On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:26:56 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Thursday, January 19th, 2012, at 17:13:57h +0000, Peter Duncanson explained:

But... buying things you don't need creates employment for those who
produce those things.

With the result that, just this year past, more people now live in
urban areas in the People's Republic of China than in the countryside.

Following our example.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article ,
Silk wrote:
And you have accurate figures to back this claim up? Not just 'facts'
from the Mail?

No one knows for sure as it's so difficult to prove someone is swinging
the lead, and you and your lilly livered types know this - especially
when there's no will to do anything about it either from the government
or those tasked with enforcing the rules. Benefit scroungers are a large
block of voters after all.

Vote for this government? You're even madder than I thought.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, January 19th, 2012, at 18:21:30h +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:26:56 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Thursday, January 19th, 2012, at 17:13:57h +0000, Peter Duncanson
explained:

But... buying things you don't need creates employment for those who
produce those things.

With the result that, just this year past, more people now live in urban
areas in the People's Republic of China than in the countryside.

Following our example.

Well the Industrial Revolution did take place first in England, and
the rest of the world has eventually followed.

Of course there does have to be an Agricultural Revolution first
in order to make it possible.

I wonder if this Daily Mail yes man automaton has ever actually
*tried* to claim benefit for anything?

Although I don't actually know for certain what is wrong with me, I do
know for certain that I am not a well person. What I believe is that
I have an infection which began at the front of my nose and has now
worked its way back, seemingly as far as my voicebox. Whatever the
cause, the symptoms are that whenever I eat or drink, I get a runny,
bloody nose, from which I daily expel scabs millimetres across, and
mucus collecting at the back of it and in my voice box, requiring
repetatie loud snorting and hacking coughs to clear it out so that I
can spit it out into the toilet. It's rather unpredictable, but at
it's worst this can happen every minute or two for periods of up to an
hour at a time.

This would be very anti-social in a communal work environment, and,
being now nearly 61 with all that implies for short term memory, it
tends to f*ck my ability to concentrate for the duration. This makes
it difficult to see how I could fit into an office environment, or
anywhere 'customer facing'. Clearly, somebody with such a condition
shouldn't be working anywhere near where food or drink is being
prepared or served.

Also, I have one very dodgy knee that gives me pain almost every time
I go upstairs, even occasionally just when walking about, and much
stiffness in the small of my back. This makes it difficult to see how
I can do much in the way of manual work. In fact these days, just an
hour or two mowing the grass or vacuuming the house is a significant
effort.

So, as I have no particular skills in anything other than IT, I'm at a
loss to know how I could do much to earn a living.

I have seen my GP and ENT in the local hospital umpteen times since
the problems first began in 2007. It seems clear to me that my GP
thinks I'm a malingerer, and on my last visit to ENT, they had the
gall to try to tell me that I have "A perfectly normal healthy nose!",
even as blood was slowly trickling down onto my lip.

Between, them they've prescribed a drawerfull of different nasal
squirts and other palliatives, all at significant personal cost until
I turned 60, and all had absolutely no effect, though saline douches
do help stop bleeding.

I've now been referred to a London Hospital, and they too are
concentrating on treating the symptoms with no regard to finding the
cause, and thus I have absolutely no confidence they are any more
likely to help than the local hospital.

Basically, because I don't tick any boxes, noone knows what the f*ck
to do with me.

About two years ago, my redundancy money from my previous employment
ran out, so I briefly tried to claim sickness benefit, but because my
GP wouldn't give me the required certificate, my claim was rejected. I
had to raid my pension fund instead, even though it was already too
small for comfort, and now of course it's even smaller still. Unless
I am cured or make a miraculous recovery, by the time I claim a state
pension, it's unlikely I'll have much, if any, personal pension fund
remaining.

My local council, after initially disallowing my claim for Council Tax
Relief, were forced to allow it after I wrote to my councillors. When
they did so, I was rung up by a council benefits officer, who after
apologising for their mistake, advised me to resubmit my claim for
sickness benefit. She said that currently, so many people's claims
are being rejected for one petty procedural reason or another, and
consequently just immediately resubmitted, that the department are
about six months in arrears in processing claims. Therefore, she
reasoned, I could get at least six months worth out of them. I may do
this, but it's all such an undignified scramble that I haven't yet.

That there are benefit scroungers, I have no doubt, but there are
probably just as many people like myself who really need support for
one reason or another, and who aren't getting it.

As I inherited some money, now sunk into my everyday suburban home,
I've probably all in all over the course of my life paid more and
higher taxes many an average Daily Mail reader, so f*ck them with
their selfish "I'm all right, Jack!" mindset. 'Thinking' in terms of
such stereotypes as the Daily Mail excretes is not really 'thinking'
at all, it's the exact opposite, it's not being arsed enough to bother
to think.

Excuse the expletives partially deleted, but I think now that you can
understand my anger when I read such mindless rubbish as people often
post here.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:28:02 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Silk wrote:

No one knows for sure as it's so difficult to prove someone is swinging
the lead, and you and your lilly livered types know this - especially
when there's no will to do anything about it either from the government
or those tasked with enforcing the rules. Benefit scroungers are a large
block of voters after all.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 19/01/2012 08:36, Bob Latham wrote:
In the UK, the state had to bail out the greedy, irresponsible banks and
pay for it with jobs, pensions, and pay of the public sector workers, most
of whom are/where poorly paid.

I might point out that the _first_ bit of pension raiding was done by
Blair/Brown when a small adjustment turned out to be £5bn a year out of
the private sector pension scheme. Then there was the change in state
pension age. Of course this lot aren't going to reverse that...

Andy

Java Jive wrote:

Although I don't actually know for certain what is wrong with me,

[snip very interesting post]

It's people like you who have the most to lose as a result of the
dishonesty of the benefit cheats. The scroungers set the public mind
against the whole support system, so deserving cases are treated less
well than would otherwise be the case.

We all (or almost all of us) support wholeheartedly the principle that
those in need should be given help. It there were no cheats (or if there
were very few of them) the consensus would be greatly in favour of
handing out generous benefits. But the public have come to feel that
such a large proportion of benefit money is wasted on the undeserving
that the system is becoming almost impractical.

As a force for good the benefits system needs to benefit only those who
deserve help. Once it starts benefiting significant numbers of
scroungers it becomes a force for evil, because it encourages idleness.

Bill

On 19/01/2012 20:45, Bill Wright wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

Although I don't actually know for certain what is wrong with me,

[snip very interesting post]

It's people like you who have the most to lose as a result of the
dishonesty of the benefit cheats. The scroungers set the public mind
against the whole support system, so deserving cases are treated less
well than would otherwise be the case.

We all (or almost all of us) support wholeheartedly the principle that
those in need should be given help. It there were no cheats (or if there
were very few of them) the consensus would be greatly in favour of
handing out generous benefits. But the public have come to feel that
such a large proportion of benefit money is wasted on the undeserving
that the system is becoming almost impractical.

As a force for good the benefits system needs to benefit only those who
deserve help. Once it starts benefiting significant numbers of
scroungers it becomes a force for evil, because it encourages idleness.

Thanks Bill. I couldn't agree more. That's exactly my point.

Silk wrote:

As a force for good the benefits system needs to benefit only those who
deserve help. Once it starts benefiting significant numbers of
scroungers it becomes a force for evil, because it encourages idleness.

Thanks Bill. I couldn't agree more. That's exactly my point.

The mystery is, why are so many people so blinded by ideology that they
can't see this?

The welfare state was set up by good people to provide a safety net.
Those good people will be turning in their graves now, to see so many
using it as a hammock.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Silk wrote:

As a force for good the benefits system needs to benefit only those who
deserve help. Once it starts benefiting significant numbers of
scroungers it becomes a force for evil, because it encourages idleness.

Thanks Bill. I couldn't agree more. That's exactly my point.

The mystery is, why are so many people so blinded by ideology that they
can't see this?

The welfare state was set up by good people to provide a safety net. Those
good people will be turning in their graves now, to see so many using it
as a hammock.



Exactly, in far too many instances it has evolved from a safety net to a
lifestyle choice.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Silk wrote:

As a force for good the benefits system needs to benefit only those who
deserve help. Once it starts benefiting significant numbers of
scroungers it becomes a force for evil, because it encourages idleness.

Thanks Bill. I couldn't agree more. That's exactly my point.

The mystery is, why are so many people so blinded by ideology that they
can't see this?

The welfare state was set up by good people to provide a safety net. Those
good people will be turning in their graves now, to see so many using it
as a hammock.



"370,000 migrants on the dole"
"More than 370,000 migrants who were admitted to Britain to work, study or
go on holiday are now claiming out-of-work benefits, according to official
figures compiled for the first time".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9026401/370000-migrants-on-the-dole.html