"a month-long trip to Australia, Bali, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Dubai, Turkey, Greece and the NetherLands"
No way would anyone plan to cover all of those destinations in just 4 weeks.
You'd see bugger all of each of them and would never get to unpack.
Exactly. It's nine destinations in 30 days, a little over 3 days in each. Utterly pointless and I daresay either complete bollocks or stretching the truth to make a better story.
Also, how does something like this end up in the press?
Why would she go to the newspapers with this and even to the point of showing all the pics including the stamps in her passport - it doesn't make sense?
Exactly
There is no reason why this shouldn't work, but In the form of a prepaid card, to avoid humiliation. It should also cover clothes and petrol.
Till staff would have to be told not to accept the card for alcohol, ****.
If the amount doesn't cover the bills. one month, it can be debited the following month
Exactly
There is no reason why this shouldn't work, but In the form of a prepaid card, to avoid humiliation. It should also cover clothes and petrol.
Till staff would have to be told not to accept the card for alcohol, ****.
If the amount doesn't cover the bills. one month, it can be debited the following month
Where a welfare state is in operation, I think that the state and society have fulfilled their obligation to claimants once a payment of money has been paid, a currency redeemable universally. I don't believe that this should be extended to a system where claimants are restricted to what they can buy with their welfare, simply as spiteful appeasement to everybody else.
Where a welfare state is in operation, I think that the state and society have fulfilled their obligation to claimants once a payment of money has been paid, a currency redeemable universally. I don't believe that this should be extended to a system where claimants are restricted to what they can buy with their welfare, simply as spiteful appeasement to everybody else.
I think every taxpayer has a right to an opinion as to how benefits are managed.
Benefits are a safety net, for basic living expenses when someone either cannot work , or is seeking work, not to be abused, as a bit of extra money to enjoy yourself with.
I 've just read that a girl in a wheel chair, deaf and blind was refused a carers allowance because she wasn't disabled enough!
I think every taxpayer has a right to an opinion as to how benefits are managed.
Benefits are a safety net, for basic living expenses when someone either cannot work , or is seeking work, not to be abused, as a bit of extra money to enjoy yourself with.
I 've just read that a girl in a wheel chair, deaf and blind was refused a carers allowance because she wasn't disabled enough!
I think taxpayers have a right to an opinion maybe on efficiency, on the rules of eligibility and how benefits are distributed, but that's it. Once the payment has been made, the societal contract has been fulfilled. Why not go all the way therefore and tell public sector workers, paid for out of taxation, what they can spend their money on?
Exactly. It's nine destinations in 30 days, a little over 3 days in each. Utterly pointless and I daresay either complete bollocks or stretching the truth to make a better story.
Also, how does something like this end up in the press?
Yes, something doesn't smell right about that story. Nobody in their right mind would choose to do so many countries in a month. I suspect that the Netherlands, Malaysia and Dubai were just airports. Plus I can't imagine doing that much travelling with a small baby is going to be much fun (for the baby, the parent or the other passengers)
£3000 may also sound like a lot of money for a holiday but it's only £100 a day and most of that would go on flights and hotels. You are usually looking at £1000 for a flight to Oz alone.
Why would she go to the newspapers with this and even to the point of showing all the pics including the stamps in her passport - it doesn't make sense?
Maybe she's hoping to become the next z-list celeb, famous for pretty much nothing, but making a reasonable living out of having her photo taken for various downmarket magazines, getting married, divorced, married again and popping out another few kids on the way?
I can't see any other reason for her talking to the papers about this. She's craving fame but has no talent to achieve this in any other way.
Wow, how did you manage that? I have family in Australia so board isn't an issue, but even back in 2007, £900 would have just about covered the cost of a return flight to Oz. I still would have had to eat and live for 28 days.
Well I went at the end of March so wasn't exactly classed as summer over there and I booked with STA travel. The flight itself cost for just under £700 & the backpackers was only something like £10 each night that I stayed. Food itself was fairly cheap as the Woolworths done basic salad meats fairly cheap, and plenty of cheap Sushi bars there as well, so like over here you can eat cheaply enough if you go to the places that are not aimed at tourists.
Looking at STA travel now, they do flights to Brisbane from £549 & Sydney from £569, so flights are still pretty reasonable but will obviously vary to the time of year that you go. I have been to Oz 3 times 2006,2007, 2009 & all 3 times the flight has cost below £700, but then I have always gone end of March time.
Exactly
There is no reason why this shouldn't work, but In the form of a prepaid card, to avoid humiliation. It should also cover clothes and petrol.
Till staff would have to be told not to accept the card for alcohol, ****.
If the amount doesn't cover the bills. one month, it can be debited the following month
If they did that then how long before they moved on to what food you could buy no junk food no cakes sweets ect as they would be classed as luxury items.
I 've just read that a girl in a wheel chair, deaf and blind was refused a carers allowance because she wasn't disabled enough!
She wouldn't get that anyway the person caring for her would and it's not much anyway I get it and it's £61 a week and you can only claim it for one person no matter how many disabled people you care for I am a 24/7 carer for 3 disabled family members and have to pretty everything for them and the house especially my Mum and youngest brother which can including feeding and both are incontinent so pad changes and showering is included at at time of the day or night
My youngest brother has problems sleeping so I can't sleep until he does so I sleep for about 2 hours a day if lucky sometimes less sometimes it can be days without sleep.
TBH I really don't care about the money anyway I'd do it for free if I had to.
"a month-long trip to Australia, Bali, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Dubai, Turkey, Greece and the NetherLands"
No way would anyone plan to cover all of those destinations in just 4 weeks.
You'd see bugger all of each of them and would never get to unpack.
It was probably a bus stop journey to Oz and back, thinking about it. I remember my aunt telling about when she did one years ago. Stopped off in America on the way there, and on the way back stopped off in Asia, the middle east, and eastern Europe. Would explain how someone could visit all of those destinations in such a short time and for so little money. Probably spent only a day or two in some of those locations.
That's the idea though. They've been doing this for a long time now. Find an extreme case, feed it to the plebs, then use it to justify wide scale change that hurts everyone in genuine need.
Yeah, absolutely. Get people outraged about something that's either vastly uncommon, misreported or both, and they'll cheer you on in dismantling the welfare state that's their own safety net.
Most of us have to pay our own way though. No-one in my circle of friends and family has it easy, I don't know anyone who is bankrolled by their parents, not as adults. It's not something to be proud of, living a lovely life courtesy of Mum and Dad, she hasn't achieved anything for herself. I would be impressed if she had saved up her travelling fund through hard work and not through benefit payments she doesn't need.
I know someone who stayed with their parents till they were thirtysomething, mostly didn't work, and spent their benefits on petrol, weed and computer games. It's not particularly fair, but it's also not a reason to change anything about the welfare state.
And they're now living in a different city, married and working full time, so it's not like things can't change, either.
Exactly
There is no reason why this shouldn't work, but In the form of a prepaid card, to avoid humiliation. It should also cover clothes and petrol.
Till staff would have to be told not to accept the card for alcohol, ****.
If the amount doesn't cover the bills. one month, it can be debited the following month
Actually there is every reason it wouldn't work.
Number one, people want less nanny state and say a life on benefits takes the empowerment and responsibility away from people and yet on the same hand want to give out tokens to stop people having to budget and take responsibility for what they spend money on.
And secondly and most importantly, cards can never cover all eventualities and all shops. I go on Hotukdeals and search for bargains everyday. What if the cards are restricted to Tesco and yet I find something 2 quid cheaper in Lidl? Also will there be a card for amazon? What if my kettle breaks one night? Unexpected purchases happen all the time for life's situations. Cards can never cover those situations.
I REFUSE to believe cash benefits are a problem. The country HAS NOT collapsed having benefits given. In fact the tories like to boast recently how small the benefit claimant count is becoming, so what is the problem with cash benefits...or is this all just faux outrage?
Exactly
There is no reason why this shouldn't work, but In the form of a prepaid card, to avoid humiliation. It should also cover clothes and petrol.
Till staff would have to be told not to accept the card for alcohol, ****.
If the amount doesn't cover the bills. one month, it can be debited the following month
People would soon find away around that. The big supermarkets would obey the rules but there will always be the dodgy corner shops who would turn a blind eye to keep their regular customers happy.
Regardless of how she paid for it, I think all that travelling, in such a short space of time, and with a baby, sounds a total nightmare. If it's once in a lifetime, I'd wait until the baby was big enough to actually have some memories of the trip.
Number one, people want less nanny state and say a life on benefits takes the empowerment and responsibility away from people and yet on the same hand want to give out tokens to stop people having to budget and take responsibility for what they spend money on.
And secondly and most importantly, cards can never cover all eventualities and all shops. I go on Hotukdeals and search for bargains everyday. What if the cards are restricted to Tesco and yet I find something 2 quid cheaper in Lidl? Also will there be a card for amazon? What if my kettle breaks one night? Unexpected purchases happen all the time for life's situations. Cards can never cover those situations.
I REFUSE to believe cash benefits are a problem. The country HAS NOT collapsed having benefits given. In fact the tories like to boast recently how small the benefit claimant count is becoming, so what is the problem with cash benefits...or is this all just faux outrage?
The cards would be accepted in ALL supermarkets, garages and stores, and no problem if the kettle breaks. Could be used for online shopping too. The only difference is that Booze and **** purchases would not be accepted on the card.
Do you think some people on benefits take responsibility for what they spend money on now? They put booze and **** before food, end up at the food bank, keep dogs which are expensive to look after?
If they don't want to be on the nanny state, then make an effort to get off it then!
I am not writing about people who genuinely want to work, and are trying hard to, but people who are on benefits as a lifestyle choice.
I dont think there is a problem with people having benefits when they need them, but obviously tax payers ( mostly) want to know that their taxes go to people who deserve them, not abuse them.
Perhaps the answer is to use the card scheme after a period of time, say 6 months of unemployment.
Only fellow scroungers would defend this. Anybody else would hope she was deducted 3k next year
Yeah, yeah, same as "everyone" avoids tax if they can, etc. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that not everyone's as self-centred and obsessed with their "fair share" as them?
Regardless of how she paid for it, I think all that travelling, in such a short space of time, and with a baby, sounds a total nightmare. If it's once in a lifetime, I'd wait until the baby was big enough to actually have some memories of the trip.
I think it would be a nightmare, even without a baby. I love travelling, but that itinerary sounds crazy, not the least bit enjoyable - a bit like one of these whistle-stop coach tours round Europe, spending less than a day in each country, but even more exhausting than that. The whole point of travelling, for me, is to appreciate different countries, climates, cultures, and spend time doing so.
Comments
Exactly. It's nine destinations in 30 days, a little over 3 days in each. Utterly pointless and I daresay either complete bollocks or stretching the truth to make a better story.
Also, how does something like this end up in the press?
Exactly
There is no reason why this shouldn't work, but In the form of a prepaid card, to avoid humiliation. It should also cover clothes and petrol.
Till staff would have to be told not to accept the card for alcohol, ****.
If the amount doesn't cover the bills. one month, it can be debited the following month
Where a welfare state is in operation, I think that the state and society have fulfilled their obligation to claimants once a payment of money has been paid, a currency redeemable universally. I don't believe that this should be extended to a system where claimants are restricted to what they can buy with their welfare, simply as spiteful appeasement to everybody else.
I think every taxpayer has a right to an opinion as to how benefits are managed.
Benefits are a safety net, for basic living expenses when someone either cannot work , or is seeking work, not to be abused, as a bit of extra money to enjoy yourself with.
I 've just read that a girl in a wheel chair, deaf and blind was refused a carers allowance because she wasn't disabled enough!
I think taxpayers have a right to an opinion maybe on efficiency, on the rules of eligibility and how benefits are distributed, but that's it. Once the payment has been made, the societal contract has been fulfilled. Why not go all the way therefore and tell public sector workers, paid for out of taxation, what they can spend their money on?
Yes, something doesn't smell right about that story. Nobody in their right mind would choose to do so many countries in a month. I suspect that the Netherlands, Malaysia and Dubai were just airports. Plus I can't imagine doing that much travelling with a small baby is going to be much fun (for the baby, the parent or the other passengers)
£3000 may also sound like a lot of money for a holiday but it's only £100 a day and most of that would go on flights and hotels. You are usually looking at £1000 for a flight to Oz alone.
I can't see any other reason for her talking to the papers about this. She's craving fame but has no talent to achieve this in any other way.
You're joking. The Americans are spending £50 billion on food stamps alone.
Well I went at the end of March so wasn't exactly classed as summer over there and I booked with STA travel. The flight itself cost for just under £700 & the backpackers was only something like £10 each night that I stayed. Food itself was fairly cheap as the Woolworths done basic salad meats fairly cheap, and plenty of cheap Sushi bars there as well, so like over here you can eat cheaply enough if you go to the places that are not aimed at tourists.
Looking at STA travel now, they do flights to Brisbane from £549 & Sydney from £569, so flights are still pretty reasonable but will obviously vary to the time of year that you go. I have been to Oz 3 times 2006,2007, 2009 & all 3 times the flight has cost below £700, but then I have always gone end of March time.
If they did that then how long before they moved on to what food you could buy no junk food no cakes sweets ect as they would be classed as luxury items.
She wouldn't get that anyway the person caring for her would and it's not much anyway I get it and it's £61 a week and you can only claim it for one person no matter how many disabled people you care for I am a 24/7 carer for 3 disabled family members and have to pretty everything for them and the house especially my Mum and youngest brother which can including feeding and both are incontinent so pad changes and showering is included at at time of the day or night
My youngest brother has problems sleeping so I can't sleep until he does so I sleep for about 2 hours a day if lucky sometimes less sometimes it can be days without sleep.
TBH I really don't care about the money anyway I'd do it for free if I had to.
It was probably a bus stop journey to Oz and back, thinking about it. I remember my aunt telling about when she did one years ago. Stopped off in America on the way there, and on the way back stopped off in Asia, the middle east, and eastern Europe. Would explain how someone could visit all of those destinations in such a short time and for so little money. Probably spent only a day or two in some of those locations.
your point?
you do know that there are 50 million americans on the program
thats $20 a week per head
I know someone who stayed with their parents till they were thirtysomething, mostly didn't work, and spent their benefits on petrol, weed and computer games. It's not particularly fair, but it's also not a reason to change anything about the welfare state.
And they're now living in a different city, married and working full time, so it's not like things can't change, either.
Actually there is every reason it wouldn't work.
Number one, people want less nanny state and say a life on benefits takes the empowerment and responsibility away from people and yet on the same hand want to give out tokens to stop people having to budget and take responsibility for what they spend money on.
And secondly and most importantly, cards can never cover all eventualities and all shops. I go on Hotukdeals and search for bargains everyday. What if the cards are restricted to Tesco and yet I find something 2 quid cheaper in Lidl? Also will there be a card for amazon? What if my kettle breaks one night? Unexpected purchases happen all the time for life's situations. Cards can never cover those situations.
I REFUSE to believe cash benefits are a problem. The country HAS NOT collapsed having benefits given. In fact the tories like to boast recently how small the benefit claimant count is becoming, so what is the problem with cash benefits...or is this all just faux outrage?
People would soon find away around that. The big supermarkets would obey the rules but there will always be the dodgy corner shops who would turn a blind eye to keep their regular customers happy.
Everyone does, not just tax payers.
Do you think some people on benefits take responsibility for what they spend money on now? They put booze and **** before food, end up at the food bank, keep dogs which are expensive to look after?
If they don't want to be on the nanny state, then make an effort to get off it then!
I am not writing about people who genuinely want to work, and are trying hard to, but people who are on benefits as a lifestyle choice.
I dont think there is a problem with people having benefits when they need them, but obviously tax payers ( mostly) want to know that their taxes go to people who deserve them, not abuse them.
Perhaps the answer is to use the card scheme after a period of time, say 6 months of unemployment.
This is a beyond idiotic opinion.
Some of us are more concerned with our own lives than frothing at the mouth reading about others.