Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

What exactly is your problem with benefits?

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Those who don't abuse benefits don't need to be scrutinised though, they're just free to continue receiving their benefits as they are, no problem. That doesn't mean abusers should just be left to continue abusing. We don't ignore criminals just because they're a minority and everyone else is law abiding.*
    *
    And I'll quote as much as I like, thanks. Nobody's forcing you to read or reply to it.
    I'll just fix how you quoted this then...

    And those who don't abuse don't need to be scrutinised? Lol don't preach to me, that's what I was telling you, I'm glad you're starting to clear the moss between your ears and are finally agreeing with me :laugh: And criminals? We still on about benefits, mate, or are your bigoted reservations coming to surface the longer you linger here spewing hot air? :laugh:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    "Clearly" not what? Since I wasn't talking to you there.
    And which words then smartass.
    I don't think you understand how forums work either. You're posting in a public thread. I was responding to this:

    people who harp on about the minority of abusers are blatantly disregarding the majority of who don't abuse
    No, we aren't. Multiple people on this page have said they have a problem with the minority whilst recognising the existence of the majority.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Yea well everyone's aware of people like that. Didn't have to go into detail about already addressed stereotypes. My thread and all my posts are literally and specifically about those who don't fit those stereotypes, who do claim and do receive, such as pensioners. People don't get that clean cut productive citizens claim benefits as well I'm confronting the idiotic mentality that they don't exist.
    I disagree mate, I did feel the need to go into detail. You asked us a question, so this is a thread for discussion and debate, yeah?

    I'm not trying to outline the various stereotypes - as you said, they're already established. I originally pointed out the types of claimants that I have a problem with, and then in the next post I explained why I have a problem based on what I've seen. You asked what our problem was and addressed various types of claimants, I was giving my problem a bit of a base as I didn't do that in my first post.
    I clearly stated that I believe that the majority of claimants are not only entitled to what they get, but actually need it to live. As I also pointed out, I help the disabled with their claim forms as a part-time living so I know first hand how they're made to jump through hoops just to get what they should be getting. However, I don't see an issue with stating that there are some types of claimants that simply shouldn't be claiming.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I don't think you understand how forums work either. You're posting in a public thread. I was responding to this:



    No, we aren't. Multiple people on this page have said they have a problem with the minority whilst recognising the existence of the majority.
    Lmao I've only taken issue with one person and yourself. And that one person doesn't realise, as I also stated they are doing it inadvertently, that their biases against those who abuse...will make it harder...for those who don't...because their complaints...just might bring about restrictions...that are already in place, unbeknownst to him.

    I acknowledged the others who did just what you said in bold as well :rofl: so shut up.

    I mean I literally said that to woodymkc that he recognised the different situations!! Jog on :rofl:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    And those who don't abuse don't need to be scrutinised? Lol don't preach to me, that's what I was telling you, I'm glad you're starting to clear the moss between your ears and are finally agreeing with me :laugh:
    Sometimes you complain about them being disregarded, now you're agreeing with me that they don't need to be scrutinised. Make up your mind.

    And criminals? We still on about benefits, mate, or are your bigoted reservations coming to surface the longer you linger here spewing hot air? :laugh:
    Benefit fraud is a criminal offence. We don't ignore criminals just because the majority of people are law abiders. It's no different with benefit thieves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    You two, the mums thing isn't exclusive to people on benefits...:erm:
    I know, sorry. I went slightly off topic.

    I just strongly dislike negligent parents though I understand this problem isn't exclusive to those om benefits.

    Perhaps I am being optimistic but I think we should try and strengthen our social services so if a parent is clearly not using the child benefits on the child (usually their teachers can tell) then they should contact the parents.

    They did that to the kid I was talking about and the kid came the following week looking quite sharp.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    I disagree mate, I did feel the need to go into detail. You asked us a question, so this is a thread for discussion and debate, yeah?

    I'm not trying to outline the various stereotypes - as you said, they're already established. I originally pointed out the types of claimants that I have a problem with, and then in the next post I explained why I have a problem based on what I've seen. You asked what our problem was and addressed various types of claimants, I was giving my problem a bit of a base as I didn't do that in my first post.
    I clearly stated that I believe that the majority of claimants are not only entitled to what they get
    Just because it's a public forum it doesn't mean blatantly go against the topic or said purpose of the thread. Especially without being disagreed with. I wasn't asking to describe a provocative scenario where people in your eyes don't need it. I asked what's your problem with people on disability, with people who have kids, with people who have become unemployed or homeless, and you proceeded to describe times when you've seen people who were ********ting. Granted people do ********, but this is about those who aren't, so what're you doing?
    As far as the bold I know you did and the first time I responded to you here I acknowledged you for doing that :confused: so the rest of your post is pointless summarising what you said, I know what you said.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Sometimes you complain about them being disregarded, now you're agreeing with me that they don't need to be scrutinised. Make up your mind.



    Benefit fraud is a criminal offence. We don't ignore criminals just because the majority of people are law abiders. It's no different with benefit thieves.
    Agreeing with you those who don't abuse need to be scrutinised is sudden? What the hell are you talking about?

    You said this :rolleyes::

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Those who don't abuse benefits don't need to be scrutinised. :indiff:

    I never agreed with ****, as this is the point of my entire thread. That they are being lumped into the category of "feckless scroungers"?! As you did! :rolleyes:

    What part don't you get. You conveniently adding this in like you said this in the beginning is what's sudden, don't try it.

    You make up your mind then eh?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Agreeing with you those who don't abuse need to be scrutinised is sudden? What the hell are you talking about?

    You said this :rolleyes::

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Those who don't abuse benefits don't need to be scrutinised. :indiff:

    I never agreed with ****, as this is the point of my entire thread. That they are being lumped into the category of "feckless scroungers"?! As you did! :rolleyes:

    What part don't you get. You conveniently adding this in like you said this in the beginning is what's sudden, don't try it.

    You make up your mind then eh?
    And you said this:

    "people who harp on about the minority of abusers are blatantly disregarding the majority of who don't abuse"

    Do you want us to waste our attention scrutinising them even though they claim their benefits completely legally? Or do you want us to disregard them and just let them continue as they are?

    I think we should focus on preventing benefit fraud. We don't need to focus on genuine claimants, and can just let them be.*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    I know, sorry. I went slightly off topic.

    I just strongly dislike negligent parents though I understand this problem isn't exclusive to those om benefits.

    Perhaps I am being optimistic but I think we should try and strengthen our social services so if a parent is clearly not using the child benefits on the child (usually their teachers can tell) then they should contact the parents.

    They did that to the kid I was talking about and the kid came the following week looking quite sharp.
    No that's fine, your passion on this subject and relevant subtopics is definitely welcome But while I agree the benefits don't need to be stopped or prevented, but they do need to be surveyed to make sure the money is being putting to proper use just in case it isn't, there are people who neglect their kids, as we both agreed, who aren't claiming but the fine line is that they still may need financial assistance that is not available to them because of a razor thin technicality So their kids look like ****. And maybe I never knew teachers are entitled to confidential information like each pupil who is on benefits, in order for them to report the parent for not spending it on the kid based on their appearance does that happen? Hope not lol But yea even though their nosiness can sometimes bring welfare to your door and get your kids taken or something, I think there needs to be a bit more care from teachers and more proactiveness to protect kids. I'm wondering how it can be made legal to survey everyone's spending on their kids.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    And you said this:

    "people who harp on about the minority of abusers are blatantly disregarding the majority of who don't abuse"

    Do you want us to waste our attention scrutinising them even though they claim their benefits completely legally? Or do you want us to disregard them and just let them continue as they are?

    I think we should focus on preventing benefit fraud. We don't need to focus on genuine claimants, and can just let them be.*
    I know wtf I said, why are you repeating it...? What does that have to do with you lying that I suddenly agreed with you...

    I never scrutinised anyone, you are :laugh: I'm defending them while you judge and disregard. So "us" who? :laugh:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Pensions "shouldn't be" anything because whether people are stupid and generalise benefits as low income scroungers and not as middle classed workers or not, which is my point, pensions still are a form of benefits. Benefits is a dictionary term for, your rights as a human and citizen according to your work and pay. Pensions is a form of benefits, and people need to accept that and stop making nasty generalisations about benefits is my point and why I put it there lmao.

    Anyway whether you realise this or not, you and I kinda agree that benefits aren't just "wasted" on "feckless scroungers," but actually on people on disability and elderly, so....you just repeated what I said pal. :erm:
    I haven't read the thread I just made my own comment


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Just because it's a public forum it doesn't mean blatantly go against the topic or said purpose of the thread. Especially without being disagreed with. I wasn't asking to describe a provocative scenario where people in your eyes don't need it. I asked what's your problem with people on disability, with people who have kids, with people who have become unemployed or homeless, and you proceeded to describe times when you've seen people who were ********ting. Granted people do ********, but this is about those who aren't, so what're you doing?
    As far as the bold I know you did and the first time I responded to you here I acknowledged you for doing that :confused: so the rest of your post is pointless summarising what you said, I know what you said.
    Your first post put no real emphasis on the fact that you only wish to discuss people in genuine need. Yes, you mentioned in the first paragraph that people lump all claimants into one... but then you just went on to list all the benefits and who can claim them, saying 'right, this benefit is claimed by this type of person... tell me your problem with that'. It obviously wasn't your intention, but you were more or less openly inviting people to state their issues with ingenuous claimants as well as commenting on genuine claimants. In a thread like this, when worded in this way, nobody is going to be able to make a sweeping statement because the boundaries aren't clearly established.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I haven't read the thread I just made my own comment


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is either a copout or foolish. Anyway like I said I tentatively agree with what you said about majority of benefits being for disabled and those who need
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    This is either a copout or foolish. Anyway like I said I tentatively agree with what you said about majority of benefits being for disabled and those who need
    It's neither, it's my comment. I've just flicked through some posts and you're coming off as an ********


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    Your first post put no real emphasis on the fact that you only wish to discuss people in genuine need. Yes, you mentioned in the first paragraph that people lump all claimants into one... but then you just went on to list all the benefits and who can claim them, saying 'right, this benefit is claimed by this type of person... tell me your problem with that'. It obviously wasn't your intention, but you were more or less openly inviting people to state their issues with ingenuous claimants as well as commenting on genuine claimants. In a thread like this, when worded in this way, nobody is going to be able to make a sweeping statement because the boundaries aren't clearly established.
    1st what? My first post was the op...

    my first response to you was just saying your post recognised different situations...why take issue with me agreeing with you, unless you're losing track of your own posts, which is a bad sign for how the rest of this conversation will go.

    It was my intention, "what is your problem with the aforementioned statement about each type of benefit" basically...you didn't answer that question, you went on to squeeze in stereotypical scenarios. What has the fat guy you claim to have seen got to do with people on disability who have mental issues for example? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    I know wtf I said, why are you repeating it...? What does that have to do with you lying that I suddenly agreed with you...

    I never scrutinised anyone, you are :laugh: I'm defending them while you judge and disregard. So "us" who? :laugh:
    I don't think you understand what "scrutinise" and "disregard" mean. Scrutinising something means to pay very close and thorough attention to it. Disregarding something means to pay no attention to it. They are polar opposites of each other.

    It makes no sense to complain that I'm disregarding them, and also say that all along you think they should not be scrutinised.

    Do you want genuine benefit claimants to be scrutinised, or do you want them to be disregarded? You can only have one or the other.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It's neither, it's my comment. I've just flicked through some posts and you're coming off as an ********


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're the whatever that word is for posting and not reading. I don't care what you think, you're old and uninformed, jog on back to sutton mate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    0to100 C ya, hope you have a good nights sleep, farewell :hat2:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I don't think you understand what "scrutinise" and "disregard" mean.*Scrutinising something means to pay thorough attention to it. Disregarding something means to pay no attention to it. They are opposites of each other.

    You can't complain that I'm disregarding and then also claim that I'm scrutinising them, and that you've said all along they shouldn't be scrutinised.

    You can have one or the other.*
    You must be getting tired because you have nothing intellectual to add anymore even though you keep desperately responding to look big then wonder why we're going in circles, so now you're resorting to weak jabs toward my intelligence :teehee:

    No, scrutinising means to judge hypercritically.
    Disregard means you don't give a ****

    You're disregarding people who don't abuse benefits because your--yes--scrutiny of those who do abuse means you obviously want some changes to the system, to make sure they no longer commit "fraud." Not only are you being stupid in your lack of realisation that people get their benefits stopped all the time ALREADY for fraud...this issue you still foolishly have could lead to hypothetical futile and unnecessary changes in the current system, which would jeopardise people who actually need it, despite the fraudsters being a minority as you admitted anyway. That is literally disregarding mate. As I said before and you damn well understood.
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.