Can anyone explain the logic of this please?

Do you remember this?
www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/30/poundland-work-free-government-scheme-dwp
I don't know if it is still happening

This was still happening 4 years after a court case where a geology graduate and an HGV driver took the DWP to court for making them do unrelated work experience in order to receive benefits.
The graduate was already volunteering in a museum, I think, which was her choice of career.

Remember how disabled benefit claimants were vilified in the press and the media as scrounging fraudsters when in reality disability benefit fraud was actually minimal at something like 0.5% ?

Sorry, that should have read 0.05%. Bloody autocorrect !!

"Remember David Cameron’s comments about how ‘hard working Britons’ getting up for work should look at the amount of bedroom curtains still closed as their benefit scrounging neighbours slept on ?"

I remember it well, my next door neighbour, a doctor home from night shift, was accused of this by a delivery driver when their curtains were closed in the daytime.

"What about companies that are not profitable? Company profit levels vary from losses to very profitable but everyone is assuming that all public quoted companies are immensely profitable. They aren't."

But why should taxpayers fund a company that isn't profitable?
Surely if a business is not making a profit it is just an unviable business.

* Where is the justice in this? I hear so much (far too much in fact) about 'benefit scroungers', but never about shareholder scroungers, company scroungers, business scroungers etc. - and yet look at the sums involved in just these four examples. Why is it that people talk disparagingly of one, but rarely (never?) of the other?*

Divide and Rule. The Tories are fabulous at it. Remember David Cameron’s comments about how ‘hard working Britons’ getting up for work should look at the amount of bedroom curtains still closed as their benefit scrounging neighbours slept on ? Remember how disabled benefit claimants were vilified in the press and the media as scrounging fraudsters when in reality disability benefit fraud was actually minimal at something like 0.5% ?

IMHO the same thing is happening now with climate change. No one seems keen to tackle mass polluting countries, while we’re being hammered via our energy bills to pay for green initiatives which are for nought if we don’t get countries like China and India on board.

What about companies that are not profitable? Company profit levels vary from losses to very profitable but everyone is assuming that all public quoted companies are immensely profitable. They aren't.

Not every company gets a bail out when needed, only when the country and worldwide effects of their collapse is greater than the personal loss does the government step in.

Look at all the companies that have gone bust without government intervention. Philip Green's empire, Debenhams, all those small energy companies, and many more.

What about companies that are not profitable? Company profit levels vary from losses to very profitable but everyone is assuming that all public quoted companies are immensely profitable. They aren't.

Not every company gets a bail out when needed, only when the country and worldwide effects of their collapse is greater than the personal loss does the government step in.

Look at all the companies that have gone bust without government intervention. Philip Green's empire, Debenhams, all those small energy companies, and many more.

This, from the dreaded Guardian in 2o14, might have something to do with it

Does this sometimes feel like a country under enemy occupation? Do you wonder why the demands of so much of the electorate seldom translate into policy? Why parties of the left seem incapable of offering effective opposition to market fundamentalism, let alone proposing coherent alternatives? Do you wonder why those who want a kind and decent and just world, in which both human beings and other living creatures are protected, so often appear to be opposed by the entire political establishment?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/taming-corporate-power-key-political-issue-alternative

It’s almost as if the people profiting from these bailouts are more likely than the low paid to be political donors, isn’t it?

Congratulations on a most thought provoking post grannyactivist.
I’m off out to work in the garden and think about your points.

Because its not actually designed to be fair. Its a “boys” club lining each others pockets

It was ever thus and as you say Nannarose "the same the whole world over". Don't know the answer is.

It's the same the whole world over, ain't it all a bloomin' shame? It's the rich what gets the pleasure, and the poor what gets the blame.

And it's really clever if you can get the poor to blame each other, so they take their eyes off the rich

Baffling, isn’t it?

I too am perplexed by this situation grannyactivist. I have no idea why successive governments do this, but they do. Why businesses that are very successful and seem to report increased profits nearly every year, are allowed to get away with paying such low wages that their employees need to claim top up benefits eludes me. Perhaps someone can enlighten us as to why this is allowed to happen.