Halfpenny said:It's a shame that nowadays we are awash with programmes and reports like this, concentrating on one small group who use the welfare state and then passing it off as the face of 'welfare Britain' or words to that effect. Nowhere do we see programmes focusing on the positive effects of welfare provision, nor do we see any which depict the real poverty of people already in work (the largest expense of the welfare state other than the state pension), rather the token lazy scroungers who don't want to work. Nor do we see the injustices meted out by agencies such as ATOS in denying ill health benefits to those who are genuinely unable to work. The effect? To massage public opinion into supporting the dismantling of the welfare state upon which they may one day genuinely rely.
It's a shame calling programmes like this out to be the divide and rule rubbish they are is dismissed with remarks such as 'bleeding heart liberalism'. Because if anything the increased numbers going to food banks and the like show that there needs to be an expansion in welfare state provision, not a gigantic cut.
Rocket-footed kolarov said:Aphex said:Rocket-footed kolarov said:I cracked one out over amputee porn the other day, what sort of moral plane am I on now?
It depends. Was it just a torso and and a head?
I thought you said without a head then, that becomes something entirely different.
In a more serious point, there will always be people parked on benefits because (other than in a perfect utopia) there will always be a semi-criminal underclass and this is what the rest of us pay for social order. The important thing is to put policy in place to restrict the size of this group, if we can't eliminate it entirely.
Rocket-footed kolarov said:Halfpenny said:It's a shame that nowadays we are awash with programmes and reports like this, concentrating on one small group who use the welfare state and then passing it off as the face of 'welfare Britain' or words to that effect. Nowhere do we see programmes focusing on the positive effects of welfare provision, nor do we see any which depict the real poverty of people already in work (the largest expense of the welfare state other than the state pension), rather the token lazy scroungers who don't want to work. Nor do we see the injustices meted out by agencies such as ATOS in denying ill health benefits to those who are genuinely unable to work. The effect? To massage public opinion into supporting the dismantling of the welfare state upon which they may one day genuinely rely.
It's a shame calling programmes like this out to be the divide and rule rubbish they are is dismissed with remarks such as 'bleeding heart liberalism'. Because if anything the increased numbers going to food banks and the like show that there needs to be an expansion in welfare state provision, not a gigantic cut.
You make a lot of sense. My remarks above weren't calling for cuts in benefit rather to move people of them and into employment that gives them a decent monetary return.
Aphex probably objected more to Rascal's tone rather than the content.
I wasn't necessarily referring to one post in particular, I just saw 'bleeding heart liberalism' used and decided to work it in as an afterthought. This programme in itself doesn't really fit outside the pattern of reporting on welfare, which is what's annoyed me most; there is no alternate message, no counterpoint. Which is what a pluralist media is supposed to serve.Rocket-footed kolarov said:Halfpenny said:It's a shame that nowadays we are awash with programmes and reports like this, concentrating on one small group who use the welfare state and then passing it off as the face of 'welfare Britain' or words to that effect. Nowhere do we see programmes focusing on the positive effects of welfare provision, nor do we see any which depict the real poverty of people already in work (the largest expense of the welfare state other than the state pension), rather the token lazy scroungers who don't want to work. Nor do we see the injustices meted out by agencies such as ATOS in denying ill health benefits to those who are genuinely unable to work. The effect? To massage public opinion into supporting the dismantling of the welfare state upon which they may one day genuinely rely.
It's a shame calling programmes like this out to be the divide and rule rubbish they are is dismissed with remarks such as 'bleeding heart liberalism'. Because if anything the increased numbers going to food banks and the like show that there needs to be an expansion in welfare state provision, not a gigantic cut.
You make a lot of sense. My remarks above weren't calling for cuts in benefit rather to move people of them and into employment that gives them a decent monetary return.
Aphex probably objected more to Rascal's tone rather than the content.
Aphex said:Rocket-footed kolarov said:Aphex said:It depends. Was it just a torso and and a head?
I thought you said without a head then, that becomes something entirely different.
In a more serious point, there will always be people parked on benefits because (other than in a perfect utopia) there will always be a semi-criminal underclass and this is what the rest of us pay for social order. The important thing is to put policy in place to restrict the size of this group, if we can't eliminate it entirely.
I think that eliminating what you say will have an extremely negative effect on society. If you look at it in a philosophical sense, the chain of command just above the underbelly will become the next in line. Its apparent that people need to feel the comfort of someone below them, it has to be a natural trait that has lead to the furtherment of our poxy , selfish race.
It will eventually lead to people wandering around with wads of cash with nothing to do with their horrible, empty selfish lives.
Rocket-footed kolarov said:Aphex said:Rocket-footed kolarov said:I thought you said without a head then, that becomes something entirely different.
In a more serious point, there will always be people parked on benefits because (other than in a perfect utopia) there will always be a semi-criminal underclass and this is what the rest of us pay for social order. The important thing is to put policy in place to restrict the size of this group, if we can't eliminate it entirely.
I think that eliminating what you say will have an extremely negative effect on society. If you look at it in a philosophical sense, the chain of command just above the underbelly will become the next in line. Its apparent that people need to feel the comfort of someone below them, it has to be a natural trait that has lead to the furtherment of our poxy , selfish race.
It will eventually lead to people wandering around with wads of cash with nothing to do with their horrible, empty selfish lives.
Perhaps, you are right. But surely more must be done to convince kids they can get better than that and then they have a chance to move out of it, whilst some will inevitably fall back down the ladder. Many people do that already, I am not advocating we give everybody a cash surplus.
bgblue said:I thought it was a shame tbh
Ban-jani said:bgblue said:I thought it was a shame tbh
It is mate, I am truly of the opinion that people end up like this because of experiences they face, it's always avoidable if people have the correct upbringing and education. Nobodies born a thief, drug addict or benefit cheat.
What's the governments plan...To have inner City Ghetto's cut off from the rest of the country where people the underclass can live? I think it's fair to say capitalism, whilst doing a lot of good, has failed a lot of people.
People in this country are losing their self pride.