[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by punky

You just won't admit you didn't read the article properly and and were wrong?

It's you who has read the article from a jaundiced perspective, not I.

It makes no distinction whatsoever nor indeed does it make any "mutually exclusive" reference(s) to those who are fit for work, those who are incapable of work and those who don't want to work because they don't feel the need to.

It makes a very clear reference to "a universal credit to replace the range of benefits currently claimed by the jobless"

Originally Posted by punky

This scheme does not include those incapable of work. Even if this unified benefits system comes in people still won't be able to claim incapacity benefit and job seekers allowance simultaneously. They are mutually exclusive.

They are mutually exclusive yes, but you missed the bit where the Employment Support Allowance crept in. Incapacity is soooo 2008. You see what they did there? They used the word "Employment" in the allowance title. Receipients of the Employment Support Allowance are also subject to a Work Capability Assessment. As such that particular allowance falls under the "jobless" caveat.

Originally Posted by punky

So i'm afraid the vision you have of cancer victims undergoing chemo and one-legged, half-blind people hopping being made to pick up litter while IDS stands there in a Roman emperor costume with a whip.

I'll not deign to address the specific sensationalization of Duncan Smith which you're engaging in in your attempts to try to belittle the genuinely ill but what I will do is tell you that beyond the rabid headlines which you have such difficulty seeing past there are many stories of sick people being "forced" to work.

It might also come as a surprise to you but there are many people who are one legged or half blind or indeed cancer patients in receipt of chemotherapy who elect to work. The will to work whilst suffering an illness or disability is not, to coin a phrase of yours, mutually exclusive to those who not in receipt of benefits.

Originally Posted by punky

And i'm surprised you of all people appear to be suggesting I claim benefits through deception?

That is not at all what I suggested, nice strawman though.

I merely mooted the point that if you felt that you were being "forced" to work simply to "fund" the "workshy" then perhaps you could take a leaf from their book simply give up and join their ranks. I never once suggested that you should perpetrate fraud by claiming benefits "through deception".

Still, at least we're making headway. You now suddenly appear to be able to differentiate between fraudsters and genuine claimants - that's a start.

EDIT:

As Hugh says above:

Originally Posted by Hugh

We need (imho) to be careful about these sorts of things, because whilst the intention may be honourable, it soon descends into "work-shy" versus "hard-working tax-payers", and as we know from this forum, whilst it is easy (and often makes us feel better) to pigeonhole people into simplistic categories, we seem to end up putting applying labels to large numbers of people, when the labels actually apply to small numbers of abusers of the systems.