Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:03 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Stop trying to deflect the question from yourself.

You're the one who has made an accusation. Now either back it up or take it back.

No need, I know I am right, if other people are not aware of chose not to agree then that is fair enough, that is their right in a democracy. These boards are full of socialist liberals who want anyone who achieves anything to shell out more and more for those "less fortunate" and refuse to admit that even SOME of those "less fortunate" are there because they are too damned lazy to do anything about it.

The country (in fact, the developed world) has worked in this cycle for as long as history exists, at some point the "working class" get sick of working and decide they want the "upper class" to shell out more for them, so we get a socialist government for a while, said socialist government spends,spends,spends until the cupboards are bare, they squeeze the very people that voted them in and everyone rebels and votes someone else in (admittedly, a blended someone else is a rarity), said someone else comes in and makes difficult decisions, makes cuts, encourages enterprise of those that can afford it, people get left behind, they get angry, they get envious, and the cycle starts again.

Look at Social Housing, Labour spent loads providing houses in questionably constructed (both in planning and physical terms), the Conservatives neglected those assets for years and actively hived off the stock where they could, the stock got so poor (and the people in it so disenfranchised) that they voted a socialist government in to "fix" it, millions were spent on a programme to repair the homes (and millions were spent on many other projects), until, again, the pot of money ran out, and then we started all over again.

Health, Education, Foreign, Defense, Housing and Environmental policy are way too important to be left to 5 year windows, we've built a system that has an inherent "blame the last lot" clause in it. Why is it organisations I work with are expected to have a 30 year business plan, yet Government (of all colours) can make it up as they go along?

Anyone who really understands welfare reform knows it was necessary, the fact it was royally messed up is the fault of politicians and civil servants (notice I say welfare reform and not Universal Credit, because Universal Credit is a great idea IF the welfare reform hadn't been such a mess). Don't get me wrong, UC isn't perfect, but that's because the Government (of all colous) never listen to the people who know how it SHOULD work, they listen to studies and researchers who've never experienced a Friday night rent knock on a flat in Govan, and been chased through the Estate by someone high on their drug of choice with a bottle full of lighter fluid and a lit rag. (by far and wide the exception to the rule I would add)

What sane person would give out a 5 year fixed term tenancy, paid monthly in advance, to someone on full housing benefit paid 4 weekly in arrears, on the anniversary date of their UC award, meaning that every single social landlord in England & Wales is at risk from major financial losses because of a lack of information and conformity. Exascerbated by the fact the person gets the cash in their pocket, regardless of their capacity to self-manage funds, in some cases, even when they have known mental illness.

talk about a business model set up to fail

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:23 pm  

[quote="Standee"]No need, I know I am right, if other people are not aware of chose not to agree then that is fair enough, that is their right in a democracy. [/quote]

Seeing as you stated that there are people who claim are unfit to work who post on these boards who can work, you obviously mean me, lets not beat around the bush here Martin. How could you possibly know my medical history? Where you at my ATOS medical? Have you read my Rheumatologists reports? Have you read the DWP decision makers notes? You know the answer to those questions, so how you could possible know you are right is beyond me other than a brief conversation we had in July when you saw me for about 5 minutes.

I don't care if you think I'm "faking", your opinion of me is of no relevance to me, to quote you in a pm to me. Instead of spouting it on an insignificant message board, report me to the DWP if you think I am faking, otherwise your opinions are meaningless.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:27 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Seeing as you stated that there are people who claim are unfit to work who post on these boards who can work, you obviously mean me, lets not beat around the bush here Martin. How could you possibly know my medical history? Where you at my ATOS medical? Have you read my Rheumatologists reports? Have you read the DWP decision makers notes? You know the answer to those questions, so how you could possible know you are right is beyond me other than a brief conversation we had in July when you saw me for about 5 minutes.

I don't care if you think I'm "faking", your opinion of me is of no relevance to me, to quote you in a pm to me. Instead of spouting it on an insignificant message board, report me to the DWP if you think I am faking, otherwise your opinions are meaningless.

I can honestly say I was not referring to you, I don't think I brought disability benefit into it?

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:29 pm  

Standee wrote:

I can honestly say I was not referring to you, I don't think I brought diability benefit into it?

Thanks for the clarification, its much appreciated.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:37 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, its much appreciated.

Not a problem, I'd rather discuss the issue in it's widest context.

IF people were not fiddling the system, there would be more available for those that genuinely need it. But if we're looking at fiddling systems lets start with Union Officials still living in Social Housing when they earn £120k+, MP's (of all colous) claiming allowances for things that people in Social Housing are being denied etc. etc.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:44 pm  

Standee wrote:

Not a problem, I'd rather discuss the issue in it's widest context.

IF people were not fiddling the system, there would be more available for those that genuinely need it. But if we're looking at fiddling systems lets start with Union Officials still living in Social Housing when they earn £120k+, MP's (of all colous) claiming allowances for things that people in Social Housing are being denied etc. etc.

There is also a distinction between genuine fraud within any system and then the moving of the goalposts to redefine what makes a genuine claimant and there has clearly been a colossal, some would say disgraceful number of incorrect reassessments made, some examples in the press being of almost criminal judgements.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:51 pm  

Standee wrote:

IF people were not fiddling the system, there would be more available for those that genuinely need it. But if we're looking at fiddling systems lets start with Union Officials still living in Social Housing when they earn £120k+

how on earth is a "union official still living in social housing" an example of "fiddling the system"?

The union official concerned (I assume you are talking about Bob Crow), pays his due rent on time and lives in his council house perfectly legally. Where is the fiddle? Bob Crow makes no secret of the fact he favours renting from his council. He has had numerous opportunities to purchase his home under Right to Buy, thereby reducing his personal housing cost. He has spurned every opportunity because he believes in the right to decent, AFFORDABLE housing for all who require it. What is wrong with that? The problem has never been with people like Crow renting, it is with councils being prevented from building even more affordable homes to rent.

Until Thatcher flogged off council housing on the cheap, many professional people lived in council houses. There wasn't the stigma that is now attached to social housing, if anything is unfair, it is that stigma. Our continental neighbours have no problem with people renting from municipal authorities but some (like you) seem to think that unless you strive to become a mortgage slave then you are worse than useless.

Now you have attempted to shift the goalposts and have been called out by HWS (and folded like a fanny), maybe you could go back to your original assertions regarding benefit claimants using this board instead of working. Come on, put up or shut up.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:53 pm  

Standee wrote:

No need, I know I am right ...

Try that 'argument' in a court of law.

Standee wrote:

... if other people are not aware of chose not to agree then that is fair enough...

What you're talking about is perception – and claiming that your perception is right and anyone who differs from you is wrong. Again – try that in a court of law.

Standee wrote:

... refuse to admit that even SOME of those "less fortunate" are there because they are too damned lazy to do anything about it...

I don't think anyone here has ever suggested that nobody is playing games, but it is nice to see you acknowledge that it is "SOME". Not all. Some. And at a time when there are not jobs for all, it is frankly crass to pretend that chasing the "SOME" should be the priority. You do that when you have full employment, because anything else penalises and demonises those who do make an effort, who do want a job etc.

Standee wrote:

... Look at Social Housing, Labour spent loads providing houses in questionably constructed (both in planning and physical terms), the Conservatives neglected those assets for years and actively hived off the stock where they could, the stock got so poor (and the people in it so disenfranchised) that they voted a socialist government in to "fix" it, millions were spent on a programme to repair the homes (and millions were spent on many other projects), until, again, the pot of money ran out, and then we started all over again...

A little factoid: the Labour government under Blair and Brown was not a "socialist" one. Seriously – you know better than playing the Tea Party bølløcks.

In many other ways, you're absolutely right. That's neo-liberalism for you.

Incidentally: thank you for coming back and actually making a proper post.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:45 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Incidentally: thank you for coming back and actually making a proper post.

Not easy to post anything substantial from my phone, todays was the first decent opportunity I had.

And to cod'ead, if Crow(ney) was re-assessed under the 5 year fixed term system, he'd be deemed not to be in housing need, I can guarantee you that.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:39 pm  

Standee wrote:

Not easy to post anything substantial from my phone, todays was the first decent opportunity I had.

And to cod'ead, if Crow(ney) was re-assessed under the 5 year fixed term system, he'd be deemed not to be in housing need, I can guarantee you that.

That still doesn't explain how he's fiddling the system.

Care to have another pop?