The couple appeared to me to be quite comfortable living on £500 a week and thus had no reason to change.
Now, yes.
But they should have been helped so they didn't get that way in the first place.
It will take a lot more work to reverse things now. Even if their benefits were withdrawn under the guise of caring about them. But lets face it most people only care about the idea of paying less tax rather than helping these people.
The couple appeared to me to be quite comfortable living on £500 a week and thus had no reason to change.
Considering this couple have had probably little or no education and probably have few or no qualifications, they really are more 'quids in' on benefits than in work - I doubt they could get a job paying that sort of money
Considering this couple have had probably little or no education and probably have few or no qualifications, they really are more 'quids in' on benefits than in work - I doubt they could get a job paying that sort of money
Again not their fault. Blame low wages, rather than high benefits (which they are not).
WHy do they keep cutting the money for people who are actually ill and disabled for no fault of their own but continue to give it to people like this who have bought on their own conditions? and what about people with cancer being found fit for work? what is wrong with this country
WHy do they keep cutting the money for people who are actually ill and disabled for no fault of their own but continue to give it to people like this who have bought on their own conditions? and what about people with cancer being found fit for work? what is wrong with this country
They keep cutting the money because people keep moaning about people like the ones on this programme.
The couple appeared to me to be quite comfortable living on £500 a week and thus had no reason to change.
These type of programmes always give a headline figure like this. This figure includes Housing Benefit. The Government has allowed landlords to increase rents to ridiculous levels and this is the main reason that the Housing Benefit bill has spiralled out of control.
You can bet that about half of the £500 will be going to a private landlord; benefit claimants don't personally receive the figures bandied about!
Another benefit bashing programme, I'm all for good documentaries looking at life on benefits, I even mostly enjoyed "Benefit Street" but this has to be the most blatant yet of the variety of programme that says "look at them on benefits, sub human scum"
There's one logic when it comes to benefits, money & employment that I have never been able to get my head round since being a small child and first realizing about how our society worked, what my dad did every day and how we were able to stay in the house.
Although you will automatically go to school and can choose college and university, when you enter adulthood you are not guaranteed any form of work therefore you are not guaranteed any form of money therefore you are not guaranteed a place in society at all. Benefits though provide some answer to that although they are thanks to the increasingly right wing society and its government becoming more conditional over time,
I think every one of us deserves to have some money no matter what our position is, we should all be allowed our place, and that means money to eat food, have water, gas, electricity and have somewhere to live. The best way to give everybody that would be to adopt the citizens income or the universal wage, as it is known, which is why I support that. This would give a minimum income amount to everyone, you might get say £100 a week but you would be able to work to earn money etc on top of that, one problem with the benefits system as it is now is that to try and earn some extra money or just simply get a better income through employment or starting a business, you put your whole existence on the line since benefits would cut off and if it were to go wrong you would be form filling again and you might not get the amount you need again next time, that is my situation certainly.
It is particularly THIS that we need to change to have a truly civilised and highly advanced society
"Although you will automatically go to school and can choose college and university, when you enter adulthood you are not guaranteed any form of work therefore you are not guaranteed any form of money therefore you are not guaranteed a place in society at all. So you can't have a house, food, water, anything fun, whatever" -
That's a bollocks system which I would never support, Aah but there's benefits thank god, except for everyone trying to hack away at the vital safety net we ALL need.
Benefits are one of the most civilized things we have EVER come up with, without them we go to back to a much more highly conditional society which would have its much more extreme have nots and those that are able to somehow find a job and get a bit of money, and of course employers knowing that people risk having nothing if they are not subject to their conditions can make conditions worse or poor, we are seeing that now of course, zero hour contracts, many positions just paying minimum wage or barely above and working all hours and having no life etc etc..
These type of programmes always give a headline figure like this. This figure includes Housing Benefit. The Government has allowed landlords to increase rents to ridiculous levels and this is the main reason that the Housing Benefit bill has spiralled out of control.
You can bet that about half of the £500 will be going to a private landlord.
People always give out this excuse seemingly forgetting that those of us who work also have a big chunk of our money going out to landlords/mortgage.
People always give out this excuse seemingly forgetting that those of us who work also have a big chunk of our money going out to landlords/mortgage.
Though I do agree with your points on rents
I think it does merit a mention though, often when these shows say how much the participants get every month, there are always some whose imagination gets the better of them and believe that it's all pocket money being spent on takeaways every night, beer, ****, etc. Of course people who work have the same expenses as those on benefits (rent, gas, electric, etc.). I have never once thought after watching these programs that they have an enviable life though. Exactly the opposite.
There are probably a few gov't officials who like the idea that people are outraged and people like Stephen should have his benefits reduced, but why are we thinking that the best place to make cuts is to those who can least afford it? Should we not instead be cutting the fat off the top first?
You can bet that about half of the £500 will be going to a private landlord; benefit claimants don't personally receive the figures bandied about!
There are people in quite decent jobs earning £500 a week who have to pay tax, never mind rent, on the same money. I don't feel sorry for them at all.
As I said earlier, I doubt this man could get anything more than a minimum wage job and end up worse off financially, so where is the incentive in that to get fit enough to work?
They are a classic case of benefits being a lifestyle choice, rather than a temporary help.
There are people in quite decent jobs earning £500 a week who have to pay tax, never mind rent, on the same money. I don't feel sorry for them at all.
As I said earlier, I doubt this man could get anything more than a minimum wage job and end up worse off financially, so where is the incentive in that to get fit enough to work?
They are a classic case of benefits being a lifestyle choice, rather than a temporary help.
Surely if it was a 'lifestyle choice' they wouldn't have allowed themselves to get fat just so they didn't have to work?
Do you think someone would chop off their own legs just so they didn't have to work? Would that be a 'lifestyle choice'?
They are ill, they have self harmed by over eating rather than looking after them selves.
No healthy person would want to destroy their lives and health just so that they didn't have to work.
That is EXACTLY what they have done though, whether deliberately or not.
Why do you keep saying it is not their fault - and continue looking for someone else to blame for the state they are in?
They have overeaten to the point of extremes so clearly that is THEIR choice that THEY have made! What about personal responsibility?
Self harm is an illness not a choice. The did not choose to self harm, it was part of their illness. If they had known they were self harming when they first started and had the help to stop they would not be in this situation.
But we all know that mental health services have not been proactive about preventing mental health problems early, as they don't get credit for stopping people like these becoming fat, they only get credit for helping them afterwards.
Surely if it was a 'lifestyle choice' they wouldn't have allowed themselves to get fat just so they didn't have to work?
Do you think someone would chop off their own legs just so they didn't have to work? Would that be a 'lifestyle choice'?
They are ill, they have self harmed by over eating rather than looking after them selves.
No healthy person would want to destroy their lives and health just so that they didn't have to work.
Many people are reluctant to consider possible mental health issues when it comes to obesity. We see a loved one starving themselves through anorexia and straight away we assume they need help, an intervention, even hospitalization. Obesity OTOH is dealt with through ridicule and shaming, and words like lazy and greedy are used to describe them. Anyone who thinks that society is too soft on the obese has never lived as a fat person.
Why is anorexia seen as a disorder with serious underlying mental health issues, deserving of compassion and understanding, while overeating is looked at with disdain and disgust, demanding to know why they can't take personal responsibility for their problem?
Many people are reluctant to consider possible mental health issues when it comes to obesity. We see a loved one starving themselves through anorexia and straight away we assume they need help, an intervention, even hospitalization. Obesity OTOH is dealt with through ridicule and shaming, and words like lazy and greedy are used to describe them. Anyone who thinks that society is too soft on the obese has never lived as a fat person.
Why is anorexia seen as a disorder with serious underlying mental health issues, deserving of compassion and understanding, while overeating is looked at with disdain and disgust, demanding to know why they can't take personal responsibility for their problem?
Very good point and example. If someone was too thin people would know for sure they were ill, but as you say, if someone is fat it is seen as their fault.
Very good point and example. If someone was too thin people would know for sure they were ill, but as you say, if someone is fat it is seen as their fault.
Their is a big difference between the two. Anorexia and Bulimia are eating disorders where person see them selves as too fat when they obviously aren't. There may be cases where some obese people see themselves as too thin, but I would assume that that is very rare, and certainly not the case with those in the program.
Being fat is not an eating disorder. It's a choice.
Their is a big difference between the two. Anorexia and Bulimia are eating disorders where person see them selves as too fat when they obviously aren't. There may be cases where some obese people see themselves as too thin, but I would assume that that is very rare, and certainly not the case with those in the program.
Being fat is not an eating disorder. It's a choice.
Why would any mentally well person choose to be super morbidly obese?
Self harm is an illness not a choice. The did not choose to self harm, it was part of their illness. If they had known they were self harming when they first started and had the help to stop they would not be in this situation.
But we all know that mental health services have not been proactive about preventing mental health problems early, as they don't get credit for stopping people like these becoming fat, they only get credit for helping them afterwards.
I disagree. Watching that man happily shovelling in kebabs and drinking lager in the morning makes me think this isn't a case of 'self harm' or 'mental issues'. They come across as knowing exactly what they are doing.
This blame culture has gone too far as well if their conditions are supposedly someone else's fault. It isn't. The man and woman need to take some responsibility and make changes. If they actually want to change of course.
Comments
Now, yes.
But they should have been helped so they didn't get that way in the first place.
It will take a lot more work to reverse things now. Even if their benefits were withdrawn under the guise of caring about them. But lets face it most people only care about the idea of paying less tax rather than helping these people.
Considering this couple have had probably little or no education and probably have few or no qualifications, they really are more 'quids in' on benefits than in work - I doubt they could get a job paying that sort of money
Again not their fault. Blame low wages, rather than high benefits (which they are not).
Genuinely ill no, greedy yes
Walk down any highj street and you will see people grossly overweight, they are making themselves ill by just eating more than they need.
Are you a qualified Doctor? Accusing them of being greedy is just about blaming them so that their benefits can be taken away.
They are obviously self harming by eating too much. And self harming is classified as an illness.
http://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/self-harm/
Over eating and Under eating.
They keep cutting the money because people keep moaning about people like the ones on this programme.
The woman said "If they paid us more benefits, we wouldn't have to go stealing"
So they basically confess on TV? The police should arrest them.
What a crock.
The couple are neighbours of mine and two of my friends went to the wedding, they didn't want to go but went just to see the train wreck lol.
He used to own his own business but now he is just a vile conman who has conned a lot of money from people >:(
These type of programmes always give a headline figure like this. This figure includes Housing Benefit. The Government has allowed landlords to increase rents to ridiculous levels and this is the main reason that the Housing Benefit bill has spiralled out of control.
You can bet that about half of the £500 will be going to a private landlord; benefit claimants don't personally receive the figures bandied about!
Very, very true.
Doesn't alter the fact they are living relatively comfortably and thus have no incentive to come off benefits.
There's one logic when it comes to benefits, money & employment that I have never been able to get my head round since being a small child and first realizing about how our society worked, what my dad did every day and how we were able to stay in the house.
Although you will automatically go to school and can choose college and university, when you enter adulthood you are not guaranteed any form of work therefore you are not guaranteed any form of money therefore you are not guaranteed a place in society at all. Benefits though provide some answer to that although they are thanks to the increasingly right wing society and its government becoming more conditional over time,
I think every one of us deserves to have some money no matter what our position is, we should all be allowed our place, and that means money to eat food, have water, gas, electricity and have somewhere to live. The best way to give everybody that would be to adopt the citizens income or the universal wage, as it is known, which is why I support that. This would give a minimum income amount to everyone, you might get say £100 a week but you would be able to work to earn money etc on top of that, one problem with the benefits system as it is now is that to try and earn some extra money or just simply get a better income through employment or starting a business, you put your whole existence on the line since benefits would cut off and if it were to go wrong you would be form filling again and you might not get the amount you need again next time, that is my situation certainly.
It is particularly THIS that we need to change to have a truly civilised and highly advanced society
"Although you will automatically go to school and can choose college and university, when you enter adulthood you are not guaranteed any form of work therefore you are not guaranteed any form of money therefore you are not guaranteed a place in society at all. So you can't have a house, food, water, anything fun, whatever" -
That's a bollocks system which I would never support, Aah but there's benefits thank god, except for everyone trying to hack away at the vital safety net we ALL need.
Benefits are one of the most civilized things we have EVER come up with, without them we go to back to a much more highly conditional society which would have its much more extreme have nots and those that are able to somehow find a job and get a bit of money, and of course employers knowing that people risk having nothing if they are not subject to their conditions can make conditions worse or poor, we are seeing that now of course, zero hour contracts, many positions just paying minimum wage or barely above and working all hours and having no life etc etc..
People always give out this excuse seemingly forgetting that those of us who work also have a big chunk of our money going out to landlords/mortgage.
Though I do agree with your points on rents
I think it does merit a mention though, often when these shows say how much the participants get every month, there are always some whose imagination gets the better of them and believe that it's all pocket money being spent on takeaways every night, beer, ****, etc. Of course people who work have the same expenses as those on benefits (rent, gas, electric, etc.). I have never once thought after watching these programs that they have an enviable life though. Exactly the opposite.
There are probably a few gov't officials who like the idea that people are outraged and people like Stephen should have his benefits reduced, but why are we thinking that the best place to make cuts is to those who can least afford it? Should we not instead be cutting the fat off the top first?
There are people in quite decent jobs earning £500 a week who have to pay tax, never mind rent, on the same money. I don't feel sorry for them at all.
As I said earlier, I doubt this man could get anything more than a minimum wage job and end up worse off financially, so where is the incentive in that to get fit enough to work?
They are a classic case of benefits being a lifestyle choice, rather than a temporary help.
Surely if it was a 'lifestyle choice' they wouldn't have allowed themselves to get fat just so they didn't have to work?
Do you think someone would chop off their own legs just so they didn't have to work? Would that be a 'lifestyle choice'?
They are ill, they have self harmed by over eating rather than looking after them selves.
No healthy person would want to destroy their lives and health just so that they didn't have to work.
That is EXACTLY what they have done though, whether deliberately or not.
Why do you keep saying it is not their fault - and continue looking for someone else to blame for the state they are in?
They have overeaten to the point of extremes so clearly that is THEIR choice that THEY have made! What about personal responsibility?
Self harm is an illness not a choice. The did not choose to self harm, it was part of their illness. If they had known they were self harming when they first started and had the help to stop they would not be in this situation.
But we all know that mental health services have not been proactive about preventing mental health problems early, as they don't get credit for stopping people like these becoming fat, they only get credit for helping them afterwards.
Many people are reluctant to consider possible mental health issues when it comes to obesity. We see a loved one starving themselves through anorexia and straight away we assume they need help, an intervention, even hospitalization. Obesity OTOH is dealt with through ridicule and shaming, and words like lazy and greedy are used to describe them. Anyone who thinks that society is too soft on the obese has never lived as a fat person.
Why is anorexia seen as a disorder with serious underlying mental health issues, deserving of compassion and understanding, while overeating is looked at with disdain and disgust, demanding to know why they can't take personal responsibility for their problem?
Their is a big difference between the two. Anorexia and Bulimia are eating disorders where person see them selves as too fat when they obviously aren't. There may be cases where some obese people see themselves as too thin, but I would assume that that is very rare, and certainly not the case with those in the program.
Being fat is not an eating disorder. It's a choice.
Why would any mentally well person choose to be super morbidly obese?
I disagree. Watching that man happily shovelling in kebabs and drinking lager in the morning makes me think this isn't a case of 'self harm' or 'mental issues'. They come across as knowing exactly what they are doing.
This blame culture has gone too far as well if their conditions are supposedly someone else's fault. It isn't. The man and woman need to take some responsibility and make changes. If they actually want to change of course.