Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Deegan
But some people won't believe anything without links. And they will use the fact that someone hasn't provided links as proof that they can't possibly be telling the truth.
I have personally been accused of making things up that are actually facts, just because I don't post links. Well if I know something because I am directly connected to it, then I don't need to come up with a link. You can either believe me, or not.
|
indeed not to mention just because someone like the bbc has posted something on its site it doesnt mean its fact, especially on welfare, as the bbc is notorious for posting false stuff on welfare. Now I wait for the request for a link to prove the bbc posts inaccurate stuff on welfare.
Now here is a fact.
If I started posted comments that were pro government policy and saying things like I know 10 people commiting IB fraud, I would not be asked for links.
---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
There appears to be confusion between people doubting individuals' Subject Matter Expertise, gained through lifetime experience, and asking for verification of a claim that a major news organisation, which is seen as one of the main communicators of unbiased (as far as that is possible) news to the world, is deliberately suppressing news stories due to an anti-benefits claimant agenda. If the BBC are doing this, it needs to be publicised.
|
hugh.
Here is how I am linked to information without it been on the media.
I am an ex claimant.
I know many claimants.
I know them mostly because I do charity work and am in contact with many not only claimants but also advisors and legal people who provide legal assistance to claimants. I dont provide legal assistance as I am not qualified but I am able to talk to those people directly, I am also made aware of things like protests which get planned etc. and have been involved with contacting news agencies.
Sorry I cannot provide a news link for this. So as has been said you either believe me or you dont.
Incidently when I was a claimant, I spent 2.5k in legal fees to get the benefit I was entitled to, and I had to do this before the system got reformed twice and toughened up (it was tough 4 years ago never mind now), obviously the 2.5k has been paid back to me courtesy of the so called taxpayer, yeah great efficiency, lets force people to fight for their benefits and pay thousands on legal costs, appeals, commissioners hearings instead of just paying them their rightful benefit. It was estimated the DWP spent 12k to try and not pay me £90 a week.
---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------
Unfortenatly there is no protection in law for a news agency in bad mouthing a group of people who arent an individual (particurly someone famous) or a company. Like libel and slander. So we can read commants like "benefit scroungers" "fiddlers" without any legal recourse to the media companies.
---------- Post added at 11:44 ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by New to cable
What makes me laugh is reading on here how some people claim they're unfit to work but then you see them on here 10 hours a day posting comments.
Surely if the DWP looked on this site it would show these people could work as data inputters, or a similar desk based job? Even on a production line that you could work on whilst seated?
Personally I have only had 2 weeks out of work since I left school, but then I am a very motivated person and I always see what I can do , not what I can't.
|
Ahh the typical know it all who can diagnose if people can work. I dont see anyone on here 10 hours a day, so there is your first lie.
Second, posting on a forum is a lot different to having to get dressed, travel, be compliant to health and safety (not be a danger to others in workplace), have a good attendance record (fluctuating illness not allowed), be able to tolerate working environments, stress, stick to set working hours and so on. You make life sound much simpler than it is
I think its bad enough people guessing if people can work based on seeing them in the street but gasp over an internet forum wow.
What would most defenitly help the situation is if working from home jobs were available, ones with completely flexible hours as well to work round fluctuating conditions.