[punky]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It's there in the previous link - people with terminal illnesses being taken off benefits and put in a position whereby they are forced to work to survive. It may not be specific to picking up litter - and it may be uncomfortable reading for you given your stated position - but it is a fact.



Legally is the key here, obviously.

"Not wanting to" work and "not being able to work" are two very different things. Not wanting to work is hard for any third party to discern. However not being able to work is, by comparison, fairly easy to identify.

Forcing people to work for four weeks will not change the mindset of those who do not want to work. They will simply comply with the requirement (costing the treasury more money) and then revert to form. It will do them no discernable good.

It is a pyrrhic victory of sorts - at best.

Forcing people who are genuinely not fit to work to work for four weeks serves no purpose and represents the potential threat of an even greater long term fiscal cost.



Yes, you see the difference in your example is that he achieved what he did at his own volition - he wasn't "forced" by a third party. He also acted primarily due to his own acknowledgement of the onset of mental health issues (low self estreem and depression).

Some people are not that lucky.

As I stated earlier I acknowlewdge that there are vast numbers of people in receipt of benefits who should not, ordinarlily, be in receipt of those benefits. There are very real problems with this proposal by Duncan Smith and I feel he is playing to the gallery rather than trying to get to the root causes of the problem. Perceived entitlement and fraudulent claims being but two of those issues.

I'll people should be cared for, not stigmatized and lumped together with ner do wells who exploit a system.

You are still convinved that this will affect people that are medically incapable of work without providing any evidence of this. You mention a white paper but that's barely consultation, let alone law. Yet, you still you cling on to this notion that the genuinely ill will be forced to work. Couple this with your nasty little asides trying to paint me as a nasty little Daily Mail reader who is advocating the return of Victorian workhouses and sending orphans up chimneys. You point back to some claimants going through a despute over their benefits with the DWP. Well, it's been going on years and neither the coalition's, IDS' or my fault. It is a despute which has no relevence to this article. Which sums up a lot really as to why you mentioned it.

Given the above i'd suggest you're a lot more prejeduiced than you think.