There needs to be a clear delineation between those unemployed people that have paid into the system and have led responsible lives, and those that have spent the boom years scrounging when there were plenty of jobs available for those that wanted them. I have no problem at all with the former recieving benefits.
There does need to be a line drawn between those two groups of people. Surely benefits were designed to be a short tem measure to support people who had lost their job while they tried hard to get another one? Those are the people who deserve support, not the ones who see dossing as a career choice.
There needs to be a clear delineation between those unemployed people that have paid into the system and have led responsible lives, and those that have spent the boom years scrounging when there were plenty of jobs available for those that wanted them. I have no problem at all with the former recieving benefits.
There does need to be a line drawn between those two groups of people. Surely benefits were designed to be a short tem measure to support people who had lost their job while they tried hard to get another one? Those are the people who deserve support, not the ones who see dossing as a career choice.
Totally agree, this is 100% true. Unfortunately, people also lump genuinely disabled with the 'career downouts', which is equally unfair.
If I was unemployed and needed to eat I would happily accept food vouchers, I don't care if people in the shop see that I am "poor and unemployed". So what? As if people are in Tesco are paying attention to what anyone else does anyway.
If they are an alternative to crisis loan then good, people who apply for the loan are those who mis-manage their benefits and are therefore unable to cover their expenses so they should be grateful we are giving them vouchers for food, which they don't even have to pay back unlike the loan.
I think it is a great idea Stops the poor from spending all their benefits on booze and smoking as most of them do. Nearly every day I walk through Manchester and even see people who sell the Big Issue stood there smoking. :eek: How are they supposed to afford this when they are poor?
What a ridiculous sweeping statement. Have you done ANY research into this. Are you basing this on ANYTHING other than what you see on the bus in the morning.
Food vouchers...because as we all know they work so well in America. Yes, cut the benefits completely and give them that 'heaven helps those who helps themselves' attitude. How has that panned out in America? Ghetto's, huge rich/poor divide, massive child poverty and one in three black people going to jail. But i s'pose that was their choice to be lazy criminals. :rolleyes:
coming soon to a city near you, the workhouse, BASTARDS,
keep pushing that's all I will say, do they seriously think people are just going to lie down and take this shit,...really?
there is trouble brewing,
Yeah, man. Nobody likes a revolution like an aging hippy.
I am sure we will see you at the top of the barricades, be sure to say hi to Wolfie for all of us.
Well shouldn't the gays be alright considering most of them can't go to be single mothers and claim benefits.
When I was at Pride yesterday that anti-Tory paranoia was laughable, I'd be more worried about those nutters at Socialist Workers Party who want to sent the country back to the dark ages. If they had any power there would be no pride for them to dispense their anti-tory propaganda at.
Well shouldn't the gays be alright considering most of them can't go to be single mothers and claim benefits.
When I was at Pride yesterday that anti-Tory paranoia was laughable, I'd be more worried about those nutters at Socialist Workers Party who want to sent the country back to the dark ages. If they had any power there would be no pride for them to dispense their anti-tory propaganda at.
Cameron was in support of Section 28 right up until 2005. While i don't think gays have much to worry about with the Tory old timer backbenchers given the social backlash that would occour, you can't change history. The Conservative party's record on homosexuals is extremely poor, both nationally and in Europe.
In other words, gays are pissed off because the Tories won't pander to them as Labour did. Gay people should be treated exactly the same as anyone else, no special concessions should be made.
Cameron was in support of Section 28 right up until 2005. While i don't think gays have much to worry about with the Tory old timer backbenchers given the social backlash that would occour, you can't change history. The Conservative party's record on homosexuals is extremely poor, both nationally and in Europe.
I'm not a Tory supporter but I don't see the point about harping on about what happened in the past, they aren't going to over turn any pro-gay legislation. Times have moved on and so have the Conservative party, unlike SWP who just come across as backward, paranoid and bitter.
In other words, gays are pissed off because the Tories won't pander to them as Labour did. Gay people should be treated exactly the same as anyone else, no special concessions should be made.
Section 28 was a special concession, wasn't it. Straight people didn't have that.
In other words, gays are pissed off because the Tories won't pander to them as Labour did. Gay people should be treated exactly the same as anyone else, no special concessions should be made.
Equality is all that is being asked for. Since we don't yet have equality - you haven't got a leg to stand on. As it happens, it seems that the Tories "might", just "might" mind you, be more progresssive now they are in this coalition on Gay rights that thought.
But we will all, even you Snakes, have to wait and see.
Now this thread is seriously off topic. Back to vouchers.
It's a seriously crap idea. This Christian group only handed out meals to 41,000 people in the last year. Obviously this group won't be doing this work for free, it will be expecting hand-outs from the Government, in which case it will have to get its own equal opportunities policies in order (they aren't in order at the moment).
No business, private, charitable, or otherwise, can do any work for the tax-payer without meeting required standards on equality.
It's not surprising that IDS and Philippa Stroud are putting this forward as they are both Christians and evangelical about all welfare being controlled by Christian charities. Whilst Christian charity (not charities) could be good, in a secular state this sort of Church-based handout may not be appropriate.
In other words, gays are pissed off because the Tories won't pander to them as Labour did. Gay people should be treated exactly the same as anyone else, no special concessions should be made.
That is laughable. Apart from not even relating to my post (removing section 28 and bringing in civil partnerships IS treating them equally), the Tory party WERE pandering to them during the campaign. God Snakes, you spent your entire time on here crapping on poor people and slagging off people on benefits. Higher depression rates, alcohol rates, divorce rates, poverty rates. Yet you harbour such a hatred that you spend almost every day complaining about them. I just don't get it.
Well the Tories were marching in the Pride parade along with the other political parties, without carrying all the insulting signs that Labour/SWP were carrying. Sure they weren't as fun as people from the bar in Milton Keynes or the BME gays who were on that bus shaking their ass at people but then again who was.
I think the governement should be the one to hand out food vouchers considering they already do it for Milk Tokens/Healthy Eating vouchers. Are people so ashamed that they are rejecting these vouchers and refusing to use them. I doubt it.
In what do gays not have equality at the moment?
Marriage but Civil Partnership are fairly close to marriage in terms of legal rights.
Partnerships - at present no religious ceremony can take place.
In Hate Crime. You will be sentenced more severely if you shout "****", "queer", "bumboy" at me before you kick my head in - but you do need to assult me -- AFAIK. If you racially abuse someone from an ethnic group, the police have the power to bring charges against you even if nobody brings a complaint.
There is still a lot of homophobic bullying in schools - which has led to violence against teenagers, including suicides. Gay teens are 4x more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual counterparts. This is due to stimga / homophobia / bullying, etc.
The Equality Act hasn't yet been placed in to law. Was due Oct 2010, might now be Oct 2011. There are various issues which are tackled there.
Various issues in law to do with transgender individuals - for example, removing 'transgender' from a list of recognised mental illnesses. Remember that 50 years ago homosexual were considered to be mentally ill.
Attitudes in society are changed by laws, but in many other ways also. You can't just change the law and suddenly the way people think changes too. But it's a start. The government, by either ignoring, or enforcing laws, sends out a message. Homophobic hate crime needs to have the same focus and attention that has made racism completely unacceptable.
We've got a long way to go. In your case, I'd say it might take a while. Hope not tho.
The vouchers aren't a subsitute to monetary benefits.
So all those who saw an opportunity to be either outraged or pleased about the unemployed being restricted in how they spent their benefits will have to wait for another article to misinterpret.
Partnerships - at present no religious ceremony can take place.
In Hate Crime. You will be sentenced more severely if you shout "****", "queer", "bumboy" at me before you kick my head in - but you do need to assult me -- AFAIK. If you racially abuse someone from an ethnic group, the police have the power to bring charges against you even if nobody brings a complaint.
There is still a lot of homophobic bullying in schools - which has led to violence against teenagers, including suicides. Gay teens are 4x more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual counterparts. This is due to stimga / homophobia / bullying, etc.
The Equality Act hasn't yet been placed in to law. Was due Oct 2010, might now be Oct 2011. There are various issues which are tackled there.
Various issues in law to do with transgender individuals - for example, removing 'transgender' from a list of recognised mental illnesses. Remember that 50 years ago homosexual were considered to be mentally ill.
Attitudes in society are changed by laws, but in many other ways also. You can't just change the law and suddenly the way people think changes too. But it's a start. The government, by either ignoring, or enforcing laws, sends out a message. Homophobic hate crime needs to have the same focus and attention that has made racism completely unacceptable.
We've got a long way to go. In your case, I'd say it might take a while. Hope not tho.
I disagree, with the religious cermony. Its untrue(the Quakers have the right to perform religious cermonies) and it should be down to the religion if they want to perform the cermony. They can also refuse to marry particularl straight couples if they want.
As for hate crimes, far too close to telling people how to think. If people are assulting people that should be enough to give them a long sentence without wondering if they are the Cheryl Cole of the gay world.
Great idea, give them money and they buy **** and booze and drugs, give them vouchers and at least their children will eat.
No. Give them vouchers and they'll sell them on to someone and get cash (less a handling fee).
Vouchers don't work. They don't even work properly for free-school meals. There was a report showing this -- but I'm not going to dig it out unless you absolutely insist !! The report said that, I think, about 25% didn't use the vouchers because they felt a stima in using them.
I thought this new coalition was big on 'Personal Responsibility' -- so what business is it of the government to say what they spend it on. Booze, ****, or lasana.
In this case, and if you follow up to the web site of this charity, you would see that the vouchers they accept are for food parcels and you probably don't get too much choice about what's in there. Vegetarians will get tins of meat included, and people who don't like rice/pasta will get it.
It's a seriously silly idea, and one which the unemployed will not stand for. It's the sort of things which leads to marches .... and riots.
No. Give them vouchers and they'll sell them on to someone and get cash (less a handling fee).
Vouchers don't work. They don't even work properly for free-school meals. There was a report showing this -- but I'm not going to dig it out unless you absolutely insist !! The report said that, I think, about 25% didn't use the vouchers because they felt a stima in using them.
I thought this new coalition was big on 'Personal Responsibility' -- so what business is it of the government to say what they spend it on. Booze, ****, or lasana.
In this case, and if you follow up to the web site of this charity, you would see that the vouchers they accept are for food parcels and you probably don't get too much choice about what's in there. Vegetarians will get tins of meat included, and people who don't like rice/pasta will get it.
It's a seriously silly idea, and one which the unemployed will not stand for. It's the sort of things which leads to marches .... and riots.
Guess you didn't read the article either. They're simply thinking of allowing Job Centre staff to direct people in CRISIS to charities who would accept food vouchers, a practice which Labour stopped as apparently they thought it reflected badly on the system.
No. Give them vouchers and they'll sell them on to someone and get cash (less a handling fee).
Vouchers don't work. They don't even work properly for free-school meals. There was a report showing this -- but I'm not going to dig it out unless you absolutely insist !! The report said that, I think, about 25% didn't use the vouchers because they felt a stima in using them.
I thought this new coalition was big on 'Personal Responsibility' -- so what business is it of the government to say what they spend it on. Booze, ****, or lasana.
In this case, and if you follow up to the web site of this charity, you would see that the vouchers they accept are for food parcels and you probably don't get too much choice about what's in there. Vegetarians will get tins of meat included, and people who don't like rice/pasta will get it.
It's a seriously silly idea, and one which the unemployed will not stand for. It's the sort of things which leads to marches .... and riots.
I doubt alot of the people who are shifting on their vouchers for cash will be arsed protesting. It will probably be bleeding heart liberals and crazy attention seekers like the SWP who will be protesting on their behalf while they are down at the corner shop trying to trade their vouchers for booze.
No. Give them vouchers and they'll sell them on to someone and get cash (less a handling fee).
Vouchers don't work. They don't even work properly for free-school meals. There was a report showing this -- but I'm not going to dig it out unless you absolutely insist !! The report said that, I think, about 25% didn't use the vouchers because they felt a stima in using them.
I thought this new coalition was big on 'Personal Responsibility' -- so what business is it of the government to say what they spend it on. Booze, ****, or lasana.
In this case, and if you follow up to the web site of this charity, you would see that the vouchers they accept are for food parcels and you probably don't get too much choice about what's in there. Vegetarians will get tins of meat included, and people who don't like rice/pasta will get it.
It's a seriously silly idea, and one which the unemployed will not stand for. It's the sort of things which leads to marches .... and riots.
Well if they are able they will just have to go out and get a job wont they.
Reading threads like this really highlights why newspapers go for the shocking headlines with the not very shocking facts buried in the articles. Most people never get to the facts.
I disagree, with the religious cermony. Its untrue(the Quakers have the right to perform religious cermonies) and it should be down to the religion if they want to perform the cermony. They can also refuse to marry particularl straight couples if they want.
It's in the Equalities Act - which isn't yet passed. IF a religious group want to offer blessings, they can, but they don't have to. It was the case of the Quakers asking to be allowed to do this that prompted the change. The Act is passed, but not yet enacted. It could be Oct 2011 before it comes in to law. Nobody, but nobody is forcing religious groups to do anything at all - just allowing them to do so if they want. As you say, they can already refuse heterosexuals on, for example, the fact one or both are divorced.
As for hate crimes, far too close to telling people how to think. If people are assulting people that should be enough to give them a long sentence without wondering if they are the Cheryl Cole of the gay world.
You can tell people how to think - you can only offer up laws which point the way. Education is the key - but I don't mean just schools. The fact that gay people are seen all over the place, that you can come out at work if you feel ok about it (without getting the sack), and be more open generally, shows people that there are gay people in society. We've always been here, but when I started work you would have never said you were gay or chances are you could have been sacked and had no defence against it.
The distinction on hate crime currently is that whilst you don't have to assult someone who is a different race to be charged, you will have to actually assult a gay person before the police can charge you. That's wrong.
Guess you didn't read the article either. They're simply thinking of allowing Job Centre staff to direct people in CRISIS to charities who would accept food vouchers, a practice which Labour stopped as apparently they thought it reflected badly on the system.
Benefits will still be money!
I did read the article, but thanks for caring enough to correct me. I hear what you're saying. Some people would see this as the thin end of the wedge, and eventually benefits would be paid this way.
Besides, so many people are convinced that the Tories are going to cut people off benefits and housing benefit willy nilly, that people might be rightly concerned that they could end up being in CRISIS.
Unfortunately, the Tories are unlikely to ever shake off their "nasty party" image, even with the help of the LibDems. They were brutal and uncaring, some might well say evil, during the 80s, and they made a lot of people to suffer.
You might (and I know you will) disagree with me, or try to justify it somehow, but it is the perception of the Tories that were in power for 18 years that has got everyone seeing bogeymen in every single article which is released.
If the Tories don't want to be seen as nasty - then they should stop being nasty. I am still willing to give them a chance, unfortunately every time they open their mouth something new and nasty comes out. I want to be convinced they have changed, but time and again I'm let down.
Comments
There does need to be a line drawn between those two groups of people. Surely benefits were designed to be a short tem measure to support people who had lost their job while they tried hard to get another one? Those are the people who deserve support, not the ones who see dossing as a career choice.
Totally agree, this is 100% true. Unfortunately, people also lump genuinely disabled with the 'career downouts', which is equally unfair.
If they are an alternative to crisis loan then good, people who apply for the loan are those who mis-manage their benefits and are therefore unable to cover their expenses so they should be grateful we are giving them vouchers for food, which they don't even have to pay back unlike the loan.
What a ridiculous sweeping statement. Have you done ANY research into this. Are you basing this on ANYTHING other than what you see on the bus in the morning.
Food vouchers...because as we all know they work so well in America. Yes, cut the benefits completely and give them that 'heaven helps those who helps themselves' attitude. How has that panned out in America? Ghetto's, huge rich/poor divide, massive child poverty and one in three black people going to jail. But i s'pose that was their choice to be lazy criminals. :rolleyes:
Hear Hear....
You're fantastic material for comedians, right up there with "its health and safety gone mad!" types
Yeah, man. Nobody likes a revolution like an aging hippy.
I am sure we will see you at the top of the barricades, be sure to say hi to Wolfie for all of us.
When I was at Pride yesterday that anti-Tory paranoia was laughable, I'd be more worried about those nutters at Socialist Workers Party who want to sent the country back to the dark ages. If they had any power there would be no pride for them to dispense their anti-tory propaganda at.
Cameron was in support of Section 28 right up until 2005. While i don't think gays have much to worry about with the Tory old timer backbenchers given the social backlash that would occour, you can't change history. The Conservative party's record on homosexuals is extremely poor, both nationally and in Europe.
I'm not a Tory supporter but I don't see the point about harping on about what happened in the past, they aren't going to over turn any pro-gay legislation. Times have moved on and so have the Conservative party, unlike SWP who just come across as backward, paranoid and bitter.
Section 28 was a special concession, wasn't it. Straight people didn't have that.
Equality is all that is being asked for. Since we don't yet have equality - you haven't got a leg to stand on. As it happens, it seems that the Tories "might", just "might" mind you, be more progresssive now they are in this coalition on Gay rights that thought.
But we will all, even you Snakes, have to wait and see.
Now this thread is seriously off topic. Back to vouchers.
It's a seriously crap idea. This Christian group only handed out meals to 41,000 people in the last year. Obviously this group won't be doing this work for free, it will be expecting hand-outs from the Government, in which case it will have to get its own equal opportunities policies in order (they aren't in order at the moment).
No business, private, charitable, or otherwise, can do any work for the tax-payer without meeting required standards on equality.
It's not surprising that IDS and Philippa Stroud are putting this forward as they are both Christians and evangelical about all welfare being controlled by Christian charities. Whilst Christian charity (not charities) could be good, in a secular state this sort of Church-based handout may not be appropriate.
That is laughable. Apart from not even relating to my post (removing section 28 and bringing in civil partnerships IS treating them equally), the Tory party WERE pandering to them during the campaign. God Snakes, you spent your entire time on here crapping on poor people and slagging off people on benefits. Higher depression rates, alcohol rates, divorce rates, poverty rates. Yet you harbour such a hatred that you spend almost every day complaining about them. I just don't get it.
I think the governement should be the one to hand out food vouchers considering they already do it for Milk Tokens/Healthy Eating vouchers. Are people so ashamed that they are rejecting these vouchers and refusing to use them. I doubt it.
Marriage but Civil Partnership are fairly close to marriage in terms of legal rights.
Partnerships - at present no religious ceremony can take place.
In Hate Crime. You will be sentenced more severely if you shout "****", "queer", "bumboy" at me before you kick my head in - but you do need to assult me -- AFAIK. If you racially abuse someone from an ethnic group, the police have the power to bring charges against you even if nobody brings a complaint.
There is still a lot of homophobic bullying in schools - which has led to violence against teenagers, including suicides. Gay teens are 4x more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual counterparts. This is due to stimga / homophobia / bullying, etc.
The Equality Act hasn't yet been placed in to law. Was due Oct 2010, might now be Oct 2011. There are various issues which are tackled there.
Various issues in law to do with transgender individuals - for example, removing 'transgender' from a list of recognised mental illnesses. Remember that 50 years ago homosexual were considered to be mentally ill.
Attitudes in society are changed by laws, but in many other ways also. You can't just change the law and suddenly the way people think changes too. But it's a start. The government, by either ignoring, or enforcing laws, sends out a message. Homophobic hate crime needs to have the same focus and attention that has made racism completely unacceptable.
We've got a long way to go. In your case, I'd say it might take a while. Hope not tho.
So all those who saw an opportunity to be either outraged or pleased about the unemployed being restricted in how they spent their benefits will have to wait for another article to misinterpret.
I disagree, with the religious cermony. Its untrue(the Quakers have the right to perform religious cermonies) and it should be down to the religion if they want to perform the cermony. They can also refuse to marry particularl straight couples if they want.
As for hate crimes, far too close to telling people how to think. If people are assulting people that should be enough to give them a long sentence without wondering if they are the Cheryl Cole of the gay world.
No. Give them vouchers and they'll sell them on to someone and get cash (less a handling fee).
Vouchers don't work. They don't even work properly for free-school meals. There was a report showing this -- but I'm not going to dig it out unless you absolutely insist !! The report said that, I think, about 25% didn't use the vouchers because they felt a stima in using them.
I thought this new coalition was big on 'Personal Responsibility' -- so what business is it of the government to say what they spend it on. Booze, ****, or lasana.
In this case, and if you follow up to the web site of this charity, you would see that the vouchers they accept are for food parcels and you probably don't get too much choice about what's in there. Vegetarians will get tins of meat included, and people who don't like rice/pasta will get it.
It's a seriously silly idea, and one which the unemployed will not stand for. It's the sort of things which leads to marches .... and riots.
Guess you didn't read the article either. They're simply thinking of allowing Job Centre staff to direct people in CRISIS to charities who would accept food vouchers, a practice which Labour stopped as apparently they thought it reflected badly on the system.
Benefits will still be money!
I doubt alot of the people who are shifting on their vouchers for cash will be arsed protesting. It will probably be bleeding heart liberals and crazy attention seekers like the SWP who will be protesting on their behalf while they are down at the corner shop trying to trade their vouchers for booze.
The distinction on hate crime currently is that whilst you don't have to assult someone who is a different race to be charged, you will have to actually assult a gay person before the police can charge you. That's wrong.
I did read the article, but thanks for caring enough to correct me. I hear what you're saying. Some people would see this as the thin end of the wedge, and eventually benefits would be paid this way.
Besides, so many people are convinced that the Tories are going to cut people off benefits and housing benefit willy nilly, that people might be rightly concerned that they could end up being in CRISIS.
Unfortunately, the Tories are unlikely to ever shake off their "nasty party" image, even with the help of the LibDems. They were brutal and uncaring, some might well say evil, during the 80s, and they made a lot of people to suffer.
You might (and I know you will) disagree with me, or try to justify it somehow, but it is the perception of the Tories that were in power for 18 years that has got everyone seeing bogeymen in every single article which is released.
If the Tories don't want to be seen as nasty - then they should stop being nasty. I am still willing to give them a chance, unfortunately every time they open their mouth something new and nasty comes out. I want to be convinced they have changed, but time and again I'm let down.