Should people who Sign-on...

[Galant]

They had been looking for work for four months, but had not found anything they could/wanted to do.

I'm curious - why did you feel the need to include "wanted to do"? Surely part of growing up and being responsible is doing things you don't particularly want to do because you need to do them? You take a menial or unpleansant job so that you can make ends meet, provide for yourself and your family, and work towards a better position?

Or am I wrong?

[Galant]

[QUOTE=G4Z]Unfortunately there seem to be people who actually make a living off it, seems like unemployed is a job title to them or somthing. [QUOTE]


I think that's one of the key points right there. Too many people are growing up believing that they have a right to be looked after. Responsibility belongs to the government and their parents, and anyone else who cares. Life is about having fun and doing what you want. God forbid that someone should ever have to do something they don't want to, like hard work, be responsible for themselves or even, dare I say it, contribute to the needs of others!

[Galant]

True, but there is also no free health care... As we all know, if something is free, people will take it, if it costs, they get by without it. So, by limiting who has access to the NHS, we'd be easing the burden on the NHS.

Indeed - as I mentioned in another post, take a look at the supposedly superb French health-care system. The placed upon it has recently been starting to show through and is quite telling. Too many people taking everything they can get, whether they need it or not - because it's free. The same principle applies across to other areas; 'Doll dossers' taking their 'free money' etc.

Obviously people have needs and society needs to be careful to provide for those who are needy. But it also needs to be made clear that this is a supportive and stabilising system designed to move people on to better things, not sponge off the system.

People need to face up to doing jobs that pay but might not be their ideal.
If there are those who really can't get any jobs because tey have nothing to offer - they need to gain something to offer, not just give up. Education. trade skills. Focus needs to be put on creative solutions to provide options, not just taxing people more to pay for those who can work but don't.

[Stewart]

For example. what would your position be if someone had worked 30 years in a ship yard, then had the ship yard close and lost their job. They had been looking for work for four months, but had not found anything they could/wanted to do. They are then diagnosed with a slow growth brain tumour. You are suggesting they should be left to die?

Haha. Quality stuff mate, quality stuff.

Remind me never to get into a discussion with Debeeenster over who's the best phone company, BT or NTL.

Me: I prefer BT.

DB: Oh yeah, well what if you rang BT to order a phone line installation, and when the phone was answered all you could hear were the terrible, blood curdling screams of a tiny defenceless monkey, as he was tortured to death in an acid bath.

Then six years later when the bloke from BT finally turns up to do the work, he's a Neo-Nazi, with a string of convictions for rape, who's just mugged a war hero, taken all his money, and used it to fund drug and terrorist activities in South Wales.

Then he just smashes a big hole in the wall of your house to put the line in, and sets fire to your carpets, and kills your whole family, and makes it look like an accident, and steals your car, drives off and kills another person in it?!

Who'd be the best company then, BITCH?!

Me: Erm... isn't that a slightly extreme example, Mr DaBeenster, Sir?



I think, in areas such as this, you need to look at the rule, not the exception. Using one extreme example of how a system to combat this might not be fair, if someone worked in a shipyard for 30 years, then lost his job, then got a slow growth brain tumour, and is left to die, does not make the entire system worthless.

The British Justice system, for instance, is for the most part, a perfectly adequate method for dealing with criminal activity. It was long before we were around, and will be long after we are in a wooden box. Of course you can point to miscarriages of justice, even extreme examples, but this doesn’t mean we should scrap the entire system, in favour of something else.

Anyway, that bloke can take some of his redundancy money, and get his name down on BUPA.

[G4Z]

tbh this thread has come at a weird time because the contract I was on was terminated last week and now I have to look for a new job. Thats what irriates me though our system sucks because it dosnt cater for basicaly any1 like me. If your young and you live with some1 and you work you get shafted (unless you have kids of course... another story that tho) I am probably only gonna be out of work for a week or 2 but its gonna screw up my finances good and proper, now technicaly for thise period im entitled to dole and housing benefit but because I live with some1 who I am shagging and she works more than 24 hours (dunno where they pull these arbritary numbers from tbh) I dont get anything from the dole. Make sense of that!, I could be living with a mate who works more than 24 hours and I would get it, but because I am seeing this girl that somehow means she is responsible for me, how twisted is that? The only way I could claim anything would be too lie, just like the dossers. I am not even gonna bother with a housing benefit claim, last time I was out of work I did that and didnt even get a reply until 10 weeks later by witch time I had been working for several weeks.

Anyway, the poiint of my rant is that dole should be a short term thing that you get straight away, no messing, for a maximum of 6 months or somthing and they should change the rules because they are bloody unfair. In fact I could sort all of this just by having a kid, get some of that family tax credit and work like 10 hours a week, would be sweet...