going along with their plans.

'work' isn't the answer to everything.
if it's a contribution then. then why not free sex?
it's the same principle.

you know I'm right.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35793142)

Can you explain that, as I'm struggling to understand your meaning?

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35819216)

My son uses the extra income from his ESA (WAG) to get to and from his training and educational courses. He takes 2 buses then calls for a taxi to get him the rest of the way as it's too far for him to walk with his disability. Then a taxi to the nearest bus stop for his return journey. Without the extra income he would not be able to get to the course.... and no doubt the DWP would sanction him.

I fear this defeat will only be temporary as Iain Duncan Smith (spit) is determined to cut the welfare bill by any means possible. And once he gets new claimants off the ESA (WRAG) he will no doubt withdraw it for current claimants.

Then scrap ESA altogether, hiding it behind the cloak of invisibility that is Universal Credit.

I've just been told that even a change of bank details is enough to trigger a DLA to PIP change, with his ATOS-like pitbulls waiting to pounce on those not deemed "severely disabled enough".

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35861290)

So, when does a chronic illness stop being chronic?

Originally Posted by Rexz (Post 35861293)

When the government deems it so.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35861295)

I have heard of many with chronic conditions being miraculously cured at the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen or keyboard.

:dozey:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35861281)

Finally common sense prevails http://news.sky.com/story/reassessme...mants-10600519

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35861319)

I fear that Osem won't be happy, he supports the repeated testing of everybody, even those with severe, lifelong and incurable learning difficulties!

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35861326)

You mean the ones you want sterilised so they can't reproduce?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35861319)

Excellent news for both our most vulnerable in society and the taxpayer.

All these benefit cuts have caused untold misery to the sick & disabled, yet cost more in administration than what they save.

I fear that Osem won't be happy, he supports the repeated testing of everybody, even those with severe, lifelong and incurable learning difficulties!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35861299)

Oh what glorious generalising stereotyping....

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35861326)

You mean the ones you want sterilised so they can't reproduce?

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35861334)

In the "Tomorrow File" (Lawrence Sanders) you had to have a procreation license before you were allowed to reproduce. Now there's an idea. :scratch:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35861342)

The devil will be in the detail Richard.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35861299)

Oh what glorious generalising stereotyping....

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35861534)

I wonder which of the chronic illnesses are going to be classed as not being chronic enough?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35861417)

We'll have to wait and see if May will be any better than Cameron with regards to the treatment of our most vulnerable in society.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35861570)

IDS is a backbencher and not involved at all as things stand. But he has welcomed the move away from re-assessment of permanent disability and has said its a reform he wanted to make while in office. It is now fairly well understood that Osborne's hand weighed heavily at the DWP and IDS was often (unfairly, IMO) demonised for harsh policies that weren't actually his.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35861319)

Excellent news for both our most vulnerable in society and the taxpayer.

All these benefit cuts have caused untold misery to the sick & disabled, yet cost more in administration than what they save.

I fear that Osem won't be happy, he supports the repeated testing of everybody, even those with severe, lifelong and incurable learning difficulties!

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35861365)

I do not and have never advocated that people should be routinely sterilised simply because of illness or disability.

Don't you ever say this again, you piece of work.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35861125)

As it stands, anyone can have children regardless of their abilities and I don't think that this is a good thing.

At the moment we have children (in mind or in body) giving birth to children. Often, they expect others to pay for them whilst having scant regard to raising them properly through ignorance or otherwise.

Yet, those who wish to adopt have to (quite rightly) pass various checks before they are able to do so.

I don't think that it is a person's right to have children (it's a privilege) and, in the most extreme cases, would support mandatory sterilisation of some males and females.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35861613)

Reproduction is a basic biological function.

You might as well say breathing is a privilege. :erm:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35861613)

Reproduction is a basic biological function.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35861571)

Yes of course I do. I especially want my own son, who's in that category, to suffer that indignity because he hasn't got enough to deal with already. :rolleyes:

You always were one to just make stuff up weren't you. Pathetic. :nutter:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35861661)

This thread has taken a bit of a tangent..

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35861590)

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35861795)

I assume that was Pips intenton as usual ie bringing in subjects and attitudes between completely different threads.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35862105)

Definitely a step in the right direction, given the timing it makes you wonder how much of the previous policies were down to osborne and cameron.

The policy of reassessing everyone as regurly as possible completely overloaded the system and resulted in 'all' reassessments been suspended for a couple of years to clear the backlog.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35862117)

Labour were...

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35862121)

So not Osborne and Cameron and IDS?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35862129)

Labour designed ESA and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition expanded its scope from that and The WCA was started by Labour in 2007 and continued and expanded by subsequent governments since then..

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35862113)

So who was responsible for the Welfare Reform 2007 that brought in ESA and the WCA? Who was responsible for the changes to the WCA introduced in 2011 that were suggested in 2009?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35862132)

"Expanded its scope"? In what way?
An internal review was published in Oct 2009.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35862136)

This isnt a tory vs labour discussion whuch you seem to be trying to turn it into.

A ruling party can change things as we are seeing now.

Also PIP was introduced by IDS, cameron and osborne. ESA was adjusted by the three also, e.g. they introduced stricter systems for those in the WAG group such as making it mandatory to go on the work programme. On the flip side tho more people were qualifying for the SG after the tories came into power. They also toughened up the WCA test which was particularly hard on those with mobility issues. PIP mobility tests have had the same treatment on mobility as well.

The message given out by the previous people in charge was that the DWP budget always had to be cut as if it was some kind of unsustainable unaffordable baggage that had to be got rid off, this change appears to signal a reversal of that feeling.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35862138)

This might explain things more then l can Nomad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employ...port_Allowance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_C...ity_Assessment

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35861824)

Merely proving you to be the liar when it suits you.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35862117)

Labour were...

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35862136)

This isnt a tory vs labour discussion whuch you seem to be trying to turn it into.

A ruling party can change things as we are seeing now.

Also PIP was introduced by IDS, cameron and osborne. ESA was adjusted by the three also, e.g. they introduced stricter systems for those in the WAG group such as making it mandatory to go on the work programme. On the flip side tho more people were qualifying for the SG after the tories came into power. They also toughened up the WCA test which was particularly hard on those with mobility issues. PIP mobility tests have had the same treatment on mobility as well.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35862205)

By fault or design you've twisted or misunderstood what I meant. You should be able to post without being rude.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35862205)

By fault or design you've twisted or misunderstood what I meant. You should be able to post without being rude.

I twisted nothing, I just quoted you. So again you lie when it suits you. If you disagree with my assertion then feel free to visit your solicitors. I look forward to recieving your lawsuit for deformation of character.

To save you derailing a third thread regarding this, a thread about this exists:

Please point me to the other 2 threads where I've called you a liar.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...2#post35862202

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Sort of true, the Blair Government changed the original tests started by the Thatcher Government in 1993 when she phased out Invalidity Benefit in favour of Incapacity Benefit

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35862296)

Poor old Maggie blamed again.

I think you mean Major Government.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35862230)

How's your search going for the proof of what you claimed I'd said then?

Since you reckon you're not a liar and keep telling other people not to be rude, I'll be expecting an apology before you go back on the ignore list where you belong.

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35862235)

I wouldn't hold your breath

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35862371)

What on Earth are you talking about now Pip? Whatever it is, it's got nothing to do with the topic (as usual).



---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:57 ----------



It's becoming clearer and clearer as to why you've been labelled as a stirrer in the past.

Link please.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35862393)

I merely responded to your post.

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35862235)

I wouldn't hold your breath

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35862392)

I think you need to concentrate your efforts on that "evidence" Richard

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35862406)

It doesn't make any sense and isn't pertinent to the topic under discussion though.

---------- Post added at 17:57 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------



You have form for failing to apologise when appropriate.



You also have form for stirring things up on the forum, as pointed out by others and myself.

Do you actually have anything relevant to contribute to this topic?

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35862410)

You seem to be confusing stirring with catching out a liar

This situation is your own making, stop deflecting and start addressing or own up. No one is else is creating this hole here apart from you

As for your topics a lot of them are based on hot air, nazi stances, nonsense and barmy old guff so I'm afraid not

PS love the way I get quoted once but commented twice

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35862415)

I think we all know he's been rumbled yet again as the sad lying hypocrite he is so it's back to the ignore list. Pity it doesn't work on his quoted drivel but nothing's perfect eh? Next time he pops up claiming he doesn't lie and would never be rude we'll all know it's just more of the same old garbage.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35862417)

Believe it or not I've actually agreed with him in one of his recent posts.

Is that because I've made him stop, take a breath and read his reply before posting???

Only time will tell.

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35862410)

You seem to be confusing stirring with catching out a liar

This situation is your own making, stop deflecting and start addressing or own up. No one is else is creating this hole here apart from you

As for your topics a lot of them are based on hot air, nazi stances, nonsense and barmy old guff so I'm afraid not

PS love the way I get quoted once but commented twice

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35862415)

I think we all know he's been rumbled yet again as the sad lying hypocrite he is so it's back to the ignore list. Pity it doesn't work on his quoted drivel but nothing's perfect eh? Next time he pops up claiming he doesn't lie and would never be rude we'll all know it's just more of the same old garbage.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35862417)

Believe it or not I've actually agreed with him in one of his recent posts.

Is that because I've made him stop, take a breath and read his reply before posting???

Only time will tell.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35862568)

Deducting it from Housing Benefit is just a mechanism for deducting money from their total. Simpler than having to work out deductions from across benefits X, Y, Z etc. They are expected to make up the difference from the rest of the benefits they are getting.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35862905)

The benefit cap is the policy I have little issue with, its not like they set it at 5k, its set at a pretty high number.



However the danger is, that this is a figure that will be reduced year on year and then become a problem, thats where my concern is, but not at the current figures.

In regards to DHP it is extremely hard to successfully claim on that, generally when an applicant claims DHP, the council will do an assessment if it is cheaper to rehouse them after becoming homeless or to help them via DHP and they will typically follow the cheapest path, note tho when they are asessing the cost of rehousing it makes assumptions on this sort of process.

1 - many homeless claims will be treated as intentionally homeless and as such the council doesnt have to house them so basically no cost.
2 - council's expect people to follow what they consider proper process if DHP is "not" rewarded, meaning, staying in their current property until they are evicted by court order. This is a process that can take months, and as such those months have no cost to the council.
3 - if rehousing, it doesnt necessarily mean the person gets a council flat/house, they may get housed somewhere like a hostel.

Based on the above and the current laws in the country I speculate that single people with no children will be more likely to be turned down for DHP as they are cheaper to rehouse and have less protection in law.

Also the affordability/financial checks are much more thorough. As an example if one claims housing benefit, its generally enough to provide details of your main bank statements, proof of income and ID. For DHP, they will likely want details of "all" your banks, debts, credit cards, catalogue accounts, insurance schemes and more. They will likely decide for you what you can cut back on, and base any award on that if given. Also as an example someone claiming housing benefit whilst paying for the top sky TV package the council doesnt care, but if you try to claim you need help with housing costs asking for DHP whilst paying sky £100 month for TV, that wont be ignored.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35862905)

The benefit cap is the policy I have little issue with, its not like they set it at 5k, its set at a pretty high number.



However the danger is, that this is a figure that will be reduced year on year and then become a problem, thats where my concern is, but not at the current figures.

In regards to DHP it is extremely hard to successfully claim on that, generally when an applicant claims DHP, the council will do an assessment if it is cheaper to rehouse them after becoming homeless or to help them via DHP and they will typically follow the cheapest path, note tho when they are asessing the cost of rehousing it makes assumptions on this sort of process.

1 - many homeless claims will be treated as intentionally homeless and as such the council doesnt have to house them so basically no cost.
2 - council's expect people to follow what they consider proper process if DHP is "not" rewarded, meaning, staying in their current property until they are evicted by court order. This is a process that can take months, and as such those months have no cost to the council.
3 - if rehousing, it doesnt necessarily mean the person gets a council flat/house, they may get housed somewhere like a hostel.

Based on the above and the current laws in the country I speculate that single people with no children will be more likely to be turned down for DHP as they are cheaper to rehouse and have less protection in law.

Also the affordability/financial checks are much more thorough. As an example if one claims housing benefit, its generally enough to provide details of your main bank statements, proof of income and ID. For DHP, they will likely want details of "all" your banks, debts, credit cards, catalogue accounts, insurance schemes and more. They will likely decide for you what you can cut back on, and base any award on that if given. Also as an example someone claiming housing benefit whilst paying for the top sky TV package the council doesnt care, but if you try to claim you need help with housing costs asking for DHP whilst paying sky £100 month for TV, that wont be ignored.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35863047)

I too have some sympathy for limiting the amount that claimants can claim from the system.

During the consultation about benefit reforms, we recommended limiting the amount that could be claimed for extra children.

The Government ignored the recommendation made by us and others and instead opted for an overall benefit cap.

The problem with this is that the cap is mostly exceeded by claimants because the cost of their rent and therefore their Housing Benefit has rocketed.

On 15/1/89 the Thatcher Government deregulated rents by abolishing 'Fair Rents' in favour of the market setting an appropriate level. She even accepted that this would result in an increased cost for the Housing Benefit scheme.

Due to the housing shortage, rents have spiralled out of all proportion.

Rent controls have not been put in place, but limits have been imposed on the Housing Benefit payable.

The Government is paying more, tenants are having to subsidise their rent out of money meant for essential day to day living expenses, whilst landlords get richer and richer.

In all these programmes on TV that say X person gets £250 a week to live on, leading people to think that they live the life of Riley at the taxpayers expense, it is usually the case that the vast amount of money quoted is actually Housing Benefit that the tenant never sees.

This new benefit cap is predicted to lead to massive evictions, whilst local authorities have had their DHP budget cut by 1/3. Much of this is already earmarked to try and keep disabled people in their (often adapted at public expense) homes due to the Bedroom Tax.