Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
More or less - if you look back, like i say, historically the number was almost touching the 2.8million mark but there have been steady reductions as many of the older claimants have either died or retired.
Panoroma on welfare reform: a travesty of journalism?
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
Apparently some IB claimants are being taken off of IB and put on old age pension when they are 60 instead of 65. (I would be grateful if anyone can verify this.)
True. But GPs ignorance is only part of the problem.
The majority of Jobs created in the UK since 1997 have gone to foreign born workers.
Millions of British born people have been left to rot.
And many of those are on IB or IS with a disability premium and would work if they got the support and encouragement too.
I reckon (top of my head) that there are around 7 million people in the UK unemployed or underemployed already.
I think people like treelover are seriously wrong on this....People with disabilities should have more in the way of benefits like DLA and less in the way of IB that keep too many of them trapped.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Apparently, 2.7 million more jobs have been created since 1997 and 52 percent of these have gone to migrants, according to government figures. So, that leaves 48 percent of new jobs being taken by British born workers.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I remember when they introduced the Y.T.S. and Y.O.P. programmes to supposedly teach skills. What a bag of arse that was; "here's a shovel, dig a hole".
And what happened? Even local authorities started getting rid of some of their directly-employed labourers, because they could get some mug to do it for £23 a week.
_angel_
.
People who advocate 'work for your dole' don't seem to factor in the people already employed to do these jobs become.. unemployed and maybe on the dole.
bloke down the pub told me that we could share out the work by cutting the working week.
Much reported in the media House of Lords report on the subject only a few weeks ago.
Different from the stats produced by ons that bloke down the pub told me he saw.
I would not believe anything a bloke in a pub told me.
I find that difficult to believe.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Panorama is a parody of tabloid journalism these days.
If there are any media/political science students out there looking for a project, it'd be interesting to compare the manpower, volume of press releases (and resulting column inches) from the audit office devoted to benefit fraud compared to various types of corporate fraud, which is maybe 50 times higher in value than benefit fraud.
Just check the statistics here. On tax credits, £131 million in identified overpayments, another £409 million never paid out due to suspected fraud. But in PAYE HMRC admit to not chasing a billion in tax, and ignoring half a billion in overpaid tax. Missing trader VAT fraud gets a lot of attention too - it costs an estimated £1-2 billion - but corporate tax evasion appears to be missing altogether from the report itself as well as the press release based on it.
There were figures on the other thread that put the total cost of corporate fraud at ~£100 billion, but I'm having trouble even finding a number (as opposed to vague mutterings) on the NAO site. This BBC report suggests that they can recover rather a lot of cash when they put their minds to it ...
If there are any media/political science students out there looking for a project, it'd be interesting to compare the manpower, volume of press releases (and resulting column inches) from the audit office devoted to benefit fraud compared to various types of corporate fraud, which is maybe 50 times higher in value than benefit fraud.
Just check the statistics here. On tax credits, £131 million in identified overpayments, another £409 million never paid out due to suspected fraud. But in PAYE HMRC admit to not chasing a billion in tax, and ignoring half a billion in overpaid tax. Missing trader VAT fraud gets a lot of attention too - it costs an estimated £1-2 billion - but corporate tax evasion appears to be missing altogether from the report itself as well as the press release based on it.
There were figures on the other thread that put the total cost of corporate fraud at ~£100 billion, but I'm having trouble even finding a number (as opposed to vague mutterings) on the NAO site. This BBC report suggests that they can recover rather a lot of cash when they put their minds to it ...
Having a coherent conversation with anyone in the pubs I use would be a novelty.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Most of these social parasites would have to go into re-education to learn to wipe their own arses
Baldy blokedownthepub.com, seems to have expired.
Is there any other source of TRUTHFUL & GENUINE statistics, as armour and weaponary against these scumbag middle class nanny state liberal-lefty loafers, whose only wish is to see the degeneration of of the Working Classs and British Society as a whole????
Baldy blokedownthepub.com, seems to have expired.
Is there any other source of TRUTHFUL & GENUINE statistics, as armour and weaponary against these scumbag middle class nanny state liberal-lefty loafers, whose only wish is to see the degeneration of of the Working Classs and British Society as a whole????
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Oh Nigel, you're so controversial!
Still, I suppose you have to do something to distract you from remembering that you don't have a penis, eh?
Still, I suppose you have to do something to distract you from remembering that you don't have a penis, eh?
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
Most of these social parasites would have to go into re-education to learn to wipe their own arses
And, what of those who cannot physically wipe their own arses?
I do wish cunts like you would fuck off and die quietly.
Most of these social parasites would have to go into re-education to learn to wipe their own arses
Baldy blokedownthepub.com, seems to have expired.
Is there any other source of TRUTHFUL & GENUINE statistics, as armour and weaponary against these scumbag middle class nanny state liberal-lefty loafers, whose only wish is to see the degeneration of of the Working Classs and British Society as a whole????
Trustworthy statistics....Who was it who said that 97% of statistics are bollocks.....Me on another fred probably....
Truth is that a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping disabled people out of work. And yes the vast majority of people on IB could and should work....But the help they get to work is usually preety shite.
As i said earlier more money should go on benefits like DLA and less on benefits that are paid to keep you out of work.
How on earth do you know that? are you a Doctor, an Occupational Therapist or just a bigoted know it all who actually knows sweet Fanny Adams...
'Baldwin said
Truth is that a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping disabled people out of work. And yes the vast majority of people on IB could and should work....But the help they get to work is usually preety shite.'
'Baldwin said
Truth is that a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping disabled people out of work. And yes the vast majority of people on IB could and should work....But the help they get to work is usually preety shite.'
_angel_
.
How anyone can presume to sit there and say 'there are too many people on IB' without being in charge of knowing the exact medical conditions of thousands of people is beyond me.
Incidentally there are apparently more severely disabled children being born now than ever (something to do with babies being born prematurely and surviving better). So I imagine there will actually be more severely disabled people who will need state support in coming years.
Yet they will be dismissed as not being as many of them as there are* and how infact most people claiming support are 'spongers'
*simply because most of the time you will never see them
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
But noisy dying is so much more entertaining, Mr. blues!
That twat Heffer is on about it now at the telegraph and judging by the comments a pruning of the welfare state isn't far away,
Oh, and i do wonder if the one of the aim of mass migration was to create a new entreprenurial class which had no affection for, no belief in, or desire for, a welfare state, like in the U.S.
'Mr Heffer is normally 90% right in his articles. Today he is 100% right.
Welfare takes away responsibility, thrift and self sufficiency and encourages the feckless, the idle and the immoral.We need to distinguish between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. To the former I do not begrudge their welfare payments but to the latter I do. To those who assert that the decline in morality is attributable to the decline in christian observance I say you can be perfectly moral without religion.
Why do these left wing welfare junkies who are clearly deaf and dumb to the harm of rampant welfare and waste, posting comments here? Surely they should write their bile on the guardian.
Posted by AZAM on May 28, 2008 3:47 PM
Report this comment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/28/do2801.xml
Oh, and i do wonder if the one of the aim of mass migration was to create a new entreprenurial class which had no affection for, no belief in, or desire for, a welfare state, like in the U.S.
'Mr Heffer is normally 90% right in his articles. Today he is 100% right.
Welfare takes away responsibility, thrift and self sufficiency and encourages the feckless, the idle and the immoral.We need to distinguish between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. To the former I do not begrudge their welfare payments but to the latter I do. To those who assert that the decline in morality is attributable to the decline in christian observance I say you can be perfectly moral without religion.
Why do these left wing welfare junkies who are clearly deaf and dumb to the harm of rampant welfare and waste, posting comments here? Surely they should write their bile on the guardian.
Posted by AZAM on May 28, 2008 3:47 PM
Report this comment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/28/do2801.xml
oh and just read this lovely comment, a country at ease with itself?
'Given that stopping welfare payments overnight might be a somewhat destructive policy, wouldn't a fair intermediary step be to produce a publicly available list of who is claiming what and for how much? I'd like to think that the embarressment attached to such name and shaming tactics would be enough to make many of the less deserving claimants think twice -- but maybe I'm being naive.
Secondly, the only way of ensuring that the bloated maggot of social welfarism doesn't continue to self perpetuate by electing the party willing to feed it the most, is to take away the right to vote from anyone in social housing. Once you stop leeching off society you gain the right to be part of society.'
'Given that stopping welfare payments overnight might be a somewhat destructive policy, wouldn't a fair intermediary step be to produce a publicly available list of who is claiming what and for how much? I'd like to think that the embarressment attached to such name and shaming tactics would be enough to make many of the less deserving claimants think twice -- but maybe I'm being naive.
Secondly, the only way of ensuring that the bloated maggot of social welfarism doesn't continue to self perpetuate by electing the party willing to feed it the most, is to take away the right to vote from anyone in social housing. Once you stop leeching off society you gain the right to be part of society.'
or this one, clearly the left and all progressive people have real enemies that are going to come out of the woodwork over the next few years.
'"Our human stock is under threat, due to the high and rising number of children being born to unmarried mothers in their adolesence from social sectors four and five. Women least suited to bring children into the world" Sir Keith Jospeph, 1974.
The man was pilloried for saying this at the time by much of the press. I think much of the press deserve their fair share of the blame for supporting so whole-heartedly the plans and views of the champagne socialists and neo-Marxist wreckers.
Posted by Stephen Tolkinghorne on May 28, 2008 12:55 PM
Report this comment
'"Our human stock is under threat, due to the high and rising number of children being born to unmarried mothers in their adolesence from social sectors four and five. Women least suited to bring children into the world" Sir Keith Jospeph, 1974.
The man was pilloried for saying this at the time by much of the press. I think much of the press deserve their fair share of the blame for supporting so whole-heartedly the plans and views of the champagne socialists and neo-Marxist wreckers.
Posted by Stephen Tolkinghorne on May 28, 2008 12:55 PM
Report this comment
_angel_
.
Why does any of the above surprise you TL? The Telegraph readers comments I read online are convinced with some kind of religious zeal there's an army of feckless teenage chavs desperate to reproduce in order to steal their money and get a council house. (Question: when did Telegraph readers start caring about council houses anyway?)
They trot out the exact same thing to a tee. It's a wondrous thing to behold. Just with usually better grammar and spelling than the usual lazy 'Jeremy Kyle' cliche.
What with them being too posh to know about him.
Heh it's enough to make me want another baby just to piss them off.
They trot out the exact same thing to a tee. It's a wondrous thing to behold. Just with usually better grammar and spelling than the usual lazy 'Jeremy Kyle' cliche.
What with them being too posh to know about him.
Heh it's enough to make me want another baby just to piss them off.
Similar threads
- Poll
