Benefits Street

[TheAnimus]

Because, if you rehabilitate someone, and then put them right back into the same situation that contributed to them taking drugs in the first place, then chances are you are wasting your money. All you have to do is have a look at overall relapse rates amongst drug addicts, even amongst those who take part in rehabilitation programmes, to tell you that. So yeah, you are right that the programme makes a good case for increasing funding for rehabilitation, in much the same way as it makes a case for an increase in dental hygiene advice for the people in it, but in terms of getting to the overall problem, and actually helping the people in it lessen the hold that drugs have on these deprived communities, it doesn’t help very much at all.

Please watch the program.

The guy tells you a little about his background, he had a job, family etc.

Do you know the amount of people that claim (and need, based on income figures) benefits but are working? If you were to rule them all out of having children, of course there would be a population crisis. Aside from that, and I know it’s one of your famous bugbears, but we DO need the next generation to help pay for the state pensions.

Or we could not create an indentured generation. Live within means n all that.

Now when it comes to benefits for housing and such, I can't help but feel that is a treatment rather than cure the problem, and one which inflates the illness too.

Of course trying to suggest being responsible is a must for society, but what you seem to fail to comprehend, is that your way (or at least what you appear to be advocating) would demonise the child. Not only that, but it would put a child who already lives in relative depravation, in further depravation.

Actually I think something as mundane as directly feeding the child would save money and improve their life. In three years working with school children aged 12-16 from mostly deprived background or just gifted, I can safely say less than a third ever got a proper breakfast. It was interesting when we ran a summer school for some of my kids how many commented they don't ever eat breakfast.

If you have the logic, that having a child without the means to care for them is cruel, often any funds can do much better good with other peoples administration. It is rare for me to ever advocate a centralised managed system, but I think that for many recipients they have proved themselves unworthy by being in their situation.

My comments were made when the thread moves away from the actual programme and became, predictably, a thread to bash all those on benefits. The fact you think that me only watching 20 minutes of a programme, (which incidentally the first 20 minutes of was like a visual interpretation of some posters on here wet dreams, although perhaps the remaining 40 became a Dickensesq critique of modern day Britain?), means my comments lack credibility matters not a lot to me, to be honest.

I asked you previously, but you didn’t answer, what did miss from the remaining 40 minutes that I missed the first time round? You want to watch a hatchet job on the bewildered, ill-educated and ignorant, you fill your boots, but it’s not for me, thanks.

The positive bits, the way the community deals with a flower competiton etc.

Yeah, I think schemes like that are really positive. I mean who doesn’t want to see a nice pot plant, surrounded by the piles of household rubbish that the kids play in. And you can’t beat looking out of the cracked bedroom window, in a house with no carpet, and spotting a well-kept hanging basket

Again, really you should watch what you are talking about, my experience of council estates in London is that those who were social tenants often had better basic fixtures and fittings, private landlords knew how easy it was to claim from Camden for damage to carpets / walls, so frequently did. An ex's grandfather who was a decorator worked almost exclusively on these refurbishment. Often the places had been completely trashed due to the whole care in the community for mental health issues.

No, you don’t want them to starve, you just want people, some of whom don’t have much to start with, to make do with even less, should they be ‘irresponsible’. I don’t think it’s totalitarian. I just think it’s a crap, punitive, idea.

Not make do with less, not have children. Do you consider children a right, even if they have no means to support them?

I’m not sure whether you have kids, and I don’t want to get too personal but let me tell you, anyone who suggests to you that a policy where you get given £15 pound a week, per child, is encouraging child production is either a) Childless, b) working to an ulterior motive, or c) Fibbing.

People know they can have a child, and care will be taken of them both. I'm saddened to say one of my former mentees did this.

[TheAnimus]

That's fair enough. So I presume using Wasabi's 'policy' if you don't have the snip, you get chucked in the slammer too?

Out of curiosity do you like any idea of enforced birth control? China for instance was struggling (due to the communists ineptitude) to feed it's population. In some ways the one child policy will have elivated suffering, that is until you take into account the consequences (boys only!) and methods of birth control. But as people saw during the commies rise to power, in Chinese culture life is cheap.

However you also get things like India which has certain areas where the number of dependants is chronically too high. Would you get the snip for a free car? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13982031

[ik9000]

Out of curiosity do you like any idea of enforced birth control? China for instance was struggling (due to the communists ineptitude) to feed it's population. In some ways the one child policy will have elivated suffering, that is until you take into account the consequences (boys only!) and methods of birth control. But as people saw during the commies rise to power, in Chinese culture life is cheap.

However you also get things like India which has certain areas where the number of dependants is chronically too high. Would you get the snip for a free car? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13982031

I think you could set the bar at a free xbox and smart TV. Some of the folks I know would do it for an iphone5. Or less.

[opel80uk]

Please watch the program.

The guy tells you a little about his background, he had a job, family etc.

I'm not quite sure why you keep saying that? This thread had long moved away from the programme by the time I commented, and in actual fact, most of my replies, to you amongst others were in reply to your comments that had very little to do with the programme. I can copy and paste your comments, that had no direct relevance on the programme, such as this: 'However, I find it repulsive that I am paying the pension for someone who retired younger than I will be allowed too, who had housing costs that were a fraction of my mine etc.....' but I think you you can go through the pages yourself and see that for yourself.

That the guy tells you a little about his background, he had a job, family etc, is great but what relevance does it have to what I've said?

Now when it comes to benefits for housing and such, I can't help but feel that is a treatment rather than cure the problem, and one which inflates the illness too.

In the last 2 years, over 90% of new people claiming housing benefit were working. So am I to assume that you think that if those people can't afford rents, they should go sleep on the streets? Of course benefits are not a cure but, unless governments are prepared to spend large sums of money, far larger than the social welfare bill costs, on addressing these issues, then benefits are the best that there is at the moment to keep certain people from abject poverty

Actually I think something as mundane as directly feeding the child would save money and improve their life. In three years working with school children aged 12-16 from mostly deprived background or just gifted, I can safely say less than a third ever got a proper breakfast. It was interesting when we ran a summer school for some of my kids how many commented they don't ever eat breakfast.

And I said previously that that is a good idea.

If you have the logic, that having a child without the means to care for them is cruel, often any funds can do much better good with other peoples administration. It is rare for me to ever advocate a centralised managed system, but I think that for many recipients they have proved themselves unworthy by being in their situation.

And again, I agreed. I did however say that it was going to be unavoidable that some payments would need to be made directly to the recipient.

The positive bits, the way the community deals with a flower competiton etc.

I'm not sure if you are being serious, or just trying to goad me. These people live in one of the most deprived areas in Britain, and you wanna talk about how they dealt with a flower competition? Do you not realise how ridiculous that makes you, and that programme sound?

Again, really you should watch what you are talking about, my experience of council estates in London.......

My experience of council estates in London is that I grew up on one. Is that 'watching what I am talking about' enough for you?

Not make do with less, not have children. Do you consider children a right, even if they have no means to support them?

A right in what sense? A human right? A moral right? An TheAnimus right?

Ultimately, I think it hugely irresponsible of someone who has no means to support them to have children and then expect the state to entirely fund that child, and I would prefer they didn't do it. However, given that usually these people belong to some of the most uneducated, impoverished and vulnerable section in society, I think that we are morally obliged to care for that child, and by extension that childs family, as best as we can. Until you can present evidence showing otherwise, I reject that the benefits system encourages people to have children and I think it's a myth continually peddled by those looking to slash public expenditure, and used as a tool to beat that particular demographic with.

Out of curiosity do you like any idea of enforced birth control?

No.

People know they can have a child, and care will be taken of them both. I'm saddened to say one of my former mentees did this.

And I am glad. Not because of that particular person per se, but because if they are being looked after then it means those that have been irresponsible, (or unintentionally cruel and/or evil), and really do find themselves in trouble will be looked after too. I can't think of a better way to spend your tax bill.

[opel80uk]

It's not a bad idea, would act as a deterrent. As the government need to do something because the current benefit system is being abused left, right and centre.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anas...b_3060094.html

According to the Department of Work and Pensions, only 0.8% of benefit spending is overpaid due to fraud. £11 billion of benefits that go unclaimed every year.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good bit of hyperbole.

[TheAnimus]

what relevance does it have to what I've said?

Addiction is not the preserve of poverty. Hell just look at some of the famous types, Lohan, Spears, Bieber etc...

In the last 2 years, over 90% of new people claiming housing benefit were working. So am I to assume that you think that if those people can't afford rents, they should go sleep on the streets? Of course benefits are not a cure but, unless governments are prepared to spend large sums of money, far larger than the social welfare bill costs, on addressing these issues, then benefits are the best that there is at the moment to keep certain people from abject poverty

Because it's a function of supply and demand. If prices are un-affordably high for someone in work, clearly there is a huge lack of supply problem. You can solve that buy building more houses, or reducing demand (population/migration control). Paying the rent does not do that, it just shifts the allocation.

And again, I agreed. I did however say that it was going to be unavoidable that some payments would need to be made directly to the recipient.

My point is we should strive to reduce that as much as possible. I also think uniforms for school should be provided as a universal benefit. Everyone should suffer or wear the same. As with food, you want your child to have better, then every child should have better.

I'm not sure if you are being serious, or just trying to goad me. These people live in one of the most deprived areas in Britain, and you wanna talk about how they dealt with a flower competition? Do you not realise how ridiculous that makes you, and that programme sound?

So this is the most deprived area? A place with running water, gas, electricity, no one starving. If you can't take pride in that alone, something is wrong. If these people are 'time rich cash poor' that is no barrier for such a thing, it's about pride in the community and ultimately I think they did a good job showing how some members push this forward to the benefit of all.

My experience of council estates in London is that I grew up on one. Is that 'watching what I am talking about' enough for you?

What year was that. I've never heard of such things provided for council tenants. Now private, that is a different matter, especially those who are doing it on the sly.

A right in what sense? A human right? A moral right? An TheAnimus right?

Ultimately, I think it hugely irresponsible of someone who has no means to support them to have children and then expect the state to entirely fund that child, and I would prefer they didn't do it. However, given that usually these people belong to some of the most uneducated, impoverished and vulnerable section in society, I think that we are morally obliged to care for that child, and by extension that childs family, as best as we can. Until you can present evidence showing otherwise, I reject that the benefits system encourages people to have children and I think it's a myth continually peddled by those looking to slash public expenditure, and used as a tool to beat that particular demographic with.

So ultimately this is what it boils down to. Should we, no matter what, support people who make these poor choices. I think we should focus entirely on supporting the children. You know roughly speaking for every £1 we spend on schooling the under 12s we spend £200 on welfare. I mean hell, that's just wrong. (Side note, on uni and higher we spend about ~£20 for the same.)

No.

So everyone has a right to produce a child. That is where I differ.

And I am glad. Not because of that particular person per se, but because if they are being looked after then it means those that have been irresponsible, (or unintentionally cruel and/or evil), and really do find themselves in trouble will be looked after too. I can't think of a better way to spend your tax bill.

When I found out about that I ended up crying in a friends lap for what felt like hours. Her life was over the day she was so determined to raise the child. She came from a bad background and saw it as a way out. It wasn't for the child at all but her. We have a system which presents vulnerable people with a choice of hard work or raising a child, however whilst we've moved on from giving animals as prizes in a circus, we don't question a person at all.

[TheAnimus]

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anas...b_3060094.html

According to the Department of Work and Pensions, only 0.8% of benefit spending is overpaid due to fraud. £11 billion of benefits that go unclaimed every year.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good bit of hyperbole.

You relate fraud to abuse. The two are different.

I can legally structure my entire remuneration (should I so choose) via an offshore LBT. I'd still be a Jimmy Carr grade silly person for doing so, but it wouldn't be considered tax dodging.

[opel80uk]

Addiction is not the preserve of poverty. Hell just look at some of the famous types, Lohan, Spears, Bieber etc...

Of course it’s not. But equally, addiction disproportionately affects those from those in deprived areas far more than those in higher socioeconomic groups. It’s not rocket science; you want to stop addiction, root out the causes. We could live in a utopia and some people will still take drugs, that’s human nature. Giving examples of rich famous types means nothing, although the backgrounds of the 3 famous people you mention are interesting.

Because it's a function of supply and demand. If prices are un-affordably high for someone in work, clearly there is a huge lack of supply problem. You can solve that buy building more houses, or reducing demand (population/migration control). Paying the rent does not do that, it just shifts the allocation.

I wholeheartedly and completely agree. When the right to buy scheme was introduced, it was sold on the premise that the money made would be spent on more affordable housing, which quell surprise, it wasn’t and that scheme is a major contributor to the housing crisis in the South East we have now. Population and/or migration controls would not work given the numbers that would need to be moved to lessen the demand by any meaningful figure, so the only alternative is to build houses which costs money, more money than governments are prepared to pay.

So yes, I agree with you. But the reality is these houses are not being built yet, and the people who want or need to live in London or the South East because that’s where the work is (and I presume because they don’t want to become totally benefit dependent) need a roof over their head. Once these houses start getting built, rents will come down and housing benefit, for huge numbers, will not be needed.

My point is we should strive to reduce that as much as possible. I also think uniforms for school should be provided as a universal benefit. Everyone should suffer or wear the same. As with food, you want your child to have better, then every child should have better.

Again, I don’t disagree.

So this is the most deprived area? A place with running water, gas, electricity, no one starving.

I said one of the most deprived areas in Britain. And yes it is. We don’t need to go back to a picture of the working class in Victorian Britain for an area to be deprived, relative to the rest of the population.

If you can't take pride in that alone, something is wrong. If these people are 'time rich cash poor' that is no barrier for such a thing, it's about pride in the community and ultimately I think they did a good job showing how some members push this forward to the benefit of all.

When you say things like this, I really do wonder what personal experience you have of places like that shown on the show. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of these communities, and it is as if somehow you (and by extension the viewers of the show) are surprised that there would be some people that live there that do take pride in where they live, and that do spend their time trying to improve the area. And maybe you don’t realise it, but it is so unbelievably patronising.

What year was that. I've never heard of such things provided for council tenants. Now private, that is a different matter, especially those who are doing it on the sly.

I have no idea what you are asking

So ultimately this is what it boils down to. Should we, no matter what, support people who make these poor choices.

Yes. It’s what being part of a society is all about. You can try and educate and incentivise and help people to make right decisions, but ultimately there will be people that make mistakes, and I think these people should be supported.

I think we should focus entirely on supporting the children. You know roughly speaking for every £1 we spend on schooling the under 12s we spend £200 on welfare. I mean hell, that's just wrong. (Side note, on uni and higher we spend about ~£20 for the same.)

You cannot entirely support the child without taking care of the child’s family.

So everyone has a right to produce a child. That is where I differ.

If me saying I don’t agree with enforced birth control means that I think everyone has a right to produce a child, then so be it. You asked why I was implying you were being so totalitarian previously. Well I can’t think of too many things more totalitarian than enforced birth control. Just ask some of the women in China who found themselves pregnant and couldn’t afford the tax.

You relate fraud to abuse. The two are different.

No, I purposely used the fraud figure, because it’s safe to assume that is what the poster meant. There is no benefit abuse, only fraud because you are either entitled to benefits or you are not. The scenario you gave regarding tax is not abuse either. If you are legally entitled to do it’s fine, and if not, it’s tax evasion. Abuse is just a term meted out by the public and media to try and make individuals, groups or corporations bow to pressure when they are doing something considered morally dubious.

When I found out about that I ended up crying in a friends lap for what felt like hours. Her life was over the day she was so determined to raise the child. She came from a bad background and saw it as a way out. It wasn't for the child at all but her. We have a system which presents vulnerable people with a choice of hard work or raising a child, however whilst we've moved on from giving animals as prizes in a circus, we don't question a person at all.

That’s akin to saying we should ban trains because they present a choice of suicide to vulnerable people. The overwhelming vast majority do not use children, and by extension the benefits system, to escape a life. They use benefits to help move them forward, or to provide basic needs. This continued use of the most extreme examples of benefit users (Benefits Street, Your friend, etc….) is frankly a complete waste of time because it is not representative of the main body of people who use benefits at all.

I think the issue here, highlighted quite succinctly in the text about your friend, is that you are unable to look at the issue from any other view than your own, black & white (Work hard or raise a child), seemingly pre programed and inflexible logic.

I am proud that I am from a country that, even if it was a wrong, poor or evil choice made in the first place, will look after your vulnerable friend and her child. And the fact they are looked after in the face of all the protesting and cries of self righteous indignation from the likes of yourself, the Daily Mail, and all those other people who, knowingly or unknowingly, and usually from a position of relative comfort, would demonise those people, makes me even prouder.

[wasabi]

So yes, I agree with you. But the reality is these houses are not being built yet, and the people who want or need to live in London or the South East because that’s where the work is (and I presume because they don’t want to become totally benefit dependent) need a roof over their head. Once these houses start getting built, rents will come down and housing benefit, for huge numbers, will not be needed.

That isn't how social housing allocation and housing benefit works.

The current social housing problem is because of tenancy for life. So you get allocated a council house when you are temporarily unemployed or in a lower paid job, and get into a house with a let for life. Even if you become a senior manager on £250000 per annum you still have a tenancy agreement. While the housing benefit may stop you still get a ridiculously cheap rent house.

The above scenario is gradually being scaled back with starter tenancies and changes to stop tenancies for life, but it will take decades for the housing stock to be freed up. Especially with the usual bleeding heart whining about the bedroom tax.

As usual the corrupt Labour party were buying voters for life on taxpayer cash.

[opel80uk]

That isn't how social housing allocation and housing benefit works.

The current social housing problem is because of tenancy for life. So you get allocated a council house when you are temporarily unemployed or in a lower paid job, and get into a house with a let for life. Even if you become a senior manager on £250000 per annum you still have a tenancy agreement. While the housing benefit may stop you still get a ridiculously cheap rent house.

The above scenario is gradually being scaled back with starter tenancies and changes to stop tenancies for life, but it will take decades for the housing stock to be freed up. Especially with the usual bleeding heart whining about the bedroom tax.

This post is actually be quite funny. The percentage of people in social housing that earn 250,000 is so insignificant, that it hardly warrants a mention. From: https://www.cml.org.uk/cml/publicati...dviews/117/440

Findings for 2010-11 showed that the average gross annual household income for owner-occupiers was £40,900, compared with £29,000 for those renting privately and £17,400 for those living in social housing

If you allow rent rates to be pushed up every 2 years at the end of these fixed-term tenancies, without building new affordable houses, then all you do is create more housing benefit dependent people. It's precisely your kind of flawed logic that helped create the crisis in the first place.

[wasabi]

If you allow rent rates to be pushed up every 2 years at the end of these fixed-term tenancies, without building new affordable houses, then all you do is create more housing benefit dependent people. It's precisely your kind of flawed logic that helped create the crisis in the first place.

Makes zero logical sense.

[opel80uk]

Makes zero logical sense.

To you. As I was typing it I was pretty sure you wouldn't grasp the point I was making. Still, God loves a trier and all that.

[g8ina]

Final Warning (In Colour & Capitals) !!

No more posts which could be seen as personal attacks on other members or this fascinating thread gets binned !

[santa claus]

I am proud that I am from a country that, even if it was a wrong, poor or evil choice made in the first place, will look after your vulnerable friend and her child. And the fact they are looked after in the face of all the protesting and cries of self righteous indignation from the likes of yourself, the Daily Mail, and all those other people who, knowingly or unknowingly, and usually from a position of relative comfort, would demonise those people, makes me even prouder.

Amen to that.

It is unlikely that you will ever convince the Hexus Hardliners, but hopefully a reader or two may begin to view the benefits topic in a different light thanks to your well informed contributions.

It is a shame that your main protagonist has decided simply to rebut almost everything you say instead of actually digesting the content.

[opel80uk]

It is unlikely that you will ever convince the Hexus Hardliners, but hopefully a reader or two may begin to view the benefits topic in a different light thanks to your well informed contributions.

It is a shame that your main protagonist has decided simply to rebut almost everything you say instead of actually digesting the content.

I think that there are certain things in life that, and I mean this in no disparaging way at all to anyone (I don’t even know the backgrounds of the people on here), you need to have walked, even a small bit, of a fairly similar path to fully appreciate what it is like for certain people, and appreciate the challenges they face. That is of course, just my opinion. The rebutting of everything is par for the course – evade, deflect, deny.

When I read some of the posts on this thread, It reminded me of a friend from work I used to have. Really nice guy, but silver spoon job. He would work with people from deprived areas, in between his holidays to exotic places, and then feel no sense of embarrassment in telling me ‘what these people need is…..’ usually, nay inevitably, followed by something that would have decreased their living standards, but would have been ‘for their own good’. It’s hard not to feel a small degree of sympathy with someone like that, when they are so removed from the realities of what they are talking about, no matter how frustrating they are.

And with that, and with the news that a working couple were allegedly 'cut' from the show, a show that I have no intention of watching, I think I will call it a day on this thread. What I will say is this – I have been appalled at the tone at how other human beings, who live lives that I imagine none of us would want to live, have been talked about on here. Forced contraception, people being evil for having children, prison for those that have children and can’t afford it and the general dehumanisation of a whole group of people….. if that tone was taken about a particular ethnic group, we would rightly be up in arms, but it seems to me that others feel, because they pay tax, that they can say what they like about the poor. It has been nothing short of disgraceful, if entirely predictable.

G8ina – apologies if I overstepped the mark at all.

[peterb]

Then why the hell are you mentioning this. First page I say that I think this program makes a good case for increasing funding for rehabilitation.

I've noticed something, I say something along the lines of I think it's reckless, irresponsible and cruel to have children if you are not in a stable situation, financially, emotionally, etc.. Suddenly I'm pro-eguencis and wanting a death camp.

Actually no, your first post was asking what HEXITES thought of the programme (not even of the people in it). Not until your third post on the second page do you mention drug abuse rehabilitation programmes. And you weren't accused of being pro-eugenics, merely asked if you advocated it, seeing as you are pro compulsory contraception for the unemployed which could at the time be interpreted as selective breeding, although you have since clarified your position, somewhat.

However to get back to your original question...

There was an interesting comment on Radio 4's "Today" programme alleging that the Benefit's Street makers have selected material to show the community in as bad a light as possible, and ignoring that many living on "Benefits Street" are in full time regular employment.