Don't Cap My Benefits...

[ferlew]

How do you feel about this programme, BBC1, now.

[emmie]

the cost of living may have gone up, so have benefits, so has money you earn, a price of a loaf of bread in the 50's is the same as now, however the benefits bill in the 50's wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now, now having to spend out so much on rent, that in the capital is and will continue to be the big bugbear. Even if people are moved out of the capital they will likely be the poorer ones, so who is left to do the more menial jobs, if they cannot afford to live here.

[Svejk]

Just cos these women claim the fathers aren't around, don't necessarily, make it so. In fact, sticking my neck out, i'll go further, and say its seldom true.

[emmie]

that should of course read, the price of a loaf of bread in the 50's, is NOT the same as now, however my mum had to manage, and she did, she also worked, as did all the family, as did her friends, male and female, take that back any number of generations, all worked, mostly out of necessity.

[saintpeter48]

I watched the programme and have little sympathy for majority of them, as said on here already, two families had 7 children, one had 9 and they were foreign speaking and moaning about their plight, the bloody cheek of it gets me!!! Why keep churning out kids if you can't afford it, ever heard of contraception? If you don't like the rules then go back to your own country and then you'll realise how well off you really are, makes my blood boil. Scroungers, all of them!!!

[sherrardk]

There's a similar program on tonight which should get most of you really wound up - channel 5, 9pm 'Gypsies on benefits and proud'.

[China Doll]

I don't think that's entirely fair sherrardk; the program I watched last night i thought was reflective, thoughtful and showed both sides, I really didn't see any bias (maybe I've blinkers on). The program you're saying is designed to do exactly the opposite and shouldn't be compared.

[emmie]

i think it was to have a go at the current measures in places by IDS and the coalition. I am not convinced it wasn't biased. Same as other programmes have been, that having ten kids without an visible means of your own financial support is wrong.

[China Doll]

Well then it failed in that as well didn't it Emmie since most people I think are not in disgreement with the system exactly nor are they completely sympathetic with parents who continue to have significant numbers of children when already claiming benefits or in a financial situation that means they are unable to afford to. However I think we could all have felt sympathy for Tania Blake (I think that was her name) who had two children and was walking around handing her CV in everywhere in desperation. Also, as others have said, where is the distinction between a family who have perhaps fallen on hard times (redundancy say) who previously did support themselves and those that do seem unable to help themselves? And indeed as othes have said, what are the long term effects on Birmingham or when we run out of room outside the capital?

I've not seen anyone on here condem completely the politics and/or thought behind the program but question it, yes absolutely.

[emmie]

the chap with seven children under 10, earning 150 quid a week, is that not irresponsible, having so many when he earns so little, they were getting 800 quid in benefits, according to the programme, they moved them out - but they have i believe moved back to the capital,
i do think that there is a lot wrong with the benefits system, some decisions are just plain bonkers, and some on here say scroungers, work shy, lazy feckless individuals, getting x quid in benefits, yet those same people will not like it when those people, like the ones in the programme are coming under fire. This is a system of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[ummmm]

The programme didn't say how long all the people involved had been on benefits.

[emmie]

Tania had another baby, why, i am not against people having children, but another when she was already under the cosh financially, and emotionally drained, it doesn't make any sense, no dads around to help financially or emotionally, so how on earth is she supposed to work, the one thing we do know is child care costs are astronomical. Don't hard pressed, working couples with mortgage and huge bills count as well.

[emmie]

perhaps it should have, or perhaps they can't give out that sort of info, i honestly don't know.

[ummmm]

Were the fathers even mentioned? I don't remember hearing that they weren't involved with their children.

[ummmm]

They did say that the lady whose daughter stayed in London with family hadn't worked for 12 years.

[ladybirder]

sherr, the Channel 5 programme will have been made for the purpose of winding people up. Even the title is a wind up. It's what C5 does. I don't really think you can compare it with the BBC one we are discussing here.

[emmie]

it was on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01x2hhr?intc_type=promo&intc_location=news&intc_campaign=panoramabenefits_promo&intc_linkname=news_index_preview

[emmie]

LB, ah i see, however surely these are supposed to be informative, whilst many are not, just one sided viewpoint, i would love to get the viewpoints of those in the firing line, the staff in DWP, Job centres, and what they really think.

[ummmm]

Emmie...that's just a link to a clip.

[emmie]

i know, i thought someone mentioned that it was on channel 5, my error.
i did watch it, have some sympathy with the people, however i don't get the fact that many of the single women go on having children, one is a tie, expensive, two and more are going to send you ragged if your income is low, they managed before because their housing benefit was paid in full, now its been capped is where the problems come in.

[ladybirder]

Em I know it was on BBC, that was the point of my post.