Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Something has to be done about the Underclass, because it is largely self imposed.

Wouldn't that logically mean that nothing needs to be done about the underclass?

No, but there aren't any viable economic systems that I know of which do not require the existence of an underclass.

Which system REQUIRES an underclass? If you'd said working class, I'd agree - but an underclass would have very little in the way of meaningful purchasing power, by definition would be jobless and so would soak up public money, thus making it inefficient in terms of a capitalist society. An underclass would exist, but wouldn't be required to drive the system. In fact it's more of a by-product.
But anyway he wasn't really talking about 'The Underclass' as a concept in it's wider context - he was referring more to the expansion of the British underclass due to the effects of an excessive welfare state. At least thats how I read it.
It's theoretically impossible to starve to death in the UK, or to be homeless - yet here we find ourselves. The Government help you find work, and there ARE jobs out there. The problem here is the system works in such a way that you don't need to work. If you have kids you get a council house (not that bad, really - I grew up in one), Child Benefit, Child Tax Credits, Income Support, free healthcare + prescriptions (THAT old chestnut....), milk-tokens, subsidised childcare, free higher education (well, part of it IS a loan) - plus you could pretend to have a long-term illness and claim Incapacity Benefit, Disability Living Allowance... and the more kids you have, the more money they give you.
There is no incentive to have a stable and productive family, and the kids grow up in this atmosphere and do the same, getting pregnant at 15 so the whole fetid cycle starts all over again.

They are parasites - IMHO after 6 months of being jobless, the gov't should say: 'Right young man/woman, so you still haven't found a job then? Ok, I have JUST the job for you...Army, Navy or Air Force?'

Albatross wrote:The Government help you find work, and there ARE jobs out there.

You do realize that by choosing to work in a full time minimum wage job, the majority of people in that situation, have effectively locked themselves out of a more lucrative career? Right?

From my family's mouth to your ears... the economy sucks so badly now, that they are all worried. All professional, and all with at least one degree. The only family member that is not worried, is a Doctor, with decades of experience in his field. My cousins are lucky to find work, and they are all rather proper, hard working people. (This is my British family... you really don't want to know how bad it can be/ is, in the U.S.)

So in short, how many people here want to shovel poo? Okay, that is harsh... clean up vomit? No? Hmmm...

Stiffen penalties for Hard crimes, Legalise slight drugs. (Not prostitution as that involes a sex slave trade, Had drugs and Abusive pimp daddies). It's easy to blame a certain culture. Forcing the underclass to do anything is the first step to tyrany IMHO. Right now it's "Underclass and thier hippity hop are lazy crimminal scum who shouldn't breed". How long till they shouldn't be allowed on the good parts of town. Or should be allowed to do any of the things us good job having citizens do. It's easy to blame the poor, or the rich, or government, or some unliked minority.

I always argue that repressing any Class, Minority, or Religous/political belif. It always ends in to ways, massive riots, or genocide, just look at history. Even worse some crazy extremists might use these poor repressed jobless people to spread crazyness, MDG, I have to disagree with you this time.



Edit: Conscripting poor people into the armed forces is the worst Idea ever. Take a person born by say a 15 year old girl. trash his mom, family, and living conditions, force him into the Armed forces to protected the same people who mock and scorn his mom and family. Teach him how to wage war, and surround him with other people who have suffered foced sevice because they were born poor and can't find a job, and all in what is supposed to be a free democratic country. I'm sure that would end well.

sexiest_hero wrote:I always argue that repressing any Class, Minority, or Religous/political belif. It always ends in to ways, massive riots, or genocide, just look at history. Even worse some crazy extremists might use these poor repressed jobless people to spread crazyness, MDG, I have to disagree with you this time.

For some reason, a lot of people assume that everyone 'has the same opportunities', (and I am agreeing with you, just to be clear) where the reality is so much different; that any assumption along these lines could be considered delusional.

How much harder does that 'Chav' have to work to actually achieve something like becoming an architect, or an engineer? Guess what, most of them don't stand a chance, regardless of how you may view their lifestyle. By separating humanity from any portion of the population, you are distancing yourself, from true prosperity; not some nonsensical 'utopian babysitter state'. Mainly due to the fact that something like that is more than bound to collapse due to inefficiencies, and 'human' interference/ outright error.

First I'm going to reply to the whole issue with "child" license, is that it is a sure formula for a revolution, since average people would never stand for it, and it infringes on personal rights(where they are known), I not saying this doesn't happen, but you couldn't really introduce it to a society based on personal freedom(ex: US constitution)
I do think that if a mother is found to be an unfit parent, then the child should be taken away and raised by foster parents, (now for my more radical side) I think that any child not adopted by say their teens should be inducted into gov't jobs, such as military, etc. . .

Now on terms of criminal activity, I personally think that most of the reason that people think there are high crime rates is that media tends to focus on it. . .a lot since it sells rather well

You do realize that by choosing to work in a full time minimum wage job, the majority of people in that situation, have effectively locked themselves out of a more lucrative career? Right?

Well, of course! But that doesn't mean the jobs don't exist, or that you can't change jobs as soon as a more suitable one becomes available. I'm in the process of doing that now. My fiancee has 2 degrees and had to work in Blockbuster until a teaching vacancy became available - it didn't hurt her prospects. And exactly which lucrative career would a benefit junkie who's never worked be locking him/herself out of? I was talking about the voluntary unemployed, not people who've lost their jobs due to the credit crunch.

Just to keep this conversation toned, I would like to see the actual numbers, indicating the portion of the population you are actually talking about.

I do not doubt that there are some rather lazy people, but I really don't care about that. You speak of it as an epidemic, whereas I feel that you are using context (basic hyperbole would be my guess), rather than substance to make your points.

At any rate though, this 'problem' (whatever it is in actuality), is simply being used as a rather diluted talking point... all attacking your fellow citizens...

Okay, wasn't aware that this was a court of law, but fine....

The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (the claimant count) in October 2009 increased by 12,900 on the month to reach 1.64 million, the highest number of claimants since April 1997.

Taken from the Telegraph on the 14th October 2009

The number of British people out of work has risen by a smaller-than-expected 88,000 to a fresh 14-year high of 2.47m

This is from the BBC

Fewer than a third of the 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefit are legitimate claimants, a government welfare adviser has said.

and

Incapacity benefit costs the Treasury about £12bn a year.

According to 24 Dash, the number of working-age adults who are claiming benefits will reach six million this month.

The centre-right Policy Exchange forecast the rise using official government figures on benefit claimants and the latest unemployment figures, and they calculated that the cost of benefits will reach £193 billion next year.

Sounds like a problem to me. Those numbers are not hyperbole. You seemed to have based your opinions on the UK recession situation on what your middle class British family has told you. I actually come from the section of society that could be considered the 'underclass' and have first hand knowledge of that culture and the system under which it flourishes.

Whilst I personally agree with you Albatross, those figures are indicative of nothing except that a lot of people are unemployed during a period of recession. It does nothing to substantiate claims that a significant number of able people are simply sponging off of benefits.

A significant number of people would be a very hefty number indeed. There will always be 'leeches', but on that same note, to effectively block these individuals from the get-go; would inevitably mean that you would likely be denying benefits to those who deserve them as well.

Personally I would expect more of a problem with the actual services provided to get people back on their feet, rather than the fact that they get a check in the first place. Services in the U.S. can be downright offensive, and professionally lacking so highly, that I would say that those employees are by far the bigger problem.

It is very easy to blame a 'group' of people, for a problem that they have most likely not caused. I won't comment heavily in this thread, I just feel that most of this, them vs. us, mentality is based almost completely on nonsensical ideals.

Like I said though, there will inevitably be people that leech, but I take that as a problem with the existing system. Not a reason to start nuetering people... downright insanity is what that is. Crazy talk to the max.

Don't worry, there will be a war or pandemic soon enough, or Yellowstone will blow or something. There are always regulating factors just waiting to be triggered. 75,000 years ago, a super-volcano blew and reduced the entire Human population to around 4,00-5,000, yet here we are. And yes, there will always be scumbags who are perfectly happy to live off of the state and pop out unwanted children. There are also people out there still living the same way people did 10,000 years ago who have no idea that there is any other way to live. MDG, sometimes you just think too much and let yourself get wound up. It used to happen to me, but then I decided that it's just not worth the stress.

Albatross wrote:
Which system REQUIRES an underclass? If you'd said working class, I'd agree - but an underclass would have very little in the way of meaningful purchasing power, by definition would be jobless and so would soak up public money, thus making it inefficient in terms of a capitalist society. An underclass would exist, but wouldn't be required to drive the system. In fact it's more of a by-product.

As I understand the term is meant to reference the lowest rung of the working class. Not necessarily jobless (though probably not employed steadily), or unproductive, but simply not living above the poverty line. Its very possible to be employed, and below the poverty line in the US.

There will always be people like this, because there will always be jobs which require no skill to perform, and people who lack the financial resources to acquire skills to perform other tasks. This will only become more problematic as the increasing acceptance of technology pushes the cost of engaging with the society ever higher.

Albatross wrote:
They are parasites - IMHO after 6 months of being jobless, the gov't should say: 'Right young man/woman, so you still haven't found a job then? Ok, I have JUST the job for you...Army, Navy or Air Force?'

You may as well re-institute debtors prisons.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Kind of my point!

Your point is you should have been shot ? Really ?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Someone is going to have the balls sooner or later.

There once was an Austrian Corporal with one testicle who...oh, balls, that's plural. Never mind.

About this whole move to take children away from their parents becuase they can't rasie them properly...yeah...Aussieland kind of has a bad rep for that kinda stuff. We sorta reaseoned in the 50's that aborigines were no good at raising thier kids so we took them away. Raised them to be 'good and proper whitey lovers.' What's to say a similar situation won't rise again?

@Dogma - Ah, I think we probably had different notions of what the 'underclass' to begin with . I understood it to mean 'long-term jobless on benefits' - perhaps 'benefit class' would work better as a term. Unskilled workers would still be part of the working class, IMHO.
And you CAN go to prison for being in debt in the UK - for non-payment of council tax or child benefit. The Military is a legitimate career - anyone who can't find a job within (ok, lets's change it to)12 mths is not trying IMO. I see nothing wrong with the government assigning people jobs, when said people have made zero effort to find one.

@Ketara - Which figures? The one that shows only a third of people are legitimately claiming Incapacity Benefit? That's £8 Billion stolen from the Government, and of course, from you and me.

@Wrexasaur - Which nonsensical ideals are these arguments based on? That it's wrong to sponge off the state? What are you talking about? I merely said that it was a problem here, because it is. I made no recommendations (apart from the army thing), and I didn't agree with the 'forced sterilisation' thing - which is what this whole discussion is about. I feel like you haven't read the whole thread, man...

Frazzled wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I agree wiht everything MDG is saying.

Also, if someone wants to keep living, they must have a liscense.

Goodbye ghettorats and chavs.

I have a license.
here it is.

Unlikely.

@ albatross

Where are you getting that assumption from though? Do you have an article that would show this in some form? I get kind of pissed about this kind of thing, and I probably shouldn't, especially on the web.

I simply do not understand, how someone could judge so harshly. I have already established that I understand how there is more than likely to be several instances of what you are stating going on. This does not lead me to believe, in any way that you are basing your judgments on thoughtful rationale. Rather, I feel you are using the idea of 'lazy brits' to push a very strange point.

Who cares about the few individuals that no doubt get away with duping the system; this kind of thing happens everywhere, for many reasons. Law can get past the law, groceries can get past the groceries; but neither happens often, and it is most likely dealt with appropriately at any rate. Some random faceless figure, telling me that 2/3 of your welfare department is absolutely useless at their jobs, does little more than make me wary of your government employees... and in all honesty, I would be questioning your sources a damn site more than a faceless connection to a so far unidentified issue.

As to the information you provided, can you provide links, I am actually interested in understanding the core of this issue.

albatross wrote:...and I didn't agree with the 'forced sterilisation' thing - which is what this whole discussion is about. I feel like you haven't read the whole thread, man...

I have read the entire thread, and at no point did you make that clear. If I missed it, I apologize, but it was entirely unclear to me.

I am going to speculate here a bit, and say that sure, your right in some fashion. Who are these individuals? What is the main demographic that is partaking in this rather illegal activity. Could it be, that a large proportion of this majority holding welfare benefiteers, are actually average people? If that is not at all possible, for whatever reason, lets assume that only hooligans (I will pretend to actually know their backgrounds for the sake of my argument) and both legal and illegal aliens are the only ones doing this.

We should take away these peoples benefits, and stick them in the army, where they learn to shoot guns. Perhaps some of these people, will come back from service, and find gainful employment. Perhaps a handful of these people come back to find situations that many vietnam vets faced in the states. This handful of individuals, eventually become homeless, and/or criminals with no real access to any support. Some days people spit on these people, other days they just wallow in self pity, making our streets dirty with their drug filled bodies. Utter scum, every last one of them...

My uncle was in Vietnam... anyway though, please cite your sources.

Morning fellas!

Having read everyones replies so far, I think I need to define 'Underclass' for the purpose of this thread, and this thread alone.

The Underclass are those who rather than seek employment, any employment, would rather sit at home (funded by the Taxpayer) and receive various benefits (funded by the Taxpayer) and churn out children (funded by the Taxpayer). This sort of person simply cannot be defined as 'Working Class' on account they don't in fact work.

I fully understand and agree that soceity very much demands the lower rungs of the ladder exist. But, the way British Benefits work, it is possible (if distasteful to my mind) to opt out entirely from the system, the 'scum bubble' if you will.

Now, I reckon this can be traced back to failed Government Policies. Thatcher in particular, screwed entire communities in Britain by closing down Coal Mines etc, with no thought to the provision of those whose entire live had been those mines. This affect at least two generations in the short term. Those currently working the mines, and those just starting out in them, or whose school life had been weighted by the assurance of a job 'down t'mine'.

Such actions lead to said communities HAVING to live on benefits. Both sides have to shoulder the blame of course. Government for dumping the people right in the poo, and the community for such a narrow view (trying to balanced here) and overly dependant on the Mine.

So for the past 30 years of so, we've had shattered communities proving you can indeed live a life of sorts purely on State handouts. Before this, Welfare was about keeping you more or less on your feet until a new job/career could be found, and you provided for yourself.

The World has changed immeasurably since then.

Yet still, if not even more so, Britain still has a fair degree of class mobility. State Education isn't brilliant of course, but it is good enough. Every single person I went to school with had roughly the same opportunities as myself. Some excelled, some meandered through (hello!) and others dropped out.

To me, this is to do Role Models. When I worked for my old Secondary School, I had my desk next to the Deputy Head for a while following two arson attacks on the main building. And we got talking about how to raise expectations for the students. Note not of the Students, but for the Students. This was when I brought up Role Models. School was in a crappy little commuter town called Tonbridge, which has precious little going for it. The Role Models the kids were exposed to were largely negative. Pissheads sitting around on Park Benches drinking cheap and nasty Cider, smoking cigs and weed, being offensive. Yet the school has produced literally world class Students over the years. Probably the most famous would be double Gold Olympic Sprinters, Kelly Holmes, whose P.E. Teacher had taught me, and was still teaching when I quit the job.

Ms Holmes came from a broken home, never had a great deal, but clearly made a real go of her life. You can be a natural runner, but to get to professional level takes a crapload of work and dedication, and to win Olympic Gold once, let alone twice, requires frankly herculean efforts to achieve. So why wasn't she the role model? Out of sight, out of mind.

And that is the problem with soceity. This year, Jade Goody died of Cancer. Jade Goody was symptomatic of everything wrong in the UK. Thick as you like, famous for feth all, racist, moronic and work shy. She turned up on Big Brother, flashed her fanny, embarassed the nation, let alone herself, and yet somehow became a media darling. Even her Cancer turning terminal was a result of gross idiocy. Got a letter form her Doctor saying 'we've detected pre-cancerous cells, you had seriously better come in for further tests'. But no. She went on Indian Big Brother in an effort to shake off her 'Racist Chav' tag which had ruined her mindless 'career'. And thus she developed Cervical Cancer, which turned terminal. Now some good has come out of her pointless death (and indeed life) in that record numbers of young women are having the relevant tests now, having seen how quickly Cancer claimed her. And now rather than being remembered as a National Embarassment and Racist Oik, she is idolised once again. Mainly by fellow terminally thick people.

So why do we promote blatant losers in life over those who dragged themselves out of the mire? Is it any surprise our self-imposed Underclass just lounges around dreaming of Fame for Fame's sake, rather than doing something with their lives?

We need to start controlling the population. And I do not mean just limiting the Underclass. Everyone. Something in the water with antidote available when you have passed adoption approval (like I said, system is in place, lets use it!). Thus, if the Underclass wish to have children, they had better get off their arses and join those of us who pay our own way.

I have no problem whatsover with the Working Class. Hell, I'm pretty much Working Class! But the Underclass has to be stamped out. Control the National birth rate, prevent benefits being a viable alternative to work and given a couple of decades, their numbers will be vastly reduced, and Britain the better for it.

The army doesn't want to be filled up with members of the underclass. There was a general on Radio 4 the other day saying he wanted a high standard of recruit.

@Wrexasaur

I can't see it ever happening in the UK, but you never know....

This is the only time I mentioned the forced sterilisation thing - I take no position, but you seemed to have assumed I did.

You have based your assumption that false benefit claimants are NOT a problem in The UK (a country in which you are not resident) on absolutely nothing. I will repeat: You know nothing. You've basically said: 'Nah, I don't agree with that, so it's not true'. Well it may be unpalatable, but I have based my opinions on facts like this:

Fewer than a third of the 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefit are legitimate claimants, a government welfare adviser has said.

and

Incapacity benefit costs the Treasury about £12bn a year.

The Benefits Agency estimated Income Support fraud last year had risen to £1.7bn from £1.4bn in 1994.

Spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has doubled since the early 1990s. It is estimated by the Department for Social Security as £23.9bn for the current financial year.

And also my experiences of growing up and living on a council estate in one of the most deprived areas in Britain for 20 years. If you want to find out more about the scale of the benefit problems in the UK, do your own research. You are sitting in front of a computer. I have justified my opinions to you far more than I should have done.

I hasten to point out that Disability and Incapacity Benefit are two different things.

Disability is when you have a genuine, recognised and measurable Disability, like being Wheelchair Bound, bad respiration, crippling Epilepsy etc, which severely limits your work option. As this can be freely measured, I'm fine with this.

Incapacity Benefit is when you've knackered your back, and your Doctor has reccomended a period of time off to rest it, or you've broken both your legs, preventing you from working. Essentially any medical complaint which prevents you working in the short term, Incapacity Benefit is applicable. This is the one often abused (like the guy caught refereeing a football match despite claiming he could only walk a few feet before needing to rest)

albatross wrote:This is the only time I mentioned the forced sterilisation thing - I take no position, but you seemed to have assumed I did.

You have based your assumption that false benefit claimants are NOT a problem in The UK (a country in which you are not resident) on absolutely nothing. I will repeat: You know nothing. You've basically said: 'Nah, I don't agree with that, so it's not true'. Well it may be unpalatable, but I have based my opinions on facts like this:

Meaning you simply will not provide me links to ANY information... None at all.

Mad Doc wrote:We need to start controlling the population. And I do not mean just limiting the Underclass. Everyone. Something in the water with antidote available when you have passed adoption approval (like I said, system is in place, lets use it!). Thus, if the Underclass wish to have children, they had better get off their arses and join those of us who pay our own way.

I have no problem whatsover with the Working Class. Hell, I'm pretty much Working Class! But the Underclass has to be stamped out. Control the National birth rate, prevent benefits being a viable alternative to work and given a couple of decades, their numbers will be vastly reduced, and Britain the better for it.

I have a campaign all ready to steam roll you come election time Mad Doc.

First, our anti-Mad Doc party ad...



Second, our community works...



And last but not least, our alternative...



Thank you, thank you very much... /

Dude, you have the quote as being Albatross, not me...

Then please explain what you mean. Only just woken up and the old grey matter is still one foot in the land of nod.

Sorry about the quote, that was a mistake.

I am merely parodying your political rant... which I really hope is blatantly clear, and funny in a blatant way.

1.)Mad Doc's party is going to poison the water supply with an unknown substance...

2.)Here is some water with the Wrexasaur party ad, just so we can help out in the fight.

3.)We will get you more jobs, and create more opportunities, none of which involve poisoning your water.

VOTE WREX!

Edited to get you more jobs.

(vote Wrex!)

It is funny...just didn't get it at first

Albatross wrote:@Ketara - Which figures? The one that shows only a third of people are legitimately claiming Incapacity Benefit? That's £8 Billion stolen from the Government, and of course, from you and me.

There's only one figure up there to give that 'fact' any credence, and it comes from the government. The same government which claims we're currently leaving the recession, we have the worlds best education system, and that they still have a chance at the next elections. If you choose to believe what they say, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you......

Having said that, I personally agree with you that it exists, having gone to a state run school filled with the 'scum bubble', and lived on a council estate where the neighbours were arrested twice a year for anti-social behaviour, theft, fraud, drugs and just about everything else. None of them had jobs and all claimed benefits, as did the better part of the entire estate.

The fact is, they're unemployable. Would you want them? Some gobby chav kid who's as likely to nick stuff as do the job he's paid for? Because they all hang out together, they get into their 'gangs' and terrorize the neighbourhood, and inevitably turn to petty crime to supplement their income.

When my mother moved with us back to England from Africa and was living on benefits, she had to struggle to make ends meet with three kids, as the benefits were just barely enough to scrape by on. They're not lucrative by any stretch of the imagination, that's just a fallacy whipped up by the mass media. No Sky TV for us. We could barely afford to eat and pay the bills, with a pittance set aside to buy an ice cream or two at the park after school twice a week. Anyone regular decent person who's ever actually been on the dole will say that its not a viable form of living. It literally is subsistence level.

The reason that the 'scum bubble' (I like that term) manages to survive and even prosper on welfare is because they are usually the ones responsible for all the local petty crime. Need a new TV? Nick it. Like that dress in the shop? Shoplift it. Need some money for fags? Purse snatch an old lady. Want some Sky TV? Sell stuff that 'fell off the back of a lorry'.

Ketara wrote:The fact is, they're unemployable. Would you want them? Some gobby chav kid who's as likely to nick stuff as do the job he's paid for? Because they all hang out together, they get into their 'gangs' and terrorize the neighbourhood, and inevitably turn to petty crime to supplement their income.

This is the main part of the problem. I am not going to disagree with you, but I really cannot envision a real solution, without seeing more government support.

It could come in the form of rehabilitation, which is really what a lot of these kids need, regardless of how they might view their behavior. The main issue is obviously with the parents, and it really seems outright unfair to call every single one of these people lost causes. Clearly many of them will have little regard for any solid change in their lifestyles, but on the other hand, with proper support many of them could become functioning members of society.

Call me a loon, but moving towards nothing but police intervention, seems like a fantastic way to breed an entirely new, permanently embedded criminal element to the U.K. By all means, take the criminals off welfare; I can almost guarantee it will raise crime rates by that much more.

Speaking of crime rates, apparently crime has gone down by an average of 4% from last year, in the last crime report. To me, this seems like this problem should be getting better, but only by a little.

I have lived in some very bad areas in the U.S., and I have no doubts about the fact that there were inevitably people doing all sort of illegal, and morally reprehensible things. On the other hand, I have also seen the general lack of support this very same communities receive, and some of the horrendous problems that they have to put up with on a daily basis. I do not mean to discredit your perspectives, I just need serious data, or all I will understand from this is your opinion. This whole subject is very complex, and has a whole lot to do with the societies themselves.

Here's a tip Wrexasaur. Relying on British government statistics these days is a no-no. So much of it is made up it's unreal.

You're correct that removing welfare would probably generate more crime. The problem is the lack of a solution. These kids are raised in a council estate environment, and have no willingness to learn any better. They scorn hard work and intellect and look down on it. Unless you're one of them, you're against them. This mentality makes it very difficult to deal with them. How can you help someone who doesn't want to help themselves?