Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Don't Cap My Benefits...
172 Answers
How do you feel about this programme, BBC1, now.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ferlew. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
'Tania had another baby'
Tania already had two boys; we've no idea whether she had those boys while she was working and in a relationship with the father which didn't work out. By her own admission she hated being on benefits and was raised by parents who both worked; she also wanted to stay in London because her family network were there, presumably so that they could help with childcare while she worked. How is she (and others) going to work in areas very far away freom any support network if they need to access child care arrangements too? You can not tar the feckless families (of which there are some) with the families who have fallen on hard times and caught in a trap. You didn't like it when with the 'bedroom tax', others tarred everyone with the same brush.
Tania already had two boys; we've no idea whether she had those boys while she was working and in a relationship with the father which didn't work out. By her own admission she hated being on benefits and was raised by parents who both worked; she also wanted to stay in London because her family network were there, presumably so that they could help with childcare while she worked. How is she (and others) going to work in areas very far away freom any support network if they need to access child care arrangements too? You can not tar the feckless families (of which there are some) with the families who have fallen on hard times and caught in a trap. You didn't like it when with the 'bedroom tax', others tarred everyone with the same brush.
no you are right i didn't and still don't. however if she was already struggling, and though she said she wanted to work, why have another child, which makes it even less likely that she can get baby sitters for her three children, with one being under one. Support networks are good,
but they cannot be there for a person 24/7 and as anyone knows being a single parent is a hard job,
but they cannot be there for a person 24/7 and as anyone knows being a single parent is a hard job,
'why have another child?'
She has only two children! Are you confusing Tania (black lady) with the white lady? Only Tania was shown walking around with her CV so fairly obvious who I'm talking about if you watched the show. As I said, regarding Tania, we have no idea if she had both her children while in a stable and working relationship.
If you don't like people tarring everyone who suffered with the 'bedroom tax' with the same brush, then I suggest you remember that when thinking about others. You appear to be more interested in ranting at big familiies and single parents rather than actually thinking about the issues raised by this balanced program such as damaging support networks to the extent that people actually are unable to work.
As to the family that were moved back to London; the father was driving the children to school everyday and himself to work - he was probably moved back because he was breaking his neck trying to do the right thing and stay employed.
She has only two children! Are you confusing Tania (black lady) with the white lady? Only Tania was shown walking around with her CV so fairly obvious who I'm talking about if you watched the show. As I said, regarding Tania, we have no idea if she had both her children while in a stable and working relationship.
If you don't like people tarring everyone who suffered with the 'bedroom tax' with the same brush, then I suggest you remember that when thinking about others. You appear to be more interested in ranting at big familiies and single parents rather than actually thinking about the issues raised by this balanced program such as damaging support networks to the extent that people actually are unable to work.
As to the family that were moved back to London; the father was driving the children to school everyday and himself to work - he was probably moved back because he was breaking his neck trying to do the right thing and stay employed.
I was actually just winding people up.
I think people are too quick to lump all people on benefits together and have very little empathy towards people who are genuinely struggling. Having very little money and no prospects is depressing, getting out of the hole you're I seems impossible - it's soul destroying.
I think people are too quick to lump all people on benefits together and have very little empathy towards people who are genuinely struggling. Having very little money and no prospects is depressing, getting out of the hole you're I seems impossible - it's soul destroying.
i am not ranting at big families, nor anyone, some on this site say it's all wrong, don't pay them anything, go out to work and support yourself, or perhaps you don't notice them. I know they need help, but the programme
was another exercise in biased reporting. The system that is in operation
isn't perfect, and needs obvious pruning, yet when the government do something, like this cap, many are up in arms, they can't win whatever they try. If anybody thinks its ok that the guy who was earning 150 quid in part time employment, was getting 800 quid a week on top in benefits, then something is wrong.
was another exercise in biased reporting. The system that is in operation
isn't perfect, and needs obvious pruning, yet when the government do something, like this cap, many are up in arms, they can't win whatever they try. If anybody thinks its ok that the guy who was earning 150 quid in part time employment, was getting 800 quid a week on top in benefits, then something is wrong.
-- answer removed --
sandy, perhaps, but being stuck at home with kids, or even in low paid work can make you feel like that - if you have no family near by, and some to take the load for a time. If you do low paid work, then surely money will be topped up by the DWP, its the cutting back on the housing benefits that has caused the problem, and notice that this was in Brent, perhaps they should do another programme out in say Sheffield, Manchester, or Scotland.
My overriding annoyance with this is that people who find themselves in straitened circumstances - for whatever reason - often (though not always, so please don’t jump on me) continue to behave exactly the same as they did before they hit trouble. This is particularly true of the number of children they continue to have. Reverting back to last night’s programme (which, after all, this question is supposed to be about) many - almost all in fact - of those featured had been on benefits for many years. In the intervening time they had continued to knock out children and some had excessively large families by anybody’s standards. People in work, whether well paid or otherwise, have to adjust their lives to suit their finances. Many young couples will not start a family at all, others consider very carefully whether to increase their brood. Most of those featured yesterday did not. They simply kept on banging out kids in the full knowledge that their changed circumstances would be reflected in the support they receive. Everybody should think very carefully before they bring a child into the world and quite simply many do not.
When somebody signs on to receive benefits their circumstances at that time should be recorded and the benefits they receive then should be the maximum they will be paid. Additionally the taxpayer should not be compelled to pay for accommodation in expensive areas. It’s no use ranting on about rights. People have the right to live where they please and have as many children as they please. And taxpayers have the right to decline to pay for their upkeep.
By the way, I don't know how this programme has been seen as "balanced" by some. There was no representation from working people - many of whom have net incomes far below some of those featured but who are paying tax and NI towards their upkeep.
When somebody signs on to receive benefits their circumstances at that time should be recorded and the benefits they receive then should be the maximum they will be paid. Additionally the taxpayer should not be compelled to pay for accommodation in expensive areas. It’s no use ranting on about rights. People have the right to live where they please and have as many children as they please. And taxpayers have the right to decline to pay for their upkeep.
By the way, I don't know how this programme has been seen as "balanced" by some. There was no representation from working people - many of whom have net incomes far below some of those featured but who are paying tax and NI towards their upkeep.
Whilst I did have some sympathy for some of the families featured, I had to struggle by incredibilty at others.
The one I felt particularly 'niggled' at was the lady with the 2 girls (the elder refused to move to Luton with her). Her apparent disgust at the house which was given to her in Luton was disgusting. The house was perfectly fine and one which many people who are desperately working and trying to get a starter mortgage would be bloody grateful for.
The one I felt particularly 'niggled' at was the lady with the 2 girls (the elder refused to move to Luton with her). Her apparent disgust at the house which was given to her in Luton was disgusting. The house was perfectly fine and one which many people who are desperately working and trying to get a starter mortgage would be bloody grateful for.
