The programme title is very misleading, few of the participants are 'on the dole', most are on Income Support, Employment Support or DLA.
One thing which puzzles me though. My understanding of Employment Support Allowance is that to qualify for the so-called support group (ie: not be required to look for work) the claimant has to be practically at death's door. Yet the ones in this programme appear to lead a very active social life that many able-bodied people would envy.
You don't have to be at death's door to be in the support group. I know a woman who is in it but she suffers from severe depression.
There is a reign of terror being waged on those on benefits. And it is being sanctioned by those in work. Those in work have no idea what is happening.
I was a new claimant to JSA and didnt know what hit me. You have to look for work for 35 per week.You fill in a job log which you have to take with you when you go and sign on. You spend the night before wide awake because you dont know if its deemed to be enough to satisfy those at the Jobcentre.
Those who take part in these programmes probably take part to see if they can be the next white dee who has capitalised on being on the programmes.
Fair comment – chinchilla’s don’t smell at all, just the smell of wood shavings from their cage. That poor little creature was in far too small a cage.
//There is a reign of terror being waged on those on benefits//
Someone can wage a benefit allowance of £1100 a month reign of terror on me if they like. I get a lot less than that and I have to pay full rent and council tax.
You don't have to be at death's door to be in the support group. I know a woman who is in it but she suffers from severe depression.
Yes, I understand that severe depression can be totally debilitating as can other mental conditions but none of those featured in this series appear to be in that category.
Yes, I understand that severe depression can be totally debilitating as can other mental conditions but none of those featured in this series appear to be in that category.
Yes but who would hire them?
If that girl on the other programme who was over weight and wanted to work couldn't find a job (or pass her theory test) then how could these lot get work?
I think most people, certainly working people who are still in the job market, know that whether or not there are jobs depends on where you live. Where I live there are jobs going - but many of them don't pay enough to pay the basic rent (£850 and month for a lower end of the market one bed flat) and live. The seaside towns featured in the programme last night have far fewer job opportunites than cities.
This is true also there are a lot of zero hour contracts around too.
The programme title is very misleading, few of the participants are 'on the dole', most are on Income Support, Employment Support or DLA.
One thing which puzzles me though. My understanding of Employment Support Allowance is that to qualify for the so-called support group (ie: not be required to look for work) the claimant has to be practically at death's door. Yet the ones in this programme appear to lead a very active social life that many able-bodied people would envy.
It particUlarly made me angry that a young mother and her baby were struggling on £50 per week and that loser was getting four times as much. Say what you will about the young mother but a baby should not sleep on the floor. All those at the DSS should hang their heads in shame.
It particUlarly made me angry that a young mother and her baby were struggling on £50 per week and that loser was getting four times as much. Say what you will about the young mother but a baby should not sleep on the floor. All those at the DSS should hang their heads in shame.
She could have waited to have children when she was ready to provide a proper roof over the child's head.
She could have waited to have children when she was ready to provide a proper roof over the child's head.
She could also get the father to pay for things.
The other people can't help being disabled.
People can't help being disabled but £280 per week for one person just because she has a bad leg is not on. She was mobile. Managed to get to the shops and off license and a walk through the countryside.
The lazy loser's money should be cut. She's on more money than someone working.
She could have waited to have children when she was ready to provide a proper roof over the child's head.
She could also get the father to pay for things.
The other people can't help being disabled.
But being 'disabled' doesn't necessarily prevent someone from working. I know people with much more serious conditions than those shown in the programme who still work full time.
People can't help being disabled but £280 per week for one person just because she has a bad leg is not on. She was mobile. Managed to get to the shops and off license and a walk through the countryside.
The lazy loser's money should be cut. She's on more money than someone working.
We saw her go to the shops on the odd occasion but nothing that would mean she could work. She might have had other conditions that were not shown because they were hidden conditions.
Personally I agree she should have her money cut so she doesn't spend it on alcohol, but not because she isn't disabled as you seem to believe.
One of the main issues (and l might get flack for saying this) is people thinking it's their right (which legally it is of course) to have children when they have no means to support them. I'm not sure what the solution is as a single child policy for those out of work would cause more issues than it would solve, but the young girl on tonight's episode with 6 kids?!? I mean come on ...
However we live in a society where people genuinely think 'it's my right so f*ck off' whether talking about having kids, not working etc and I don't see it changing any time soon. When you have systems that partly depend on people having morales you will always have a % that take the p*ss. The challenge is coming up with systems that take morales out of it without being seen as living in a dictatorship.
There needs to be an open and honest debate about all of this. Of course there are people that want to work, it's equally reasonable to deduce that some don't but you get shouted down if you try to say so. To me it's wrong for people (whether single or couple) to have child after child when not working and able to support them but again you often get shouted down if you try to raise this.
Completely agree with everything you have said. It's just not right that people can keep having children without being in a position to support them financially.
We saw her go to the shops on the odd occasion but nothing that would mean she could work. She might have had other conditions that were not shown because they were hidden conditions.
She may equally have a job on the side and not be declaring it!
One of the main issues (and l might get flack for saying this) is people thinking it's their right (which legally it is of course) to have children when they have no means to support them. I'm not sure what the solution is as a single child policy for those out of work would cause more issues than it would solve, but the young girl on tonight's episode with 6 kids?!? I mean come on ...
However we live in a society where people genuinely think 'it's my right so f*ck off' whether talking about having kids, not working etc and I don't see it changing any time soon. When you have systems that partly depend on people having morales you will always have a % that take the p*ss. The challenge is coming up with systems that take morales out of it without being seen as living in a dictatorship.
There needs to be an open and honest debate about all of this. Of course there are people that want to work, it's equally reasonable to deduce that some don't but you get shouted down if you try to say so. To me it's wrong for people (whether single or couple) to have child after child when not working and able to support them but again you often get shouted down if you try to raise this.
I absolutely agree with this - the sense of entitlement is appalling.
I don't know how it can be done, but these people and familes that have been on benefits for years and years and have more and more children because they know they'll get more money is nothing short of criminal - they should absolutely be capped, dependent on how much they've paid into the system prior to claiming.
I also feel that the system is so out of control that it gives some people a lifeline and others a lifestyle.
The tattooed woman last night, absolutely struggling with her baby in the most disgustingly tiny flat Vs the 2 London girls on the programme a couple of weeks ago that have a child each and go out spending wads of cash on themselves and live the life of riley - how in anyone's opinion is that equal or fair?
If it was down to me benefits would be based solely on what people have paid in - whether you're British or have come here from overseas.
People that work hard have to struggle to pay mortgage/rent, bills, council tax, school uniforms, food etc etc, but these people we see on this programme are just laughing at us.
People can't help being disabled but £280 per week for one person just because she has a bad leg is not on. She was mobile. Managed to get to the shops and off license and a walk through the countryside.
The lazy loser's money should be cut. She's on more money than someone working.
Blame low wages not high benefits.
And nothing you have said there proves she can work.
If it was down to me benefits would be based solely on what people have paid in - whether you're British or have come here from overseas.
There are two problems with that. One is that some people are handicapped from birth and will never have the opportunity to pay in.
Another is that it can backfire when people who've paid in for a long time decide it's no longer worth their while working any longer and decide to take early 'retirement'.
There are two problems with that. One is that some people are handicapped from birth and will never have the opportunity to pay in.
Another is that it can backfire when people who've paid in for a long time decide it's no longer worth their while working any longer and decide to take early 'retirement'.
Surely the current system has backfired though, when there are people who.have never worked that decide to take "early retirement".
There are two problems with that. One is that some people are handicapped from birth and will never have the opportunity to pay in.
Sadly (for the individuals) that will always be the case and the system could be adapted to cover that. Also for people who become disabled by accident or illness when fairly young who haven't paid a lot into the system.
Another is that it can backfire when people who've paid in for a long time decide it's no longer worth their while working any longer and decide to take early 'retirement'.
I don't see how that could happen with a mandatory retirement age. I can't for instance just decide to retire in five years, I've got to wait until I'm 68 by which time I'll have paid in for over fifty years, and even that goalpost keeps moving later. Or do you mean people may feign illness before retirement age?
Re retirement though; I'll tell you what I do think is unfair, currently you can pay in for those fifty odd years, retire and then find that your non working for that last twenty years neighbour ends up with the same money from the government or better off than you, thanks to pension credit and similar. It's like it's not worth paying in because if you're in need as a pensioner you'll get the benefits anyway.
Currently that is, before the pot of benefits dwindles (and/or a political party gets the courage to look at pensioner benefits).
Or do you mean people may feign illness before retirement age?
That is what has happened in the USA where they have such a system. The size of sickness payments there are based on past contributions and for some people approaching retirement age are considerably bigger than unemployment benefit.
Stringent checks and often degrading medical examinations have not proved to be a deterrent.
Conversely a friend who was handicapped from birth and seldom able to work is forced to survive on food stamps plus help from family members and a private charity.
Comments
You don't have to be at death's door to be in the support group. I know a woman who is in it but she suffers from severe depression.
I was a new claimant to JSA and didnt know what hit me. You have to look for work for 35 per week.You fill in a job log which you have to take with you when you go and sign on. You spend the night before wide awake because you dont know if its deemed to be enough to satisfy those at the Jobcentre.
Those who take part in these programmes probably take part to see if they can be the next white dee who has capitalised on being on the programmes.
Fair comment – chinchilla’s don’t smell at all, just the smell of wood shavings from their cage. That poor little creature was in far too small a cage.
Someone can wage a benefit allowance of £1100 a month reign of terror on me if they like. I get a lot less than that and I have to pay full rent and council tax.
Yes, I understand that severe depression can be totally debilitating as can other mental conditions but none of those featured in this series appear to be in that category.
Yes but who would hire them?
If that girl on the other programme who was over weight and wanted to work couldn't find a job (or pass her theory test) then how could these lot get work?
This is true also there are a lot of zero hour contracts around too.
It particUlarly made me angry that a young mother and her baby were struggling on £50 per week and that loser was getting four times as much. Say what you will about the young mother but a baby should not sleep on the floor. All those at the DSS should hang their heads in shame.
She could have waited to have children when she was ready to provide a proper roof over the child's head.
She could also get the father to pay for things.
The other people can't help being disabled.
People can't help being disabled but £280 per week for one person just because she has a bad leg is not on. She was mobile. Managed to get to the shops and off license and a walk through the countryside.
The lazy loser's money should be cut. She's on more money than someone working.
But being 'disabled' doesn't necessarily prevent someone from working. I know people with much more serious conditions than those shown in the programme who still work full time.
We saw her go to the shops on the odd occasion but nothing that would mean she could work. She might have had other conditions that were not shown because they were hidden conditions.
Personally I agree she should have her money cut so she doesn't spend it on alcohol, but not because she isn't disabled as you seem to believe.
Completely agree with everything you have said. It's just not right that people can keep having children without being in a position to support them financially.
She may equally have a job on the side and not be declaring it!
I absolutely agree with this - the sense of entitlement is appalling.
I don't know how it can be done, but these people and familes that have been on benefits for years and years and have more and more children because they know they'll get more money is nothing short of criminal - they should absolutely be capped, dependent on how much they've paid into the system prior to claiming.
I also feel that the system is so out of control that it gives some people a lifeline and others a lifestyle.
The tattooed woman last night, absolutely struggling with her baby in the most disgustingly tiny flat Vs the 2 London girls on the programme a couple of weeks ago that have a child each and go out spending wads of cash on themselves and live the life of riley - how in anyone's opinion is that equal or fair?
If it was down to me benefits would be based solely on what people have paid in - whether you're British or have come here from overseas.
People that work hard have to struggle to pay mortgage/rent, bills, council tax, school uniforms, food etc etc, but these people we see on this programme are just laughing at us.
He did not say he hated immigrant,s just stated that the large influx of immigrants had made finding work much harder.
Blame low wages not high benefits.
And nothing you have said there proves she can work.
There are two problems with that. One is that some people are handicapped from birth and will never have the opportunity to pay in.
Another is that it can backfire when people who've paid in for a long time decide it's no longer worth their while working any longer and decide to take early 'retirement'.
Surely the current system has backfired though, when there are people who.have never worked that decide to take "early retirement".
Sadly (for the individuals) that will always be the case and the system could be adapted to cover that. Also for people who become disabled by accident or illness when fairly young who haven't paid a lot into the system.
I don't see how that could happen with a mandatory retirement age. I can't for instance just decide to retire in five years, I've got to wait until I'm 68 by which time I'll have paid in for over fifty years, and even that goalpost keeps moving later. Or do you mean people may feign illness before retirement age?
Re retirement though; I'll tell you what I do think is unfair, currently you can pay in for those fifty odd years, retire and then find that your non working for that last twenty years neighbour ends up with the same money from the government or better off than you, thanks to pension credit and similar. It's like it's not worth paying in because if you're in need as a pensioner you'll get the benefits anyway.
Currently that is, before the pot of benefits dwindles (and/or a political party gets the courage to look at pensioner benefits).
rolleyes
And to repeat yet again.
While there are 500,000 jobs and 2 million people after them, what does it matter?
That's OK then . can we all retire now if we want 'cos there's no jobs?';-)
That is what has happened in the USA where they have such a system. The size of sickness payments there are based on past contributions and for some people approaching retirement age are considerably bigger than unemployment benefit.
Stringent checks and often degrading medical examinations have not proved to be a deterrent.
Conversely a friend who was handicapped from birth and seldom able to work is forced to survive on food stamps plus help from family members and a private charity.
1.5 million workers can swap places with the unemployed if they think it is the life of luxury.
Hehe glad you saw that - OMG they are taking the piss bigtime. These people take the piss and real people in need miss out on genuine health problems.