Just a Thougt for the day

[robpage]

I hjad this sent to me by an old friend yesterday and I thought it was an idea worth sharing
I don't know if it is practical ot even possible , but it seems like a good idea . It would discriminate against the genuine people out there though


Drugs Test



(This was written by British Soldier- What he says makes a lot of sense!)






I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay , I train for war and eventually deploy. I am required to pass a random urine test… for drugs, with which I have no problem. ... What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque because I have to pass one to EARN IT for them? Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their **** drinking beer and smoking dope. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque? Please pass this along if you agree or simply delete it if you don't. Hope you will pass it along though, because something has to change in the UK!!!

[Tony Morcom]

I claim benefits because I can't work due to being a full time carer. I certainly would have no objection to passing a urine test. However there would be a problem if this was introduced because like it or not a huge percentage of those on benefits do unfortunately take drugs and drink too much. The only reason I can really think of for them doing it is to try a forget the crap lives they have forged for themselves. Back to the problem though, what happens to them. You can't just leave them to beg on the streets etc..
All that said I can quite understand the point of view expressed by the soldier.

[John Albert Evans]

I wholeheartedly agree with the words of the soldier.

HE SPEAKS COMMON SENSE.

And that is the main problem with his reasonable suggestion because for to pass a law it has to be agreed by the PEOPLE in Parliament and not the people in general.
The first party would see it losing votes for curtailing their voters recreational passtimes.
The second party would see it as a complete no brainer as it would just lose them voters.
The third party would vote against it because that is all they ever do and vote against sensible ideas wanted by the public.
The remaining minorities parties,they wouldn't count because even their voters cann't understand how they got there in the first place.

But maybe the main objection (although this would never be admitted) and that is that they themselves would be seen by the public, to vote against it and to which would then make them sujbected to randon tests and therefore anyone not passing the test they be out of a job and losing a minimum of £65K per anum, untold expences, allowances and perks and lets be honest where could you get that kind of money for doing whatever the majority of workers in this country do. (Sorry i forgot, last statement would not apply because they would have made themselves exempt from that law).

Ah well thats just my ten penneth opinion for what it's worth.

John Albert Evans

[Ron B Manderson]

it's the rich that gets all the pleasure, but the poor will get the blame.
Very true.
Ron the batcave

[robpage]

There are a lot of Genuine people such as you Tony , and most claimants I know deserve every penny and more , I see the queue at the local Chemist at nine AM for the prescribed drugs that they have to take witnessed by the Pharmacist , They then gravitate to the local one stop and buy the 2 litre of cheap cider to stupify what little senses the methadone has not dulled , The next thing is they get more allowances because they are unable to work because of the self inflicted , self administered illegal drugs . They sleep all afternoon and get a second 2 litre of clear cider to wash the night away . I just shared that soldiers sentiments , I don't have an answer either . Enforced work smacks of facism , food stamps are not the answer , they will get sold off , and the innocent will suffer , this was the first answer that I had ever seen that had a glimmer of sense .

[happy daze john in oz]

Would never get through parliament, imagine polis having to take a tes to get their benifits? Yes that is what they get, benifits, 'cos as far as I can see they do not work.

[alf corbyn]

THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FORCE A URINE TEST BUT THEY CAN STOP METHADONE AND OTHER RELIEF DRUGS.oops
don't give them money to buy booze by all means give them food stamps with thier name on. i've stopped smoking. i have smoked hash and weed and stopped. if they have no money to buy drugs and booze they will stop. if they end up inside they will wake up. alf

[Ron B Manderson]

Did you know that if you have aids etc in london you can get a car supplied by the mobility .
As been said before there are people who need the benifits are are due.benifits. I will support them , no problems.
I just think the other hangers on should be stopped.
Never worked and never will , as the old song says.

Ron the batcave

[john walker]

There is a kitchen porter where I work who is also supplied with a mobility car, He has a son who has special needs that is why he needs the vehicle. He used to work a full 35 hour week 7 hours a day Monday to Friday with overtime if he wished at time & a half after these hours or double time on Saturday. (Basic salary inclusive London weighting about £22000) After some serious discussions with our employer it was decided that he would only have to work 21 hours a week Monday to Wednesday with a pro rata salary. A new contract was duly written up and signed by both parties, I wondered how he could afford to live and provide for his unemployed wife special needs teenager and two other teenage children. Well there is a thing called WORKING TAX CREDITS (try Googling it but do not get hot under the collar) Believe it or not this increases his income to close to £28000 per anum. Which pays for his 3 bedroom council home, council tax, mobility car and allows him to go back to his native Tunisia for at least a month each year. I suppose this is like a lot of benefits if you can get them, then people will take them. I also think that the guy should be given a bigger and faster car as he is regularly late for work.

[Tony Morcom]

They will also be able to get other benefits as well John. DLA for the son, child tax credits plus the wife is probably claiming Income Support which would then lead to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

As I have said I am on benefits now for being a full time carer. About 12 years ago I had an accident which prolapsed a disc in my back. I still suffer from the results. But the point is that at the time I was unable to work for a year. At that time we were newly married and had custody of my wife's two kids. The combination of benefits we were able to claim at that time meant that I would have needed to earn at least £24k a year to make it worth my while going back to work. This is why there is such a large percentage who are "professional claimant". The challenge for them is that the benefits have been significantly cut over the years and hence many now 'work the system' and it is my belief that's why so many people live together rather than getting married. Two partners living together makes it much easier to abuse the benefits system purely by clouding the issue with two surnames so that it is not so obvious when one is pulling in another wage by working on the side. Its always been said that computers are only as good as the information they are programmed with and so if they have dodgy claimant information fed in that's what they will work with.

Believe me when I say that the biggest headache the government agencies have is that their computer systems are full of false and misleading info concerning their claimants. The next challenge is that most on benefits live in rented accommodation and consequently tend to move more often. This confuses the systems even further. Add to that the fact that a lot of the agencies now pool the computer info and you actually have total confusion for the computer and hence more and more claimants are actually slipping through the net. IF we chose to we could actually "illegally" claim nearly double what we do now. Of course we don't (though I must admit I often wonder why?) but the system is still open to abuse.

Many people moan that foreign national come over here and live very comfortably on the state benefits they receive. Add the fact that most of them have names that include weird and wonderful spellings to the already confused computer systems and now the opportunity for false claiming becomes even easier.
In short the only way the government will ever sort out the problem, in my opinion, is to delete all the information they have and start inputting again from scratch. Behind the scenes I believe this is what they are trying to achieve with the incapacity and disability claimants via ATOS. In effect what they are doing is getting everyone in, reassessing them, collating up to date information and taking their benefits away forcing them to reapply with correct information. Admittedly as a consequence of doing this it causes real short term problems for genuine claimants BUT it does help to start sorting out the problem for the agencies. When I was reassessed it became apparent that some of their systems were relying on old addresses because they had not been updated. This would not have been known by either us or them had the assessment not taken place.

However, and this is the biggy, even where they systems are updated and false claimants are supposedly being eliminated and made available for the work force, there aren't any jobs available and so these people are being left in the benefits system once again. What now happens is that someone who was getting incapacity benefit before is now able to get income support in lieu. Once you are on income support you get full housing benefit and council tax paid for by the same government who was trying to save money by taking away the old benefit.

Now, for genuine claimants like ourselves, the total benefits available mean that we get around £11k all in. That is significantly less than we got 12 years ago. However add to that someone who is working on the side as well, and we know many do usually cash in hand, a "false claimant" can live very comfortably. And the upshot is there is only one winner in all this and that is the person who is breaking the law by incorrectly claiming in the first place. The losers are the elderly and disabled. How often have we heard that????