My husband paid thousands, over the years, to make the flat habitable, the kitchen was the only room we hadn't got round to, so it was great to get it done. Sad thing is, he didn't get to live to see it.
Awww sorry to hear that Radiomaniac
That's the thing some automatically think getting a council property means that some don't put their heart and soul into making it a home - as though being on benefit means you get anything and everything you want.
I dont think it should be a law but morally if someone knows they have a low income they shouldnt take on a pet
Its unfair to the animal if it gets sick or hasnt been neutered/spayed and there is no insurance
You are aware that the Dogs Trust provide discounted neutering of dogs and the PDSA offer healthcare (with voluntary donation) for pets whose owners are on certain benefits?
That's the thing some automatically think getting a council property means that some don't put their heart and soul into making it a home - as though being on benefit means you get anything and everything you want.
I've never understood the outrage on big TV's etc. If someone loses their job are they supposed to throw their 46 inch LCD in a skip and buy a 14 inch CRT? Or drop their smartphone down a drain and get themselves a Nokia 3310?
I mean the ones who use their benefit money to buy this stuff, if they've become unemployed and had the stuff previously then fine.
I know a girl on Facebook who had a kid at 17 and doesn't work. Yet she spends all her money on designer clothes and stuff then bitches that she doesn't have enough for Trixie-Maiis school trip.
I'm astounded! I take it this comment is serious? Does this border on Fascism? What do you propose is done with the inestimable number of pets you take from anyone unfortunate enough to be unemployed. Are you volunteering your services or cash to the already overstretched and underfunded animal rescue organisations? Will you also deal with the human beings', you wish to punish, pain and grief? If you lose your job will you be happy to have your pets removed? Sorry this is unbelievable. :o:o
Well, since Britain appears to be sleepwalking into being a fascist state, it seems quite appropriate.
I can see where the OP is coming from. I often think similar when I see people who claim to be on benefits but have massive TVs and the latest smartphones but at the end of the day, if they genuinely need the benefits or they've have to turn to them inbetween employment, I wouldn't begrudge them having or keeping a pet.
They can spend their benefits on whatever they please.
I've never understood the outrage about personal belongings, even huge TV screens.
Contrary to what the right wing press seems to bang on about by far the vast majority of say JSA claimants aren't the very long term unemployed, most are on JSA for a few months, a year or thereabouts not five, ten or twenty years.
There are many reasons someone may have a big TV and be claiming JSA.
Most common I would think is that it was bought when they were employed.
It may have been a gift (as mine was).
They may have used whatever savings they had (JSA claimants are allowed some savings of around £6000 before their benefits are affected).
They may have put away a fiver a week from their JSA for a couple of years into a savings account.
It's common for someone who becomes unemployed to get a tax rebate, they might have bought it with that rebate.
They may have bought it second hand (with new 32 or 42 inch TVs now costing around £300 I have seen older second hand sets going for as little as £100 on Ebay).
Or they could have done the daft thing and be buying it weekly from Brighthouse. If they are daft enough to pay three times the TVs value, while cutting back on other things to afford it, more fool them.
I mean the ones who use their benefit money to buy this stuff, if they've become unemployed and had the stuff previously then fine.
I know a girl on Facebook who had a kid at 17 and doesn't work. Yet she spends all her money on designer clothes and stuff then bitches that she doesn't have enough for Trixie-Maiis school trip.
Then we go down the route of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) as we have in the USA and Australia, with all the stigma, bureaucracy costs, supermarket auditing with its additional costs in money and time as well as increase in criminal activity that comes with it.
I mean the ones who use their benefit money to buy this stuff, if they've become unemployed and had the stuff previously then fine.
I know a girl on Facebook who had a kid at 17 and doesn't work. Yet she spends all her money on designer clothes and stuff then bitches that she doesn't have enough for Trixie-Maiis school trip.
Did you know that 25 million people in the uk claim one or more benefits. I never understand why people only seem to think of the unemployed when the word benefit is used.
I suspect some of the people who complain about benefit claimants owning anything are the same people who think nothing of claiming Tax Credits, Child Benefit, Housing Benefit and other forms of welfare which can be claimed by working people. The largest benefactors of the welfare budget are pensioners and working people, unemployed and disabled people make up a drop in the ocean compared to those two groups.
Have to keep reminding myself that selfish and reckless bankers caused the 2008 financial crisis, not recipients of welfare.
I think people should be banned from trying to dictate what those on benefits should do, and also be banned from talking about benefit claimants as though they are lesser human beings.
I think people should be banned from trying to dictate what those on benefits should do, and also be banned from talking about benefit claimants as though they are lesser human beings.
I've never understood the outrage about personal belongings, even huge TV screens.
Contrary to what the right wing press seems to bang on about by far the vast majority of say JSA claimants aren't the very long term unemployed, most are on JSA for a few months, a year or thereabouts not five, ten or twenty years.
There are many reasons someone may have a big TV and be claiming JSA.
Most common I would think is that it was bought when they were employed.
It may have been a gift (as mine was).
They may have used whatever savings they had (JSA claimants are allowed some savings of around £6000 before their benefits are affected).
They may have put away a fiver a week from their JSA for a couple of years into a savings account.
It's common for someone who becomes unemployed to get a tax rebate, they might have bought it with that rebate.
They may have bought it second hand (with new 32 or 42 inch TVs now costing around £300 I have seen older second hand sets going for as little as £100 on Ebay).
Or they could have done the daft thing and be buying it weekly from Brighthouse. If they are daft enough to pay three times the TVs value, while cutting back on other things to afford it, more fool them.
I actually have no issue with JSA, many friends have been on it temporarily since leaving University. I understand there's different circumstances but I'm on about the particular groups who blow all their money on nice things and then moan that they don't get enough for their kids, for food etc.
Or like the people on Benefits Street (I know a lot of it is manipulated) the sorts that steal, have no desire to get off benefits and spend it all on luxuries. I know 95% aren't like that but the few that are need to be cracked down upon.
Then we go down the route of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) as we have in the USA and Australia, with all the stigma, bureaucracy costs, supermarket auditing with its additional costs in money and time as well as increase in criminal activity that comes with it.
I don't think that's a great idea either but I do think the benefits system needs a massive change.
Did you know that 25 million people in the uk claim one or more benefits. I never understand why people only seem to think of the unemployed when the word benefit is used.
I was using someone being made unemployed as an example. I'm aware there are others and not all benefits claimants are the unemployed.
Isn't being hard-up and getting a regular metaphorical kick in the teeth by a bunch of morally bankrupt pontificators enough?
You want their pets taken away too?
Jeesh
Oh in other similar threads in the past we've had the following suggestions from people who seem to have an inherent dislike of the welfare state:
Bringing back the Workhouse in a modern version. Hostels built in industrial estates and areas, where the unemployed are barracked and made to work for the various companies based in the industrial estate, in exchange for food and a bed to sleep.
Forced adoption of the children of parents who are unemployed, or become unemployed.
Forced sterilisation of unemployed women of child bearing age.
All benefit paid onto a payment card rather than into a bank account, and that payment card only able to be used for authorised purchases in authorised shops.
A complete end to any and all state benefits, if someone cannot work then tough it's their own fault and they should be left to fend for themselves.
Unemployed people should be made to sell all of their valuable possessions before they are entitled to any benefits.
The unemployed should wash their clothes in local rivers and shouldn't have washing machines, they're a luxury.
The unemployed don't need cookers, they can cook in their gardens on a fire or camping stove.
Yes, those suggestions have been made by a few people in similar threads in recent months. Some people really do think like that.
I suspect some of the people who complain about benefit claimants owning anything are the same people who think nothing of claiming Tax Credits, Child Benefit, Housing Benefit and other forms of welfare which can be claimed by working people. The largest benefactors of the welfare budget are pensioners and working people, unemployed and disabled people make up a drop in the ocean compared to those two groups.
Have to keep reminding myself that selfish and reckless bankers caused the 2008 financial crisis, not recipients of welfare.
The right-wing media are doing a stellar job, stirring-up a shit-storm of loathing and pitiless attitudes towards benefits claimants.
Quelle surprise, yet another poor attempt of having a pop at those unfortunate enough to be in receipt of benefits. Do you not have anything better to do with your life?
Well, she does hark on about how social housing tenants 'have it easy'
BIB: approx £3 per week - what would you spend it on if you didn't have a cat? Would that make a big improvement in your life if you had that £3 in your pocket instead?
not at £150 a year, not much difference. I don't have a sky subscription tho - and only a cheap monthly smart phone, so that more than balances out I guess.
Comments
So what do you suggest people do, who have had a dog, say, for 7 years since a pup, and then get made redundant?
And dead tramps too!
how many pairs ov shoes would you get from just one?
Awww sorry to hear that Radiomaniac
That's the thing some automatically think getting a council property means that some don't put their heart and soul into making it a home - as though being on benefit means you get anything and everything you want.
https://www.pdsa.org.uk/pdsa-vet-care/eligibility
http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/az/s/subsidisedneutering/#.U1VxTHVdXgg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/ethicalman/2009/11/time_to_eat_the_pets.html
Just like humans pets have an environmental foot(paw)print.
Thank you.
Yes, heart, soul and money too!
I mean the ones who use their benefit money to buy this stuff, if they've become unemployed and had the stuff previously then fine.
I know a girl on Facebook who had a kid at 17 and doesn't work. Yet she spends all her money on designer clothes and stuff then bitches that she doesn't have enough for Trixie-Maiis school trip.
Well, since Britain appears to be sleepwalking into being a fascist state, it seems quite appropriate.
I've never understood the outrage about personal belongings, even huge TV screens.
Contrary to what the right wing press seems to bang on about by far the vast majority of say JSA claimants aren't the very long term unemployed, most are on JSA for a few months, a year or thereabouts not five, ten or twenty years.
There are many reasons someone may have a big TV and be claiming JSA.
Most common I would think is that it was bought when they were employed.
It may have been a gift (as mine was).
They may have used whatever savings they had (JSA claimants are allowed some savings of around £6000 before their benefits are affected).
They may have put away a fiver a week from their JSA for a couple of years into a savings account.
It's common for someone who becomes unemployed to get a tax rebate, they might have bought it with that rebate.
They may have bought it second hand (with new 32 or 42 inch TVs now costing around £300 I have seen older second hand sets going for as little as £100 on Ebay).
Or they could have done the daft thing and be buying it weekly from Brighthouse. If they are daft enough to pay three times the TVs value, while cutting back on other things to afford it, more fool them.
Eat it.
Well, it's better than going to a food bank given that everyone who visits a food bank is a scammer apparently.
Isn't being hard-up and getting a regular metaphorical kick in the teeth by a bunch of morally bankrupt pontificators enough?
You want their pets taken away too?
Jeesh
I'm just very sad that anyone can think this way!
UKIP with their divisive, nationalist and fearful billboard they released today becomes more and more like Norsefire.
Did you know that 25 million people in the uk claim one or more benefits. I never understand why people only seem to think of the unemployed when the word benefit is used.
Have to keep reminding myself that selfish and reckless bankers caused the 2008 financial crisis, not recipients of welfare.
Thanks for the link, have bookmarked it.
DS would probably grind to a halt
I actually have no issue with JSA, many friends have been on it temporarily since leaving University. I understand there's different circumstances but I'm on about the particular groups who blow all their money on nice things and then moan that they don't get enough for their kids, for food etc.
Or like the people on Benefits Street (I know a lot of it is manipulated) the sorts that steal, have no desire to get off benefits and spend it all on luxuries. I know 95% aren't like that but the few that are need to be cracked down upon.
I don't think that's a great idea either but I do think the benefits system needs a massive change.
I was using someone being made unemployed as an example. I'm aware there are others and not all benefits claimants are the unemployed.
Oh in other similar threads in the past we've had the following suggestions from people who seem to have an inherent dislike of the welfare state:
Bringing back the Workhouse in a modern version. Hostels built in industrial estates and areas, where the unemployed are barracked and made to work for the various companies based in the industrial estate, in exchange for food and a bed to sleep.
Forced adoption of the children of parents who are unemployed, or become unemployed.
Forced sterilisation of unemployed women of child bearing age.
All benefit paid onto a payment card rather than into a bank account, and that payment card only able to be used for authorised purchases in authorised shops.
A complete end to any and all state benefits, if someone cannot work then tough it's their own fault and they should be left to fend for themselves.
Unemployed people should be made to sell all of their valuable possessions before they are entitled to any benefits.
The unemployed should wash their clothes in local rivers and shouldn't have washing machines, they're a luxury.
The unemployed don't need cookers, they can cook in their gardens on a fire or camping stove.
Yes, those suggestions have been made by a few people in similar threads in recent months. Some people really do think like that.
'But for the Grace of God' and all that.....
Well, she does hark on about how social housing tenants 'have it easy'
not at £150 a year, not much difference. I don't have a sky subscription tho - and only a cheap monthly smart phone, so that more than balances out I guess.