By stealing you mean! You are making your case even worse.

Who mentioned stealing, those who have correctly applied for and receive benefits are not stealing, it is true that in the mix will be thoroughly deserving cases and those working the system, in your book provided it is legal then that’s fine, or at least it is when the already wealthy do the same thing.

You are promoting double standards, you cannot in all conscience condemn legal claimants while excusing legal tax dodgers, expense account manipulators, all of which may be within the rules, but certainly unethical.

Mr M and CH,

It’s probably safe to say that most posters on here are or have been working people in one capacity or another, I can’t imagine many (including me) supporting those who are plain idle, those for who life on benefits is a career choice.

I also am very aware that there are those out there who fiddle, defraud or just work the system and not all are benefit claimants by a long way.

I do really object to this wholesale condemnation of anyone and everyone on benefits, this lip service “I don’t mean genuine cases” etc etc and then launch into some ill informed uninformed diatribe.

Many, many moons ago I dealt with Motability customers and supply of cars through a large Main Ford Dealer, even then it was horribly clear that there were two types of customers, for most customers the use of a car was a life line, freedom of movement and in many cases the opportunity to return or start work.

However there were the ones who were clearly adept at pulling the wool over someones eyes, surprisingly (or not as the case may be) the lead swingers were also the scruffy types, the ones who could have done with a closer relationship with soap and water etc etc.

For better or worse I had no problems whatsoever with reporting those who were clearly taking the p#ss, it lost me some customers but gained many, many more because the company backed me in doing the very best we could for our customers. During this time I met and dealt with a lot of people who were dealing with disabilities and making the best of the cards that life had dealt them, to repeat, the vast majority were fully deserving of the help they received and should never be villified as they are today.

Sure attack the fiddlers, fraudsters and plain idle, but do not apply this blanket, catch all condemnation of everyone on benefits without knowing what you’re talking about.

Sure we do, sure we do, we have you.
I am sure there are some ponzi people who would like to work with you.

What are you on, I’m reasonably neutral on the religous issue, don’t stick your assorted frauds and fantasies down my throat and I won’t trouble you, can you live and let live and please understand that your’s is not the only valid opinion on here.

Discuss, debate, sure, but why so dogmatic, you believe, fine, many don’t give a toss about any religion so long as it doesn’t interfere with the more important aspects of life and living. There are clearly quite a few on here who think you’re barking, I’ve no problem with that, just bark up your own damn tree please.

By all accounts there are “bits”, precisely what the bits are is less clear, for instance as yet very little has been found occupying the space between his ears.

Forced labour for subsistence levels, thought that went out of fashion with Nazi Germany.

I have no problem whatsoever with found or directed labour, but the rate for the job must also apply, or how about a voluntary scheme, were claimants sign up to be available as required?, then undertake the temporary, short term/time jobs but are paid a constant rate of a living wage work or play.

That would put most of the gangmasters, dodgy agencies, the agencies who only employ foreign workers and the no hours contracts bods out of business, should certainly make more jobs available to UK residents.

Cloud 9

So we have a scale of injuries that the victim is allowed to inflict on thieving toe rags, dependent on the level of theft.

Bit difficult to estimate weight of response when the victim is confronted by two men, one of whom is armed with a hefty lump of wood and threatening to use it, easy to sit on the side lines and pontificate, different ball game when it’s up close and personal.

Trumper agree totally, attempting to force or coerce people into doing this type of work will probably have a negative effect, it has to be purely voluntary.

If I remember rightly the area to which you refer had become overun with drug dealers and users, a few mums decided that their kids were not going to grow up like this and faced down the drug dealers, as ever the drug dealers thought they could bully a few women into silence, but instead others swiftly came to the defense of the few, plus when the police see that the community will support them, they are in, in strength.

I think CD was jesting.

But on your point, my niece and nephew are 18 and 20 and I don’t smoke in front of them. Am I role model? I think so, that’s why I sneak off.

At that age I don’t think they are going to take much notice of their uncle, apart from probably have a go at you for smoking, which is probably why you sneak off.