Benefits Street

I have to say that there are two sides to benefits

On the one hand they can be a life saver and there for people that hit bad times for what ever reason.

Then there is the other side were by people choose to take the easy way out and go on benefits as a life style--believe me it happens I have witnessed it myself.

And for those people that think of benefits as the easy way = do not have to go to work-- it can be sad because there is a limit of what you can do on benefits and things usually do no progress from just having the basics in life. and so they can be a bad thing and make one complacent.

Eliza . You have a profound and deep understanding of the troubles besetting our society.

My daughter actually cried at the scenes you describe from the recent programme Iam.
I too believe that we have to take personal responsibility for how we live our lives, but early influences are insidious and can be extremely hard to shake off. This is not simply about poverty, but also about socialisation and cultural norms.

Thank you Iam that's kind of you. I agree we each have some responsibility for how we live our lives. The trouble is when there is a father such as mine, who the mother is afraid of, she is unable to 'mother' properly as all her energy goes into trying to avoid conflict. (I have only realised this as I got older). She did her best I'm sure and she had no family in this country to assist and consequently the children were neglected, with, in my case (and my poor brother who later committed suicide), fairly dire consequences. She also had the Catholic church to contend with, unbelievably coming to the house to ask her for donations when she could hardly feed her kids. My DD told me about the last episode of Benefits Street and the young boy being screamed at by white D. This is the same white D who was inviting Nick Clegg round for a cuppa, telling him how well the kids are treated.

And the same one who now has her own agent because she can see the mileage to be made out of this programme - as can the agent in quesion, of course. White D will be popping up on all sorts of daily magazine programmes from now on, probably complaining that she's been exploited...

Just watched the 10 o'clock news. Saw a young man who worked in a pizza parlour claiming he had to survive on soup as he could not afford to eat. He was well overweight (on a diet of soup?) ...and then we saw him drive off in a bright red sporty type car with a very recent registration. Am I missing simething?

We saw that. DH wondered if he put on weight by eating pizza?

Job perks?

So why lie moan that he has to survive only on soup? When I was a student and took on waitressing jobs we always got fed after our shift. Not a good example of genuine need but a good example of lying whingers especially as the same BBC news took a sly dig at pensioners.

Aka he could get a letter to take round to the Food Bank and get a bag full of stuff and get even fatter! I cannot understand if there is food poverty why are people getting fatter and fatter, I know the excuse it costs more to eat healthy, but you could just eat less even if it is junk food.

Did you know that a lord can go to the House of Lords, sign in and be given £300 per day? An unemployed person signs on at the jobcentre and is questioned about what he or she has done for the week, and is then given a quarter of that to live on for the week.
Who is the scrounger?
According to today's news, jobcentre workers in the North East have been saying that they have been given targets to meet which means stopping some people's benefits. Of course the government deny there is any such scheme, so it will be interesting to see what happens next. The government is all for encouraging whistleblowers in the NHS. Lets see if the same happens in the DWP.

I think there is a link between poverty and obesity. When I was a child we moved from London to Carlisle and I can remember being puzzled by all the fat ladies I saw at the local shops in Carlisle.

I must have asked about them because I remember being told it was because they were poor, all the good food went to the men and children and the women filled up on bread, margarine and sweet tea.

Cheap food consists mainly of processed carbohydrates and sugar, it did then (early 1950s) and it does now.

Thanks jingles

Dear flick your post was quite amusing to me and defnetly seeing life from the other side is a feeling that comes to mind.

The reason poor women are fat is because often food is the only thing they have to look forward to.

People that work and are "not poor" have a lot more choices in life and have the funds to do things and go places and can fill their lives up with positive things.

And as you may know depression can often be comforted by food and "poor people" due to lack of choices, are probably more likely to suffer from depression.

And of course what you say about cheap food being mostly processed is also a factor.

To close, not all poor people have bad diets, I have been poor in my past, but chose to by fresh veg and fresh fruit rather than a tin of something.

More recently, the blog, 'a girl called jack' has shown how to eat well on a very small budget. But it takes strength, determination, education and resilience to do what she did - and poverty was just a phase affecting her at the time.

For households where poverty is a lifetime sentence, being clever and determined and resilient to make much out of nothing, when you may have poor housing, poor health and are living in a poor neighbourhood and also be holding down one or two poorly paid jobs, is probably more than can reasonably be expected of anyone.

Jen I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but I think we have to be careful about this 'them and us' and asking 'who is the scrounged?'

Anyone who takes handouts, without any intention to earn them, is, IMO the scrounger. I know many who have no intention of working any more and who are up to every trick in the benefits book. I also know families who are working their socks off, holding down 2 or 3 part-time jobs a week just to get by.

We do need to separate those who genuinely cannot work or find work and support them from those who will not work. The latter are draining resources and public support from the former.

What the Victorians called the deserving and undeserving poor.

Modern politicians prefer the phrase 'hardworking families', although since they never tell us how you can tell whether a family is hardworking or not and how the benefits of economic growth can be showered on one group and not the other, it rather undermines the worthiness of his high-minded definition.

You've totally confused me flick………I don't understand what you ars trying to say. Wanders off in search of inspiration.......

Just read that channel 4 are having to rehouse some people off this street because of death threats! www.gransnet.com/forums/television_and_radio/1203710-Benefits-Street?pg=5 Not sure if trying to link will work?

First sentence should make sense.

I then digress to thinking about that mindless term all politicians love to use at the moment. The word is 'hardworking', it is a nice word to make people feel good but they never define what it means and who they are excluding from this definition of, presumably the 'deserving',

Does it include those over retirement age - a lot of us are no longer working, Does it include those on benefits because they have lost one job and do not yet have another? those working but earning so little they still receive benefits? Who falls into the unmentioned group of people who are not 'hardworking', so presumably undeserving.

Politicians keep talking about helping hardworking families, of them benefiting from this or that economic policy. If economic conditions generally improve, how will the government ensure that only the 'hardworking' benefit?

I am railing against the mindless meaningless language that politicians use to make them feel good, but which means nothing.

Today I went to the Job Centre to sign on for the last time. No, I haven't got a job, it's just that I no longer qualify for contributions based JSA, as I don't have enough NI "stamps" for the qualifying period, due to being out of work.

The 4 signing desk ladies that have dealt with me were so lovely! They each took a moment away from what they were dealing with (so sorry, nice Italian couple with limited English that Sally was helping, she was back with them in no time) to wish me all the best, Richard (my special adviser who deals with old bats like me the over 50's came out from his back office especially to give me a hug!

They have given me so much support, but that is mainly because they know that I really am trying hard to get a job, and they all agreed that it is impossible to live on the £71.70 per week that I was getting.

These frontline people were excellent, unfortunately the faceless bodies who make the decisions at the DWP seem to be mindless clones, and don't get me started on my attempt to claim help with Council tax. Suffice to say, I filled in all the forms, sent them off, heard nothing until yesterday.

WHEN I GOT A SUMMONS TO APPEAR IN COURT!

For what? Daring to attempt to claim help?

Phoenix that is so awful stopping the pittance they are giving you now. I don't understand any of this - how are people who have never paid any stamp able to get benefits? It is ridiculous that anyone who has worked for years no longer 'qualifies' for help.
Have you spoken to your MP? How are you supposed to survive now? - I know Mr P has fortunately got a job but you are an independent woman and having worked for years should be qualified to have some payments.
I feel this is so unjust.

Sorry, Aka, but benefit fraud is less than 1% of the welfare budget.
Any MP or Lord who cheats the system is just as much a benefit cheat as the people on Benefits Street.
In fact I would not blame Phoenix if she went down that road, but I find it obscene that multi millionaires in Davos are telling us that we have to have more austerity. Their wine at last night's feast probably cost more than they have taken away from Phoenix for the week.

I suspect benefit fraud is much higher. They just haven't been caught ought.
I have seen blatant examples which have amounted to fraud over decades amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
One is evasion of child maintenance by fraudulent accounting.

But though you are correct Jen that fraud runs at only 1%, that actually represents a lot of money. Let me source that info from the Crown Prosectution Services stats.

The CPS says fraud in the benefit and tax credit system costs us £1.9bn a year. That’s about right, if a little out of date (it’s based on 2009/10 figures).

The latest estimate is a shade higher. The Department of Work and Pensions, which spent on welfare payments like the state pension and housing and unemployment benefit in 2011/12 says fraud cost them £1.2bn in that year.

HMRC, which pays out child and working tax credits and child benefit, identified £870m in fraudulent claims in the same year.

So if we combine the central estimates from both departments, the total amount of money lost to fraud across the benefits system was a little over £2bn in 2011/12.

However I'm not actually talking about fraudulent claims. I'm sure most of the 80% of inhabitants of Benefit Street are claiming legitimately. Some of them have never worked and have no intention of ever working. Unlike others we know who have worked, paid their NI, want to work and can't get a decent payment to tide them over when the need it most. The system stinks.

I confess I think on the same lines as Galen on this one and in any event even if at less than 1% of the welfare budget the sums are still astronomic. Couple that with VAT fraud, tax evasion in all its forms, tax avoidance and official waste we then reach a stage where if irradicated we possibly would be in a position of wealth but somehow I doubt it as that money would find itself channelled somewhere other than into the pockets of the so called 'hard working families'.