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.

What has that got to do with anything?

Kilkrazy wrote:To back up Orlanth on this, the UK does have a system of stamps or vouchers for asylum seekers, and it has demonstrated the various pernicious results that he covered.

Why they say 'its been tried and doesnt work'. I partly agree but still think a case for child benefit to be paid on a limited accessibility swipecard is valid.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that point 2 is moot considering all the practical disadvantages of the system.

Which particular point two. There were three in that post.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Something not mentioned but possibly relevant, or not, depending how much of a bleeding heart liberal one may be, is that part of the purported purpose of benefits is to ease a transition back to normal working, earning and spending life. (That's why it is called Job Seeker's Allowance.)

It is the principle used to re-habilitate long-term prisoners back into civvie life. They are sent out for short periods, wearing proper clothes and allowed to spend their pocket money in shops as a normal person.

The Big Issue works along the same lines. Instead of just begging, the sellers have to engage in business transactions to get their cash.

This would mandate the payment of benefits in money rather than vouchers.

interesting point, and not one covered.

Partly because it is agreed that giving someone 100% of all benefits on a voucher system would be unfair. So a claimant will have some cash.
Furthermore cash required to orientate people into a monetary society need not be large, in fac t it is better if it is not. Childrens pocket money should be restricted heavily even if the parents are well to do. Children learn the value of money and discipline better if they have only a few pounds. Adults are no different, the amount of money needed to orientate someone need not be all they need to live on but only a small fraction of that. In either case the principle is there to learn, unlimited purchase options vs limited puirchase power.
Your own analogy confirms this, day release prisoners are IIRC given only enough for the day and return to the prison environment, so the training funds are not synonymous with the means by which continued survival is attained.




If someone really does not deserve benefits and the system knows it can cut off the benefits, simple as that. There is no need to restrict the spending profile. If a claimant brings in no proof of looking for work the Jobcentre can suspend their benefit, this can and does happen. Of course its easir to conceal a dodgy claim than to expose one, but unless we get rid of burden of proof before punishment can be administered then that is something you just have to accept will happen.

@Albatross: Don't worry. I know the feeling of previous governments up your country...

As for the parts about welfare/education/healthcare, that's actually a really good point... I was going off of poverty and motivations here in the US, and I guess I didn't realize how much better you guys have it over there across the pond. I would like to revamp my opinions then, and suggest it's probably because of poor role models and a benefits system that is lax enough to allow them to be unemployed with no consequences.

As for the rioters, I'm of the opinion that the rioters are completely responsible for their actions and crimes, but the government is responsible for creating an atmosphere that tolerates or encourages criminal behavior. Filtered through realizing that your benefits sytem is way better than ours, that's significantly lessened as a motivation (And is actually making me a bit more mad at the looters) but I still believe it has some part in influencing that negative environment. Maybe not as large of a part as previously thought, but a part.

Orlanth wrote:Now someone does tours gets shot at, gets given a P45 and cannot get a job becvause he has few or no 'valid' skills. You tell me this person doesnt deserve to spend the c£65 on whatever he chooses. So he should bow his head in shame not drink not smoke forfeit any hobby he has and buy from a select product list in a supermarket.

If he's begging money from the government and not able to work, then yes. Ever hear the phrase "beggers can't be choosers"?

Orlanth wrote:B. Those with a mental health history. Not a real screaming nutter that needs locking up, nor one 'dangerous' enough to be formally sectioned and getting Incapacity benefit. Just mentally ill enough to be fairly unemployable. There are lots of people in that category.

Are they capable of working? Then they shouldn't be allowed to spend their money on "whatever they want." Go out and get a job.

However, if they can't work, then it's a different story.

Orlanth wrote:C. How about the large numbers of people who cannot get work because of the recession. Made redundant and competing with people far younger. They exist in their thousands and are getting worried.
Its not their fault the bankerss and squandering politicians fethed our economy and they lost their jobs. There are a lot of quite employable people now twelve months plus on the DSS in my town are they scum who should be only allowed to buy subsistence goods from selected shops?

Never said they're "scum," simply that when you ask for charity you should use it for the purpose that it's intended.

If you asked me for $20 for gas, I would give it to you. If you asked me for $20 for gas and walked into the corner store and bought a bunch of liquor, I'd be a little PO'd. This is no different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also this.

Chelsea Ives, 18, was arrested after her parents allegedly saw her on TV during the mayhem in Enfield and called police.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:To back up Orlanth on this, the UK does have a system of stamps or vouchers for asylum seekers, and it has demonstrated the various pernicious results that he covered.

Why they say 'its been tried and doesnt work'. I partly agree but still think a case for child benefit to be paid on a limited accessibility swipecard is valid.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that point 2 is moot considering all the practical disadvantages of the system.

Which particular point two. There were three in that post.

.

The one about the government dictating to benefit claimants what they should do with their social security.

It seems pointless given that it depends on the various control measures which have so many practical difficulties.

Albatross wrote:
I'm surprised that you credit them with that amount of political nous. You obviously haven't met them. These aren't just the poor people of England, up in arms about government cuts, and what those cuts might mean for them and their families. Those people were the VICTIMS of the rioting, The people who perpetrated these acts are lower than that - the rioters are from the underclass, poor people that are brought up on a diet of junk-food, casual sex, crime and irresponsibility. It's a generational problem. There is a sector of society that has effectively been told for the last 13 years that their actions have no consequences, that every crappy decision that they make is someone else's fault, and that somehow the rest of us 'owe' them. They have been convinced that WE have let THEM down. The upshot of all this is that they don't really care about anything but fulfilling their most base desires, and misguided liberals have provided them with a playbook of excuses should they be brought to book for their actions: 'It's the economy/cuts/bankers, innit?'

You called it right. It's about about time people took responsibility for their own actions and stopped blaming the government/society for their own failings. Yeah sometimes life is s**t and deals you a bad hand. 'Fraid you've just got to get on a deal with it, instead of looking for excuses. F***ing feckless halfwits, press them into service as cannon fodder!

darkPrince010 wrote:@Albatross: Don't worry. I know the feeling of previous governments up your country...

As for the parts about welfare/education/healthcare, that's actually a really good point... I was going off of poverty and motivations here in the US, and I guess I didn't realize how much better you guys have it over there across the pond. I would like to revamp my opinions then, and suggest it's probably because of poor role models and a benefits system that is lax enough to allow them to be unemployed with no consequences.

Agreed! Woah, I never saw THAT coming! Let's be pals now, k?

As for the rioters, I'm of the opinion that the rioters are completely responsible for their actions and crimes, but the government is responsible for creating an atmosphere that tolerates or encourages criminal behavior. Filtered through realizing that your benefits sytem is way better than ours, that's significantly lessened as a motivation (And is actually making me a bit more mad at the looters) but I still believe it has some part in influencing that negative environment. Maybe not as large of a part as previously thought, but a part.

Fair enough.

I'm all for the "There can be reasons for the way people act, but it's still their damn fault if they break stuff" crowd.

But then what would I know, I'm a living-in-the-country fellow who has never wanted.

And it seems according to the Daily Mail, the first family is served with an eviction notice from their council house for the teenage son looting.

biccat wrote:
If he's begging money from the government and not able to work, then yes. Ever hear the phrase "beggers can't be choosers"?

Veterans, out of work people who wish to contribute and the mentally ill should not be written off as 'beggars'.

biccat wrote:
However, if they can't work, then it's a different story.

Is it? What is the moral difference between soeone who cannot get a job because noone will employ him and someone who will not get a job because they lack ability to accomplish any job effectively.

biccat wrote:
If you asked me for $20 for gas, I would give it to you. If you asked me for $20 for gas and walked into the corner store and bought a bunch of liquor, I'd be a little PO'd. This is no different.

But they arent asking for anything specific, they are asking for something to live on, long term. This means more than just enough food to exist. While the benefits rates are not set to leave much for luxuries, if people save in some areas they can spend in others. This can be done responsibly or irresposibly. People are not mentally ill or ex veterans for a week or two, its months years or a lifetime. Are these people no longer fit to enjoy a quality of life that you would prohibit them from purchasing anything other than items to continue a bare subsistent living? You think you should have the right to make that call?

If I was the one supporting them? HELL yes.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:If I was the one supporting them? HELL yes.

Do you go up to the police and tell them what they should do because you pay their salary as well? You are looking at an impersonal thing in personal terms. At what point does the disconnect begin where it stops being your money and starts being the states?

When it dissatisfies me enough to do something about it. If the Police aren't adequately keeping the peace in my neighborhood I go down and tell them.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When it dissatisfies me enough to do something about it. If the Police aren't adequately keeping the peace in my neighborhood I go down and tell them.

That isn't the same thing as going to a person and telling them how to spend money/coupons/stamps they received from the state. So really you just want to go down to the welfare office and leave something in the suggestion box. Your initial statement makes it sound as if you were going to go over to individuals in receipt of assistance and tell them what to do, not go to the governing office and lodge a complaint.

Actually I was responding to this question:

You think you should have the right to make that call?

What I think I should have the right to do is a far cry from being able to do so.

telling them what to do should be a responsibility of the State that is supporting them. If they don't like it they should probably find some other means of getting what they want.

Besides of course, hooding, bricking, and running.

Orlanth wrote:

biccat wrote:
If he's begging money from the government and not able to work, then yes. Ever hear the phrase "beggers can't be choosers"?

Veterans, out of work people who wish to contribute and the mentally ill should not be written off as 'beggars'.

This is a really difficult one to decide. Should our money that goes on benefits be spent on booze and fags? As you're never going to stop this (unless the government gives out coupons instead of money that can only be spent on certain things) its a bit of a moot point. What is relevant is that these people who are in all fairness probably quite poor, have a moral choice "shall we loot shops or not?" Whilst they think their position of poverty gives them an excuse to break the law- in fact it doesn't. I recently had the privilege of going on holiday to Africa - Kenya. Some of these people are REALLY poor, they live in tin huts, have to go down to the river to get water/wash, but they aren't rioting about it. It's just people taking advantage of a situation that they think they can get away with. Fortunately in many cases, the Police have proved this is not going to be the way of things. As for the family that are possibly going to be 'rehomed/evicted' because one member of the family has been looting - should somebody suffer because one person has done wrong? Not in my book, this is the kind of justice that gives justice in the UK a bad name, punishing the innocent? Whatever next?

The idea that unemployed people are beggars is demeaning and takes us back to the Georgian times of the workhouse.

Society set up social security for the benefit of people who fall on hard times. It could happen to any of us given the current economic circumstances.

If claimants commit a crime I think the idea of penalising their social security is worth consideration. People should understand they have responsibilities as well as rights. I don't think people in prison collect social security anyway, but it could be a good penalty for someone on a non-custodial sentence.

The council tenancy contract requires the tenant not to commit nor allow their family to commit crimes. The same clause is found in private tenancy contracts.

What Police need are two things. A Fear weapon, and a way to prevent this kind of open violence. The Fear weapon should not be the risk of a severe beating. I would propose an Armoured Lion unit. That's right, trained, riot armoured Lions, organized into packs of five that are simply let loose on a group of rioters. Or, a Helicopter armed with flamethrowers.
On prevention, chain gangs. Chain them up, and put them to work repairing the damage.
On techniques, simply drive them to an open area, cut off the escapes, push them into a tight group, pull them out one at a time and arrest them. Simples.