Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:34 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

I agree that the woman shouldn't be publicly named and shamed, but the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to fork out what is a significant sum of money each year because she can't keep her legs closed.

Any suggestions as to an alternative?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:53 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

I agree that the woman shouldn't be publicly named and shamed, but the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to fork out what is a significant sum of money each year because she can't keep her legs closed.

Its not so much the demonising of individual families by government departments and ministers, its the mis-information that is printed in news media that openly and publically supports that flavour of government.

The local authority are presented with a situation that they have a responsibility to cater for, they own some land that a developer is interested in developing for a private housing scheme so they sell that land to the developer (all local authorities have been tasked with identifying tranches of land for development) and in the planning permission they have an allowance for a percentage of social housing (this is normal and well established in all new developments now) which, because the local authority aren't allowed to develop their own social housing they hand over to a social housing association to handle, one of those requirements is for one house to be larger than the standard two or three beds, again, this is normal.

Thats the story, or non-story.

What The Sun do is take that non-event and turn it into a witch hunt, they first of all question the price of the land that was sold to the developer without informing its readers whether it was the going rate, discounted down, or extortionately high - they give the impression though that the council almost gave it away by stating "only £240,000" but don't expand on that.

They then make a big point about the houses being "eco-friendly" presumably to make a spurious point that these houses will be more expensive to build, but failing to point out that ALL new housing developments are built this way now to the extent where a development close to me include garden bicycle sheds to encourage the cycle to work scheme and washing line posts c/w a washing line to encourage residents not to use tumble dryers - these are eco-friendly in the same way that those houses have dual circuit central heating and highly insulated walls and roofs.

Calling a six bedroom £400,000 rental property a "palace" and a "mansion" is just pure sensationalism and another of their reports today states that the family involved have a horse and want two more at a cost to the taxpayer (haven't found that story yet, just heard it on the radio) - pure bollox as I have never heard of a horse benefit payment, nor does a horse need to be a thoroughbred hunter to qualify as a horse, you can pick them up for a few quid, for leisure or food purposes apparently.


We all know what The Sun is all about and what they have done to the story is nothing less than we'd expect, the problem is that too many people actually believe even half of it.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:54 am  

JerryChicken wrote: On a slight tangent, there's a good piece of sensible writing on the subject of large families claiming benefits in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/mother-11-mansion-media-families-benefits which raises the issues again of "divide and conquer" politics where sections of society are targetted by Ministers and fed to certain parts of the news media for a well orchestrated public humiliation, follow the link to The Sun in that article if you want to see how to present a totally one sided news story in a national newspaper in order to support your prefered flavour of government. Oh the government are playing a great game with even those on benefits (in work via Tax Credits) squaring up against those on benefits (out of work) when in some cases they are probably getting a similar amount each week in hand outs. To be honest I doubt it will save the Tories in the next election but in creating a them and us situation where people in work are looking with distain at those without it they are already planting seeds that may help their party further down the line. Not quite Maggie selling off cheap council houses for votes but its an equally cynical path they are taking.

JerryChicken wrote: On a slight tangent, there's a good piece of sensible writing on the subject of large families claiming benefits in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/mother-11-mansion-media-families-benefits which raises the issues again of "divide and conquer" politics where sections of society are targetted by Ministers and fed to certain parts of the news media for a well orchestrated public humiliation, follow the link to The Sun in that article if you want to see how to present a totally one sided news story in a national newspaper in order to support your prefered flavour of government. Oh the government are playing a great game with even those on benefits (in work via Tax Credits) squaring up against those on benefits (out of work) when in some cases they are probably getting a similar amount each week in hand outs. To be honest I doubt it will save the Tories in the next election but in creating a them and us situation where people in work are looking with distain at those without it they are already planting seeds that may help their party further down the line. Not quite Maggie selling off cheap council houses for votes but its an equally cynical path they are taking.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:57 am  

JerryChicken wrote: On a slight tangent, there's a good piece of sensible writing on the subject of large families claiming benefits in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/mother-11-mansion-media-families-benefits I will admit having to Google 'hyperfecund' in that piece.

JerryChicken wrote: On a slight tangent, there's a good piece of sensible writing on the subject of large families claiming benefits in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/mother-11-mansion-media-families-benefits I will admit having to Google 'hyperfecund' in that piece.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:06 am  

JerryChicken wrote: Its not so much the demonising of individual families by government departments and ministers, its the mis-information that is printed in news media that openly and publically supports that flavour of government. The local authority are presented with a situation that they have a responsibility to cater for, they own some land that a developer is interested in developing for a private housing scheme so they sell that land to the developer (all local authorities have been tasked with identifying tranches of land for development) and in the planning permission they have an allowance for a percentage of social housing (this is normal and well established in all new developments now) which, because the local authority aren't allowed to develop their own social housing they hand over to a social housing association to handle, one of those requirements is for one house to be larger than the standard two or three beds, again, this is normal. Thats the story, or non-story. What The Sun do is take that non-event and turn it into a witch hunt, they first of all question the price of the land that was sold to the developer without informing its readers whether it was the going rate, discounted down, or extortionately high - they give the impression though that the council almost gave it away by stating "only £240,000" but don't expand on that. They then make a big point about the houses being "eco-friendly" presumably to make a spurious point that these houses will be more expensive to build, but failing to point out that ALL new housing developments are built this way now to the extent where a development close to me include garden bicycle sheds to encourage the cycle to work scheme and washing line posts c/w a washing line to encourage residents not to use tumble dryers - these are eco-friendly in the same way that those houses have dual circuit central heating and highly insulated walls and roofs. Calling a six bedroom £400,000 rental property a "palace" and a "mansion" is just pure sensationalism and another of their reports today states that the family involved have a horse and want two more at a cost to the taxpayer (haven't found that story yet, just heard it on the radio) - pure bollox as I have never heard of a horse benefit payment, nor does a horse need to be a thoroughbred hunter to qualify as a horse, you can pick them up for a few quid, for leisure or food purposes apparently. We all know what The Sun is all about and what they have done to the story is nothing less than we'd expect, the problem is that too many people actually believe even half of it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... horse.html

JerryChicken wrote: Its not so much the demonising of individual families by government departments and ministers, its the mis-information that is printed in news media that openly and publically supports that flavour of government. The local authority are presented with a situation that they have a responsibility to cater for, they own some land that a developer is interested in developing for a private housing scheme so they sell that land to the developer (all local authorities have been tasked with identifying tranches of land for development) and in the planning permission they have an allowance for a percentage of social housing (this is normal and well established in all new developments now) which, because the local authority aren't allowed to develop their own social housing they hand over to a social housing association to handle, one of those requirements is for one house to be larger than the standard two or three beds, again, this is normal. Thats the story, or non-story. What The Sun do is take that non-event and turn it into a witch hunt, they first of all question the price of the land that was sold to the developer without informing its readers whether it was the going rate, discounted down, or extortionately high - they give the impression though that the council almost gave it away by stating "only £240,000" but don't expand on that. They then make a big point about the houses being "eco-friendly" presumably to make a spurious point that these houses will be more expensive to build, but failing to point out that ALL new housing developments are built this way now to the extent where a development close to me include garden bicycle sheds to encourage the cycle to work scheme and washing line posts c/w a washing line to encourage residents not to use tumble dryers - these are eco-friendly in the same way that those houses have dual circuit central heating and highly insulated walls and roofs. Calling a six bedroom £400,000 rental property a "palace" and a "mansion" is just pure sensationalism and another of their reports today states that the family involved have a horse and want two more at a cost to the taxpayer (haven't found that story yet, just heard it on the radio) - pure bollox as I have never heard of a horse benefit payment, nor does a horse need to be a thoroughbred hunter to qualify as a horse, you can pick them up for a few quid, for leisure or food purposes apparently. We all know what The Sun is all about and what they have done to the story is nothing less than we'd expect, the problem is that too many people actually believe even half of it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... horse.html

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:14 am  

One case of a woman on benefits who has eleven kids and a horse ... so let's cut the benefits of EVERYONE, regardless of reasons or circumstance, even those recently made redundant, those who are genuinely desperate for work and those in work.
Yes, we know the kids will suffer the most, both now and in their future life chances but, hey, this woman has a horse ! ... so sod the lot of them.

That seems to be the plan.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:15 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Any suggestions as to an alternative?

Clothing and food vouchers to ensure that the money is spent on what it is intended for - the kids or better yet create a government charity and issue the clothes direct.

The woman is keeping horses.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:17 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

The woman is keeping horses.

Was your mouth agape as you sat and typed that?

Been told the fourh eldest daughter also has a hamster.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:20 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

Clothing and food vouchers to ensure that the money is spent on what it is intended for - the kids or better yet create a government charity and issue the clothes direct.

The woman is keeping horses.

Yeah and you can guarentee the Government would link up with someone like Tesco so not only provide them with free labour but send them new customers too.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:21 am  

WIZEB wrote:

Was your mouth agape as you sat and typed that?

Been told the fourh eldest daughter also has a hamster.

Their cat must be worried as the local vigilantes will be after his blood