Jeremy Corbyn

[Esmond Million's Bung]

18 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

 

I don't have to sit here naming socialist economies that have worked.  Its not a precise science and there are many complex factors which make it impossible to speculate on whether it would work in this country at this moment in time.  To be fair, much of the great things about this country were created by a socialist government after world war 2, I am not sure why so many people are brainwashed into thinking its such a bad thing.  No reason why we can't restore some balance from the free market.

The alternative is at the moment we almost have a welfare state for private companies.  We have tax payer money bailing out banks, the railways, energy companies when things go tits up yet these companies are still allowed to make profit.  There is something that is far more distressing than benefit cheats. Does that not grind your gears?

Lastly, I don't understand your  bible comment. Is it not conceivable to you that I might have forged my own opinion in life from my own experiences and the people that I communicate with?

You have missed my point again on the disabled thing.  Maybe I could use your style of debate by asking you a question: How would you rehaul the benefit system to stop benefit scroungers but making sure you look after the vulnerable and disabled at the same time? I'd be amazed if you could answer because logistically its probably impossible.

 

 

 

So as usual your utopia that you quote does not and has not ever existed.

Your 2nd point is a totally different point and nothing to do with the debate, but firstly there are things that should always be under public control and some that should not and as for the banks **** em should have let them go under IMO.

As for your 3rd point, you wanted me to read books to try to persuade me that you are correct, so you brought that up not me.

Your last point is nonsense absolute nonsense, again please, please just actually try to read what has been said, IDS and ATOS managed to do it with the disabled, which was immoral, cruel and wrong, that type of scrutiny should have been levelled at the benefits cheats firstly and fore mostly, so if they have/had a system in place to do that to the disabled it follows that system could used against the benefits cheats.

You do make one very interesting point (for once) 'logistically it's probably impossible', says it all really, the system is out of hand and has been abused for far too long.

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

15 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

So as usual your utopia that you quote does not and has not ever existed.

Your 2nd point is a totally different point and nothing to do with the debate, but firstly there are things that should always be under public control and some that should not and as for the banks **** em should have let them go under IMO.

As for your 3rd point, you wanted me to read books to try to persuade me that you are correct, so you brought that up not me.

Your last point is nonsense absolute nonsense, again please, please just actually try to read what has been said, IDS and ATOS managed to do it with the disabled, which was immoral, cruel and wrong, that type of scrutiny should have been levelled at the benefits cheats firstly and fore mostly, so if they have/had a system in place to do that to the disabled it follows that system could used against the benefits cheats.

You do make one very interesting point (for once) 'logistically it's probably impossible', says it all really, the system is out of hand and has been abused for far too long.

 

If you were willing to let the banks go under I guess you don't have a mortgage or a private pension?!  When the banks were bailed out it should have been on the compromise of more public control but it sadly wasn't.

Your paragraph about disabled/benefit cheats doesn't make any sense, or not in relation to the system I am familiar with.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 hour ago, Collis1 said:

If you were willing to let the banks go under I guess you don't have a mortgage or a private pension?!  When the banks were bailed out it should have been on the compromise of more public control but it sadly wasn't.

Your paragraph about disabled/benefit cheats doesn't make any sense, or not in relation to the system I am familiar with.

The bailing out of the banks was purely to preserve the 1% of the worlds population who control 99% of the worlds wealth, nothing more, nothing less and now we are being screwed twice, our money is propping up the banks and they have their wealth, i'm surprised that you didn't already pick up on that.

i'm not surprised that you are not familiar with the system I described because that exists in the real world.

 

[...]

I think Collis1 doth protest too much?

 

Uncle TFR

[BCFC Jimmer]

18 hours ago, Taxi for Rennie said:

I think Collis1 doth protest too much?

 

Uncle TFR

Yet, you have contributed nothing to the argument.

At least EMB has put forward an alternative view and attempted to back it up with coherent points.

On 30/10/2015, 17:39:25, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The bailing out of the banks was purely to preserve the 1% of the worlds population who control 99% of the worlds wealth, nothing more, nothing less and now we are being screwed twice, our money is propping up the banks and they have their wealth, i'm surprised that you didn't already pick up on that.

i'm not surprised that you are not familiar with the system I described because that exists in the real world.

 

Different argument althogether, but we need a banking system and the government was absoultely right to bail them out with tax payer money. I just wish at that point a few people who caused the crash went to jail and they reformed the system. Sadly that hasn't happened.

What I do have a massive problem with is private company's (NPower, G4S, railway companies, etc) who are topped up by billions tax payer money yet still make millions of pounds of profit! 

The HMRC also directly work with big business CEO's to find ways of cutting their taxes. 

All this goes on whilst the media machine drives up a frenzy shitstorm at people on welfare and immigrants. It really is appauling.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 hours ago, Collis1 said:

 

1). Different argument althogether, but we need a banking system and the government was absoultely right to bail them out with tax payer money. I just wish at that point a few people who caused the crash went to jail and they reformed the system. Sadly that hasn't happened.

2). What I do have a massive problem with is private company's (NPower, G4S, railway companies, etc) who are topped up by billions tax payer money yet still make millions of pounds of profit! 

3). The HMRC also directly work with big business CEO's to find ways of cutting their taxes. 

4). All this goes on whilst the media machine drives up a frenzy shitstorm at people on welfare and immigrants. It really is appauling.

1). Not really I would have thought that it would have been a socialists dream to have nationalised every bank that the public now owned, given the obscene profits that they make, the 1% keep telling us when the markets are good they win, but it seems that when they **** the markets up they win as well and the 99% pay win, lose or draw.

2). Agree for me it"s just like the banks if we have to bail them out/subsidise them, then they should return to public ownership.

3). The HMRC appear to be a law to themselves, although I suspect they are just following orders.

4). You're wrong here, people are getting screwed on all of the above and know they can do little about it, welfare and immigrant abuses could and should be addressed and shows that most people contribute, some people need welfare but are still harried by the system (because they are an easy target) and some just take, take, take and believe it to be a lifestyle choice, i'm not arguing that it's not a minority because obviously it is but what ever the percentage it's to high and is not IRRELEVANT like you describe, it matters to MOST working people and the last time I looked Britain was still a democracy.

Case in point, The Americans/Tony Blair/new labour arrest Shaker Aamer in Afghanistan and hold him for 13 years without charge and torture him and who is now liable for all of his costs and restitution?, not the Americans/Tony Blair/new labour, the good old UK tax payer once more and the irony is what sanctions do we take against the US of A for all of their human rights abuses, worldwide or in their own country?.

[Red-Robbo]

48 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Case in point, The Americans/Tony Blair/new labour arrest Shaker Aamer in Afghanistan and hold him for 13 years without charge and torture him and who is now liable for all of his costs and restitution?, not the Americans/Tony Blair/new labour, the good old UK tax payer once more and the irony is what sanctions do we take against the US of A for all of their human rights abuses, worldwide or in their own country?.

I was rather hoping that Mr Aamer - a Saudi citizen not a Briton despite what Amnesty might have led people to believe - might fork off back to Afghanistan now it shows every sign of returning to the sort of "Muslim society" he said he was so keen to experience in the 90s.

No doubt he's had a fairly brutal time of it. Still he might like to reflect that had he not been able to speak English, the Northern Alliance would have simply shot him in the head when they captured him rather than sold him to the Americans. That was there standard response at the time to Arab mercenaries fighting for the Taliban.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

I was rather hoping that Mr Aamer - a Saudi citizen not a Briton despite what Amnesty might have led people to believe - might fork off back to Afghanistan now it shows every sign of returning to the sort of "Muslim society" he said he was so keen to experience in the 90s.

No doubt he's had a fairly brutal time of it. Still he might like to reflect that had he not been able to speak English, the Northern Alliance would have simply shot him in the head when they captured him rather than sold him to the Americans. That was there standard response at the time to Arab mercenaries fighting for the Taliban.

Whatever way you look at it the wrong people are going to foot the bill once more, the nice and comfy, soft easy going, court of human rights obedient UK tax payers.

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

19 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

1). Not really I would have thought that it would have been a socialists dream to have nationalised every bank that the public now owned, given the obscene profits that they make, the 1% keep telling us when the markets are good they win, but it seems that when they **** the markets up they win as well and the 99% pay win, lose or draw.

2). Agree for me it"s just like the banks if we have to bail them out/subsidise them, then they should return to public ownership.

3). The HMRC appear to be a law to themselves, although I suspect they are just following orders.

4). You're wrong here, people are getting screwed on all of the above and know they can do little about it, welfare and immigrant abuses could and should be addressed and shows that most people contribute, some people need welfare but are still harried by the system (because they are an easy target) and some just take, take, take and believe it to be a lifestyle choice, i'm not arguing that it's not a minority because obviously it is but what ever the percentage it's to high and is not IRRELEVANT like you describe, it matters to MOST working people and the last time I looked Britain was still a democracy.

Case in point, The Americans/Tony Blair/new labour arrest Shaker Aamer in Afghanistan and hold him for 13 years without charge and torture him and who is now liable for all of his costs and restitution?, not the Americans/Tony Blair/new labour, the good old UK tax payer once more and the irony is what sanctions do we take against the US of A for all of their human rights abuses, worldwide or in their own country?.

Sounds like we are actually close to agreeing on most of this.  I would absolutely like to have had the banks reformed into the public sector after the 2008 bailout. Was never going to happen though because it would have gone against the objective of the free market way of thinking that was being rammed down everyone's throats at the time.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on welfare issue.  I can accept that welfare and immigrant 'abuses' should be looked into and dealt with diplomatically - but I still find the harassing and demonisation of them absurd given the other things we have talked about.

Completely agree with your last point. The whole thing is disgusting and I hope that Blair will get his comeuppance when the Chilcolt report is finally released.

By the way, here's another 11 billion we could recoup.  Most of said companies make billions of profit yet their staff are being propped up by tax payer money -

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/20/taxpayers-spend-11bn-to-top-up-low-wages-paid-by-uk-companies

 

 

 

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 hour ago, Collis1 said:

Sounds like we are actually close to agreeing on most of this.  I would absolutely like to have had the banks reformed into the public sector after the 2008 bailout. Was never going to happen though because it would have gone against the objective of the free market way of thinking that was being rammed down everyone's throats at the time.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on welfare issue.  I can accept that welfare and immigrant 'abuses' should be looked into and dealt with diplomatically - but I still find the harassing and demonisation of them absurd given the other things we have talked about.

Completely agree with your last point. The whole thing is disgusting and I hope that Blair will get his comeuppance when the Chilcolt report is finally released.

By the way, here's another 11 billion we could recoup.  Most of said companies make billions of profit yet their staff are being propped up by tax payer money -

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/20/taxpayers-spend-11bn-to-top-up-low-wages-paid-by-uk-companies

 

 

 

 

of course they should be harried and demonised, diplomacy shouldn't enter into it, they are committing a criminal offence in many cases and the authorities have a absolute duty to investigate without fear or favour, something that is a great British tradition and allowed to be sadly watered down by liberals, especially when so called minorities are concerned (remember Rotherham?), Uncle TFR is right they are taking away from people who really are in need and that not only brings the whole system into disrepute it feeds the hatred of far right groups, especially when they see instead of abusers but members of our armed forces who have been wounded (some who have lost limbs) lose their benefits in the first cowardly cuts and meanwhile, criminals, state sponsored addicts, tattoo collectors, people who sought sanctuary in the UK and then actively tell us how terrible we are and people who are benefitting enough to buy designer clothes and have foreign holidays are enjoying the good life because of their 'lifestyle choice'.

You put far too much faith in Chilcott, 10 years for an expensive whitewash? only in the UK, he was appointed because he is Blair's mate, only yesterday it was claimed the day before the invasion Blair ordered his cabinet to 'burn' a memo from the attorney general, stating that the was could be claimed to be illegal, of course 2 days after the invasion he watered that view down. Chilcott is and will be an expensive national embarrassment that even allowed Blair to manipulate it at every single stage.

 

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

6 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

of course they should be harried and demonised, diplomacy shouldn't enter into it, they are committing a criminal offence in many cases and the authorities have a absolute duty to investigate without fear or favour, something that is a great British tradition and allowed to be sadly watered down by liberals, especially when so called minorities are concerned (remember Rotherham?), Uncle TFR is right they are taking away from people who really are in need and that not only brings the whole system into disrepute it feeds the hatred of far right groups, especially when they see instead of abusers but members of our armed forces who have been wounded (some who have lost limbs) lose their benefits in the first cowardly cuts and meanwhile, criminals, state sponsored addicts, tattoo collectors, people who sought sanctuary in the UK and then actively tell us how terrible we are and people who are benefitting enough to buy designer clothes and have foreign holidays are enjoying the good life because of their 'lifestyle choice'.

You put far too much faith in Chilcott, 10 years for an expensive whitewash? only in the UK, he was appointed because he is Blair's mate, only yesterday it was claimed the day before the invasion Blair ordered his cabinet to 'burn' a memo from the attorney general, stating that the was could be claimed to be illegal, of course 2 days after the invasion he watered that view down. Chilcott is and will be an expensive national embarrassment that even allowed Blair to manipulate it at every single stage.

 

 

Goodness, this is getting boring. I have attempted to explain on many occasions but you are never going to agree.

Look, the reason we have ex soldiers and disabled people who have lost out on benefits etc is NOT specifically because of a minority of people that abuse the system.  There is plenty of money out there available for the needy but there are complicated but fundamental reasons why the wealth is not distributed equally - we have only scratched the surface with some of those factors in this thread.  I know you are never going to accept it so please lets stop this bickering now.

End.

P.s You are probably right RE Chilcolt - To be honest I have not read too much about it.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

16 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Goodness, this is getting boring. I have attempted to explain on many occasions but you are never going to agree.

Look, the reason we have ex soldiers and disabled people who have lost out on benefits etc is NOT specifically because of a minority of people that abuse the system.  There is plenty of money out there available for the needy but there are complicated but fundamental reasons why the wealth is not distributed equally - we have only scratched the surface with some of those factors in this thread.  I know you are never going to accept it so please lets stop this bickering now.

End.

P.s You are probably right RE Chilcolt - To be honest I have not read too much about it.

 

What is boring is you cannot read writing, nobody (apart from you of course) is saying that is the case, I will repeat nobody is saying that but as usual you are trying to label things and trying to deliberately misquote people, what EVERYBODY IS SAYING, EVERYBODY, that in any overhaul of the system the cheats, abusers and lifestyle choosers should be at the very front of the queue to be assessed, I cannot make it any clearer or simpler, comprende?

[BCFC Jimmer]

32 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

What is boring is you cannot read writing, nobody (apart from you of course) is saying that is the case, I will repeat nobody is saying that but as usual you are trying to label things and trying to deliberately misquote people, what EVERYBODY IS SAYING, EVERYBODY, that in any overhaul of the system the cheats, abusers and lifestyle choosers should be at the very front of the queue to be assessed, I cannot make it any clearer or simpler, comprende?

More rubbish mate.  Then what does this mean?

"Uncle TFR is right they are taking away from people who really are in need"

That statement is factually incorrect.

 

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

23 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

More rubbish mate.  Then what does this mean?

"Uncle TFR is right they are taking away from people who really are in need"

That statement isn't correct IMO.

 

 

So what are you saying, that the money that these people steal comes from a special 'turn a blind eye' budget?, FFS if the budget is X amount per year and these thieves are taking out a, b or c, that is money being taken unnecessarily from the budget, theft is theft, it is exactly the same as MP's fiddling their expenses that got the country up in arms, there is no difference, the statement is correct and every abuser just undermines the labour parties 2nd ever greatest achievement.

You are making it up yet again, nobody is saying that abusers of the system or immigrants are the absolute cause, nobody has said that at all, but you are imagining that they are, but unlike the disabled who were unfairly and cruelly treated abusers of the system have in the main been left to carry on with their lifestyle choice and that is WRONG not the CAUSE, just plain WRONG.

it makes no difference whether or not it's 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000, 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000, 1 in 1,000,000 or so on and so forth it's one too many.

of course if Corbyn has a policy stating that everybody and anybody can abuse the system unmolested, he might get my vote.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I do apologise i've just realised Colis is explaining why socialism doesn't work, because he is describing the socialists view of distribution of wealth, take, grab and complain.

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

So what are you saying, that the money that these people steal comes from a special 'turn a blind eye' budget?, FFS if the budget is X amount per year and these thieves are taking out a, b or c, that is money being taken unnecessarily from the budget, theft is theft, it is exactly the same as MP's fiddling their expenses that got the country up in arms, there is no difference, the statement is correct and every abuser just undermines the labour parties 2nd ever greatest achievement.

You are making it up yet again, nobody is saying that abusers of the system or immigrants are the absolute cause, nobody has said that at all, but you are imagining that they are, but unlike the disabled who were unfairly and cruelly treated abusers of the system have in the main been left to carry on with their lifestyle choice and that is WRONG not the CAUSE, just plai

 

I don't think it is as simplistic as that. Surely if the system is reformed to cut down on 'cheats' we would run the risk of even more disabled people being out of pocket. 

In the same way that if the welfare budget was increased disabled people be looked after better but there would likely be more "cheats'.

Im not saying you dont have the right intentions, but it is very difficult to police. 

[BCFC Jimmer]

5 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I do apologise i've just realised Colis is explaining why socialism doesn't work, because he is describing the socialists view of distribution of wealth, take, grab and complain.

 

I have never said socialism would definitely work.

Though, I live in hope that it would and would be a damn sight fairier than the unjust free market.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Collis1 said:

I don't think it is as simplistic as that. Surely if the system is reformed to cut down on 'cheats' we would run the risk of even more disabled people being out of pocket. 

In the same way that if the welfare budget was increased disabled people be looked after better but there would likely be more "cheats'.

Im not saying you dont have the right intentions, but it is very difficult to police. 

of course it's simplistic, is benefits money for holidays abroad at the top end of the spectrum?, should benefits be available for people who are able to work but do not actively look for work? and the list goes on.

Today there is a report of some tart who went to Uni for two weeks and then spent all of her grant money on having her tits done, should we just say that is her democratic choice? or do we say that is theft because it is not what the money was intended for?.

[BCFC Jimmer]

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

of course it's simplistic,

Do you have a masters degree in economics?

Honest question - because that is probably the only way you would be qualified to make such a statement.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

7 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

I have never said socialism would definitely work.

Though, I live in hope that it would and would be a damn sight fairier than the unjust free market.

incredibly it did work and worked incredibly well for many years until it became out of step with the rest of money making society and the striving for personal wealth.

and that was at the inception of the Kibbutz system in early days of the state of Israel up until the mid to late 60's.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

4 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Do you have a masters degree in economics?

Honest question - because that is probably the only way you would be qualified to make such a statement.

Do you have one? "I don't think it is as simplistic as that".

Honest question - because that is probably the only way you would be qualified to make such a statement.

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

So what are you saying, that the money that these people steal comes from a special 'turn a blind eye' budget?, FFS if the budget is X amount per year and these thieves are taking out a, b or c, that is money being taken unnecessarily from the budget, theft is theft, it is exactly the same as MP's fiddling their expenses that got the country up in arms, there is no difference, the statement is correct and every abuser just undermines the labour parties 2nd ever greatest achievement.

You are making it up yet again, nobody is saying that abusers of the system or immigrants are the absolute cause, nobody has said that at all, but you are imagining that they are, but unlike the disabled who were unfairly and cruelly treated abusers of the system have in the main been left to carry on with their lifestyle choice and that is WRONG not the CAUSE, just plain WRONG.

it makes no difference whether or not it's 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000, 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000, 1 in 1,000,000 or so on and so forth it's one too many.

of course if Corbyn has a policy stating that everybody and anybody can abuse the system unmolested, he might get my vote.

 

The problem is, whilst you're not wrong, it's also not that simple.  Obviously nobody wants people to be cheating the system, and pretty much anyone would agree that anyone cheating the benefits system is, in effect, stealing from the state (and, by extension, from the taxpayers) and should be prosecuted.  The problem is how to fairly assess whether or not someone has a genuine claim.  Yes, one fraudulent claim is one fraudulent claim too many but, if  research suggests only 0.8 % of the overall welfare benefit is spent on fraudulent claims (which it does) then how big a sledgehammer do you use to crack that nut?

The whole reason disabled people are being targeted is to weed out those who are claiming the money but don't need to do so.  But how do you set the barrier for evidence in such a way that enables a disabled person such as myself (I receive DLA - Christ knows what'll happen when I apply for PIP in a year or so but am rather concerned about it) to be able to make a claim for support in a dignified, fair manner and ensure we receive a fair hearing and don't need to humiliate ourselves in providing overly personal evidence and fighting through layers of bureaucratic treacle without allowing the 0.8% of fraudulent claimants to slip through the net?  But, on the flipside, how do you ensure stringent checks are in place to stop people fraudulently claiming disability benefits without the result then being some people with genuine claims struggle to negotiate the system or are put off from applying for support they may vitally need?

Similarly, with people who've been out of work in the long-term, there will undoubtedly be people who are happy to live on benefits (although there's scant evidence of the huge numbers of inter-generational welfare dependent families the right-wing press like to suggest exist) but many people who haven't worked for a long time struggle for skills and confidence and may not apply for jobs due to the effect on their mental health.  Many find, once they'vead their morale crushed by rejection from employers multiple times, they can't face doing it again.  I used to work with the long-term employed.  It's a problem everyone wants to see addressed but this whole idea that we're dealing with people who just can't be bothered to get jobs isn't true in a lot of cases.  Confidence building, skills training and practical help are far more useful than benefit sanctions that simply demoralise people further.

Of course nobody wants people to abuse the system and, of course people who abuse the system should be prosecuted, but there has to be a welfare system that protects those in genuine need and, if you focus your strategy on catching that 0.8% of abuse, the risk and reality is that the disabled and vulnerable get caught in the crossfire.  And is it really worth the deaths that have been linked to the benefits changes in order to better catch that 0.8% of abuse?  For me that's the point where the remedy become more deadly than the disease.

[BCFC Jimmer]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

The problem is, whilst you're not wrong, it's also not that simple.  Obviously nobody wants people to be cheating the system, and pretty much anyone would agree that anyone cheating the benefits system is, in effect, stealing from the state (and, by extension, from the taxpayers) and should be prosecuted.  The problem is how to fairly assess whether or not someone has a genuine claim.  Yes, one fraudulent claim is one fraudulent claim too many but, if  research suggests only 0.8 % of the overall welfare benefit is spent on fraudulent claims (which it does) then how big a sledgehammer do you use to crack that nut?

The whole reason disabled people are being targeted is to weed out those who are claiming the money but don't need to do so.  But how do you set the barrier for evidence in such a way that enables a disabled person such as myself (I receive DLA - Christ knows what'll happen when I apply for PIP in a year or so but am rather concerned about it) to be able to make a claim for support in a dignified, fair manner and ensure we receive a fair hearing and don't need to humiliate ourselves in providing overly personal evidence and fighting through layers of bureaucratic treacle without allowing the 0.8% of fraudulent claimants to slip through the net?  But, on the flipside, how do you ensure stringent checks are in place to stop people fraudulently claiming disability benefits without the result then being some people with genuine claims struggle to negotiate the system or are put off from applying for support they may vitally need?

Similarly, with people who've been out of work in the long-term, there will undoubtedly be people who are happy to live on benefits (although there's scant evidence of the huge numbers of inter-generational welfare dependent families the right-wing press like to suggest exist) but many people who haven't worked for a long time struggle for skills and confidence and may not apply for jobs due to the effect on their mental health.  Many find, once they'vead their morale crushed by rejection from employers multiple times, they can't face doing it again.  I used to work with the long-term employed.  It's a problem everyone wants to see addressed but this whole idea that we're dealing with people who just can't be bothered to get jobs isn't true in a lot of cases.  Confidence building, skills training and practical help are far more useful than benefit sanctions that simply demoralise people further.

Of course nobody wants people to abuse the system and, of course people who abuse the system should be prosecuted, but there has to be a welfare system that protects those in genuine need and, if you focus your strategy on catching that 0.8% of abuse, the risk and reality is that the disabled and vulnerable get caught in the crossfire.  And is it really worth the deaths that have been linked to the benefits changes in order to better catch that 0.8% of abuse?  For me that's the point where the remedy become more deadly than the disease.

 

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Do you have one? "I don't think it is as simplistic as that".

Honest question - because that is probably the only way you would be qualified to make such a statement.

No my degree is Geology, but I do have a friend with a masters in economics in a government position.

LondonBristolian has done a grand job of explaining why your argument is flawed.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

5 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

The problem is, whilst you're not wrong, it's also not that simple.  Obviously nobody wants people to be cheating the system, and pretty much anyone would agree that anyone cheating the benefits system is, in effect, stealing from the state (and, by extension, from the taxpayers) and should be prosecuted.  The problem is how to fairly assess whether or not someone has a genuine claim.  Yes, one fraudulent claim is one fraudulent claim too many but, if  research suggests only 0.8 % of the overall welfare benefit is spent on fraudulent claims (which it does) then how big a sledgehammer do you use to crack that nut?

The whole reason disabled people are being targeted is to weed out those who are claiming the money but don't need to do so.  But how do you set the barrier for evidence in such a way that enables a disabled person such as myself (I receive DLA - Christ knows what'll happen when I apply for PIP in a year or so but am rather concerned about it) to be able to make a claim for support in a dignified, fair manner and ensure we receive a fair hearing and don't need to humiliate ourselves in providing overly personal evidence and fighting through layers of bureaucratic treacle without allowing the 0.8% of fraudulent claimants to slip through the net?  But, on the flipside, how do you ensure stringent checks are in place to stop people fraudulently claiming disability benefits without the result then being some people with genuine claims struggle to negotiate the system or are put off from applying for support they may vitally need?

Similarly, with people who've been out of work in the long-term, there will undoubtedly be people who are happy to live on benefits (although there's scant evidence of the huge numbers of inter-generational welfare dependent families the right-wing press like to suggest exist) but many people who haven't worked for a long time struggle for skills and confidence and may not apply for jobs due to the effect on their mental health.  Many find, once they'vead their morale crushed by rejection from employers multiple times, they can't face doing it again.  I used to work with the long-term employed.  It's a problem everyone wants to see addressed but this whole idea that we're dealing with people who just can't be bothered to get jobs isn't true in a lot of cases.  Confidence building, skills training and practical help are far more useful than benefit sanctions that simply demoralise people further.

Of course nobody wants people to abuse the system and, of course people who abuse the system should be prosecuted, but there has to be a welfare system that protects those in genuine need and, if you focus your strategy on catching that 0.8% of abuse, the risk and reality is that the disabled and vulnerable get caught in the crossfire.  And is it really worth the deaths that have been linked to the benefits changes in order to better catch that 0.8% of abuse?  For me that's the point where the remedy become more deadly than the disease.

The trouble is Colis makes shit up all of the time, accuses people of stuff that isn't true and then attaches labels to people who don't agree with him.

I agree with everything that you say reference the disabled and have consistently said so throughout this thread (even though Colis has tried to twist it), the use of the vile ATOS company by the cowardly IDS is a shame on our country, there is a way to deal with it in a fair, just and dignified way, sadly that something that has never been tried.

I am currently dealing with 3 different authorities over a similar issue to yours, I and former colleagues of mine have absolutely no issue we being re-evaluated from time to time because that is right and fair and legal. However all 3 authorities are deliberately ignoring the regulations that applied at the time of our problems, ignored every piece of case law upholding our position within those regulations, in some cases committed what we have been told by leading criminal barrister as 'serious fraud' in their dealings with us, they are also trying to get the law changed retrospectively which is totally unlawful within the constitution of the UK. So I understand the problems. Some Doctors are being employed by some authorities for up to £600 per review, with the express view from that authority too make savings at all costs and the GMC says these doctors should in these cases work on a doctor/patient basis, this is being ignored, GP's, specialists and psychiatrists are being ignored and worst of all although the law firmly states that the doctor has the final say that is also being ignored and authority heads are making the final decision and it's ruining lives.

However we have in Britain the unending problem that we know that there are people that abuse the system, we know that the NHS is overloaded by too many managers, we know that MP's are still fiddling their expenses, we know that there are far too many people of whom we know nothing of their antecedents wondering our streets and several other ongoing and worsening problems, none of these are recent problems, we are talking decades and yet despite the will of the public, the government of the day skirt around these issues and it ain't good enough.

it doesn't matter how long it takes, that is immaterial, new applicants can be fairly evaluated 'properly' and with dignity from now on and existing claimants can  re-evaluated across the board, i'm sorry but it's sometimes sticks out like a sore thumb some people who are maybe just benefiting just a little bit too much.

I have no problem with being re-evaluated as long as it's fair, just, legal and dignified, I like you have a lot to lose but that should include everybody.

[BCFC Jimmer]

29 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The trouble is Colis makes shit up all of the time, accuses people of stuff that isn't true and then attaches labels to people who don't agree with him.

 

Haha hilarious.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 hours ago, Collis1 said:

tHaha hilarious.

You accused me and others of blaming benefits cheats and immigrants for all of the ill's in UK society, I challenged you to back up this complete lie and you couldn't, you pretty much accused Screech of being a closet racist and then made a petulant ill informed attack on Aizoon bizarrely both of whom ostensibly share the same political leanings as you and you might have known that had you bothered to read other peoples posts fully instead seeing what you want to see, some people have got wise to you.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Socialism in a nutshell.

I have a friend, who claims to be a lifelong fully committed socialist, he works full time and is very well paid, he also used to work part time as a researcher for an MP, always banging on about corrupt tories and spends April to April, falsifying his accounts to escape paying the requisite amount of tax that he should and could quite easily pay.

 

[Red-Robbo]

5 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Socialism in a nutshell.

I have a friend, who claims to be a lifelong fully committed socialist, he works full time and is very well paid, he also used to work part time as a researcher for an MP, always banging on about corrupt tories and spends April to April, falsifying his accounts to escape paying the requisite amount of tax that he should and could quite easily pay.

 

So your conclusion, based on this one anecdote, is that all socialists are corrupt. 

[BCFC Jimmer]

14 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

You accused me and others of blaming benefits cheats and immigrants for all of the ill's in UK society, I challenged you to back up this complete lie and you couldn't, you pretty much accused Screech of being a closet racist and then made a petulant ill informed attack on Aizoon bizarrely both of whom ostensibly share the same political leanings as you and you might have known that had you bothered to read other peoples posts fully instead seeing what you want to see, some people have got wise to you.

 

And you and others have peddled a lot of misinformed rubbish and tried to pass it off as gospel. 

I have always stuck to my beliefs and never wavered.  If I have upset a couple of people along the way then that's fine.

[BCFC Jimmer]

14 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Socialism in a nutshell.

I have a friend, who claims to be a lifelong fully committed socialist, he works full time and is very well paid, he also used to work part time as a researcher for an MP, always banging on about corrupt tories and spends April to April, falsifying his accounts to escape paying the requisite amount of tax that he should and could quite easily pay.

 

And you accuse me of twisting things?  Oh dear.

Can you only be a socialist if you are really poor?