Lazy benefits claimants to lose benefit

[sometime]

It would seem that the lazy benefit claimants are to lose their benefits for up to three years if they do not attend interviews for jobs.
Not sure what will happen to their families no doubt they will be entitled to some other benefit.
But is this a good idea as it only applies to interview not getting a job surely it will just waste even more time and money for the employers It would be better if they were part of a job creation scheme where more jobs and therefore growth were a result
The only benefit I can see from this scheme would be they would get experience in having to go somewhere at a specific time. It wont save much money for the government and may even result in greater costs as they will be paying for transport to these interviews

[brt]

I lived in Greece in the 80's and if you went to sign on, they only paid you if they couldn't find you a job.
This meant ANY job, Park attendant, toilet cleaning, waiting on, anything! if you refused to do it, you didn't get any money!!

[chalky284]

Wouldn't it be more 'encouraging' for those seeking benefits to have to work for them? If they earnt vouchers for food and clothing and heating bills etc surely this would make them seek work they thought more suitable to them or preferred???

[cayo]

Jul 3, 2012 17:26:04 GMT chalky284 said:

Wouldn't it be more 'encouraging' for those seeking benefits to have to work for them? If they earnt vouchers for food and clothing and heating bills etc surely this would make them seek work they thought more suitable to them or preferred???

This wouldnt solve anything other than to demean the genuine unempolyed vouchers would be sold or swapped for f*g sbooze ect by those that really dont intend to ever work

[ruftytuftyrider]

Think the Greek would be a better way than just giving people money to sit on their backsides drinking and smoking.

At the end of the day if someone wants to work they will do whatever work they can find.

Problem is a lot of schemes to get people working and off benefits punish the people who want to work not the people who don't - the people who don't want to work know how to work the system.

[nia2311]

Why should people be allowed to refuse an interview offer, if they are claiming out of work benefits??? The whole point of the benefit is to support the person whilst they find more work, not to allow them to sit on their bums watching Jeremy Kyle.

If they refuse an interview, then it is justified that the benefit is withdrawn, as they are actively avoiding work. If you get an interview, you MUST have a shout of getting it, especially with the high numbers applying, so what is the point of not going?!

I have just found a teaching job. It took me 8 interviews to be offered a job. And these interviews take all day - starting between 8.15-9am, finishing between 2.30-4pm. Some colleges pay expenses, some don't. Some give you lunch, some don't. All are stressful. Many have been 25miles+ from my home, but that is what is necessary. I went to one 37 miles away!

[sometime]

Congratulations on your new job.
I suppose I was more worried about the forcing issue as that just wastes everyone time and money. I would imagine the benefits office will be setting up these interviews so they wont be real offers and it doesnt take much to deliberately muck it up so the employer will not employ the person.
It just seems to me to be another expensive exercise in appearing to mollify the the general public who have been goading into believing all claimants are lazy layabouts.
It cannot possibly work as if we have a welfare state then we must support the vulnerable and if they cut benefits to parents children will need extra care and if they cut benefits to the disabled they will also need care it will be the ones that do things responsibly that will suffer I imagine.
Anyway where will they find enough jobs for 2,000,000 people and more. Or even half that number given that 1,000,000 is accounted for as full employment with most available jobs being filled by moving workforce and those remaining on benefit being unemployable due to illness and disability

[nia2311]

No the benefits office certainly does not set up interviews!! My friend's experience was that they didnt even want hard proof of you applying for jobs. The interviews will be genuine interviews, gained through normal applications, so why the heck would you not bother going?? The answer is multi-factorial, but I hazard a guess that some people will say
a) not a job in my specialist area
b) not got money for the bus/train/tram/taxi/car park
c) too far away from home
d) too early a start
e) can't be bothered - only made applications because I was forced to.

All the above excuses are just that - excuses. If you are offered an interview, it is because the company think you have a vague chance of being employed, so scrape together the £4.80 for a daysaver bus ticket (or £6.20 for a bus/train daysaver!), set the alarm early and get your act together.

And yes, I have had to use public transport to get to my interview miles and miles away as I can't drive due to a shoulder injury.

[nia2311]

And I believe the number of people genuinely unemployable due to illness or disability is very small compared to the overall numbers on benefits.

I have a friend who has had kidney disease all his life - he has had, and rejected, two transplants and currently has no kidneys and is on dialysis 3-4 times a week. There have been times where he couldn't work, but at the moment, he is in work in a youth centre. His employer know about his condition, obviously, and he gets time off where needed to attend hospital. He has been close to death, but still wants to work. He could, genuinely, stay at home on benefits due to his condition, but choses to work.

[sometime]

If the benefits office are not going to send people for interviews which I am certain is the plan there would be no need to remove the benefit as it would imply an effort of work to get an interview which would imply they are not fraudulent claimants.
What I think the plan will be/is to send anyone on jobseekers to interviews for jobs and if they are given a job or they fail to turn up they lose the benefit. If they fail the interview then they maintain the benefit as they were

[nia2311]

Jul 4, 2012 16:21:22 GMT sometime said:

If the benefits office are not going to send people for interviews which I am certain is the plan there would be no need to remove the benefit as it would imply an effort of work to get an interview which would imply they are not fraudulent claimants.
What I think the plan will be/is to send anyone on jobseekers to interviews for jobs and if they are given a job or they fail to turn up they lose the benefit. If they fail the interview then they maintain the benefit as they were

Honestly, the benefit office does not supervise applications, nor does it arrange interviews currently. I know because a close friend recently spent 2 months on JSA and he was shocked at the lack of interest shown by the JobCentre. All they wanted was for him to turn up at the appointed time each week, ask "how many jobs have you applied for this week," and then they stamped his book and sent him away. They don't even require hard evidence of said job applications.

I agree if people do attend, but fail to get the job, then fine keep the benefit. It is not likely every interview will end with a job offer, as I very well know. but, to refuse an interview when you are on benefits is wrong, and they rightly should remove benefits from those who chose not to attend interviews.

I think they should require evidence of applications (e.g. printed out/photocopied application forms) because I am sure plenty of people say they've applied for jobs when they haven't, because no-one checks.

[nia2311]

Sometime - what would do with people who made an application themselves to a job they don't particularly fancy, but its a job. They get an interview, but decide not to go. Its a bit far, they don't want to get up at 7am to be there at 9am because they'd rather not get wet in the rain. They feel pretty certain the interview will not have a good outcome anyway, so what's the point? Would you say "ok, never mind, keep your benefit, another better interview is sure to come up."

Or, as I would say "you have refused a perfectly good opportunity to get a job, you are clearly not taking this process seriously, so your job seekers benefit is being removed for one month."

[sometime]

The second statement but the current move is to remove benefit for 3 months for the first no show and a year for the second and three years as a three strikes and you are out punishment. But if it is as you say it wont make any difference anyway as the lazy will not be applying for and getting interviews anyway. It will only work if everyone on job seekers is sent by the benefits office to any available job for an interview If they have to organise it themselves they simply wont and will collect their benefit as usual I am certain this is the plan and thing will change to be as they were some years ago. The unemployment office sent people to interviews regularly. Any job that went through the job center had to be applied for and they would arrange interviews even if it was only mildly related to the field of choice

[nia2311]

There has to come a point where the field of choice is widened to "any job within striking distance" though.

I would say 6 months to apply for jobs in your chosen/preferred industry, before widening to any job. There are LOTS of trained professionals working in unrelated fields, some through choice but plenty not. Surely it is better to be a trained joiner, but earn a living serving pizzas in Pizza Hut than being a trained joiner subsisting on JSA for 3yrs because there are no job for joiners in your town?

Unfortunately, especially in the young, people have trained in vocational areas where there are simply more people than jobs. In the Times Educational Supplement recently, there was a long list of examples of over and under supply of trained people. Hair and beauty courses are currently churning out 3x more people than jobs. Construction is not training enough, nor is catering. So, at some point, people will have to consider other avenues, or move areas where the supply chain is different.

[nia2311]

Hope this works:

Report claims ‘skewed’ sector leaves trainees high and dry

Colleges are flooding the jobs market with “armies” of wannabe hair stylists, beauticians and personal trainers, while failing to produce the next generation of teaching assistants, electricians and engineers, according to a new report.

The Local Government Association (LGA) has claimed that the “skewed” FE sector is leaving as many 20 learners competing for every job in some sectors, yet other industries are left with a massive skills shortage.

In Basildon, Essex, for example, 530 people took hair and beauty courses in 2010-11, but just 28 jobs were available in the sector locally.

Meanwhile, 60 miles away, Cambridge experienced a huge shortage of construction workers. More than 2,000 vacancies for bricklayers, roofers and plumbers were advertised; just 50 people were trained up.

The LGA argued that, despite billions of pounds of investment in FE each year, up to 17 per cent of jobs vacancies in England are the direct result of a lack of relevant skills. It claimed that this is because colleges are being funded for students “studying and passing qualifications rather than on job outcomes”.

“Incentivising colleges to steer students on to low-prospect courses, rather than those that will help them gain meaningful employment, is indefensible,” said David Simmonds, chair of the LGA’s Children and Young People Board. “Young people can make a brilliant career out of hairdressing or personal training, but the huge number of students studying these skills swamps the number of jobs available each year.

“A nationally driven, one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work. We need a shift in training priorities, which prizes and rewards those that help students toward meaningful careers. It’s not right that young people trying to secure a good future are being deceived by a system that fails to look at what is best for them, or the taxpayer, and instead focuses on a bums-on-seats approach to education.”

In 2010-11, more than 94,000 people completed hair and beauty courses, but just 18,000 new jobs were created. In hospitality, sport and leisure, 97,000 learners were trained to fill just 43,000 positions in roles such as personal trainers and tour guides.

In contrast, 123,000 people were trained to fill 275,000 advertised jobs in building and engineering, while just 27,000 learners took qualifications with a view to joining the environmental industry, leaving more than two-thirds of the 89,000 vacancies unfilled.

To solve the problem, the LGA is calling for partnerships between local authorities, schools, colleges and employers to be created, to match skills training more closely with job opportunities. The Skills Funding Agency is currently trialling the use of outcome incentive payments, meaning that a portion of a provider’s budget is dependent on getting unemployed students into work.

Association of Colleges skills policy manager Teresa Frith hit back at the criticism, and said poor careers advice in schools could be to blame. “We are using courses and subjects that raise students’ interest in continued learning, which will help to develop their employability and general work skills,” she said. “The subjects they study, while important, are not the sole indicator of their future career path.

“Having said that, colleges throughout the country do offer specialised and technical qualifications like those that the LGA claims are needed. If students aspire for a career in engineering, colleges can provide for that. However, the interests and ambitions of students must be taken into account.”

Supply and demand

810 teenagers in Daventry trained as bricklayers, roofers and plumbers, but just 462 jobs were available.

1,140 people in Nottingham trained for 61 available jobs in hospitality, travel and tourism.

20 teenagers in Windsor and Maidenhead trained for 43 vacancies in hairdressing.

70 teenagers in Harrogate were trained for 387 available jobs in leisure and tourism

[cayo]

No one seems to be concerned that hugely profitable private firms are forcing thousands into borderline destitution


If you want a sobering flavour of where Britain is heading, set aside banking, the Leveson inquiry, our relationship with Europe and whatever else – and consider a Guardian story by Patrick Butler that appeared last week. It was about food banks, the charitable set-ups that supply emergency parcels to people who have fallen between society's cracks. FareShare, a charity that sits at the heart of all this, says it is experiencing "ridiculous growth" in demand, and expects that trend to continue for at least five years; over the last 12 months, it claims to have sent out 8.6m meals.

Spend any time around a food bank – and I have, in Inverness and Liverpool – and it quickly becomes clear that their core constituency is based around two groups of people: refugees who have either recently arrived in the UK or opted to go underground; and people who have suddenly had their benefits stopped.

Thanks to the increasingly cruel regime that now applies to benefits – which, we now know, David Cameron wants to make yet crueller – the latter seem to be increasing in number by the week, pushed into their predicament by a system that can summarily ruin lives, but offer only the most sluggish remedies by way of appeal. By and large, they remain invisible, but their fate is starting to intrude on the news media: last week, a man set himself alight outside a Birmingham jobcentre, reportedly thanks to a "dispute over benefit payments", an episode that occurred just as the Guardian was revealing rising concerns about suicides among people faced with so-called benefits "sanctions". For an intimate picture of the misery and anxiety that lies behind all this, have a look at this film by my colleague John Domokos, partly centred on a family reduced to fretting over their last dregs of electricity, and apparently surviving on a diet founded on budget baked beans. The benefits system refuses to understand that one of them is a carer, whose obligations to his ill wife mean that he cannot always make his appointments at the jobcentre.

Which brings us to revelations that appeared over the weekend, and the latest news about the government's increasingly brutal welfare-to-work drive. Thanks to research by Corporate Watch and an article in the Observer, we know that the private companies involved in the government's Work Programme have been pushing for unbelievable numbers of people to have their benefits cut, aiming at figures that even the ever-more stringent Jobcentre Plus regime has refused to sign off. Meanwhile, there's a clear sense that in the context of a flatlining economy, the Work Programme's targets – indeed, its entire logic – are proving impossible: the scheme's core presumptions were based on economic growth of over 2%, and a revived job market. Given their non-appearance, the companies involved look they're getting desperate, and in the absence of any convincing carrot, frantically reaching for the stick.

In the context of the firms' returns, all this leaves an impossibly nasty taste. The best example is the welfare-to-work outfit A4e. This year, it has been blitzed with all those allegations of fraud; I've also reported on allegations of a "champagne culture", company events held in upscale foreign locations, and the dizzying lifestyle led by its former chair and public face, Emma Harrison, who last year paid herself a dividend of £8.6m. And what apparently lies at the heart of all this opulence, and the activities of a firm that claims to be "social purpose company" with "one sole aim, to improve people's lives around the world"? Over six months, 10,000 requests were made for its "customers" to have their benefits cut, of which only 3,000 were granted by Jobcentre Plus. Similar statistics for other companies abound: Working Links referred nearly 12,000 cases for sanctions, Serco managed just over 9,000, and G4s came in at 7,780. Such is the upshot of the stock warning that appears on most of the correspondence sent to Work Programme participants: "If you do not attend this appointment, your benefits could be affected." And how.

This is yet another one of those stories that come with a head-spinning sense of how much Britain has changed, under this government and its predecessor. Rewind 15 years, and imagine the spectacle of hugely profitable private firms pushing for thousands of people to be propelled into borderline destitution: the result would have been acres of coverage, and molten anger. And now? Even backbench Lib Dems are predictably silent, and Labour restricts its criticisms of a system it invented to technocratic hand-wringing, focused not on any kind of moral outrage, but whether everything's working, and how much it all might cost ("Chaos at DWP is stalling the government's reforms … the welfare bill is going through the roof" was the response to Cameron's welfare proposals of Liam Byrne, a man for whom the adjective "blank" might have been invented). Even the trade unions are bizarrely quiet. The reality is something to which mainstream politics cannot admit, and which bumps up against a cross-party accent on welfare being the last resort of malingerers: that people are living in fear and going hungry, and a cold state machine seems to have been designed to put them there.

Now, incidentally, we hear word that plenty of police officers are of the opinion that last year's riots could easily be repeated. One hesitates, of course, to be alarmist. But as more and more people feel the cruelties of a policy that makes no sense – that people must be kicked into work, even if jobs don't exist – has anyone considered that the two things might be connected?

Let your friends know your opinion

[cayo]

Jul 4, 2012 15:56:24 GMT nia2311 said:

And I believe the number of people genuinely unemployable due to illness or disability is very small compared to the overall numbers on benefits.

I have a friend who has had kidney disease all his life - he has had, and rejected, two transplants and currently has no kidneys and is on dialysis 3-4 times a week. There have been times where he couldn't work, but at the moment, he is in work in a youth centre. His employer know about his condition, obviously, and he gets time off where needed to attend hospital. He has been close to death, but still wants to work. He could, genuinely, stay at home on benefits due to his condition, but choses to work.

if this friend of yours chooses to work despite being almost dead from his illness then thats his choice ,choice being the main word here ,i for one would not want anyone in his position to feel even remotely that they needed to work at all if they were ill and i do not want this goverment condeming all benefit claimemts as cheats and vagabonds they ar edoing a good job on most on here but not in my name please mr Cameron im happy for my taxes to pay for them to live in peace and comfort while ill or on deaths door

[sometime]

Me to Cayo I am more than happy for the benefits to be paid to those in need and of course to any of those unfortunate to be caught in long term unemployment Until we get growth and a surplus of jobs to applicant we cannot even begin to reduce dependency on benefit. The cruel practice of removing benefit from any that cannot or do not comply with bureaucratic rules that are inspired by nonsensical economics we will build a poverty ridden and desperate group whose only recourse is to object and some will do so violently
I dont believe we should put people in this position and I certainly dont believe in violence of any kind but sometimes there is a backlash to stringent rules it is implied this government is about to take

[nia2311]

Jul 4, 2012 18:07:00 GMT cayo said:

Jul 4, 2012 15:56:24 GMT nia2311 said:

And I believe the number of people genuinely unemployable due to illness or disability is very small compared to the overall numbers on benefits.

I have a friend who has had kidney disease all his life - he has had, and rejected, two transplants and currently has no kidneys and is on dialysis 3-4 times a week. There have been times where he couldn't work, but at the moment, he is in work in a youth centre. His employer know about his condition, obviously, and he gets time off where needed to attend hospital. He has been close to death, but still wants to work. He could, genuinely, stay at home on benefits due to his condition, but choses to work.

if this friend of yours chooses to work despite being almost dead from his illness then thats his choice ,choice being the main word here ,i for one would not want anyone in his position to feel even remotely that they needed to work at all if they were ill and i do not want this goverment condeming all benefit claimemts as cheats and vagabonds they ar edoing a good job on most on here but not in my name please mr Cameron im happy for my taxes to pay for them to live in peace and comfort while ill or on deaths door

He isn't almost dead now - I said he has in the past, in particular post-op for both transplants and during the periods where he rejected those transplants. Currently, despite having no kidneys and regular dialysis, he feels able to work. He hates the fact he still lives with his parents, no woman wants to look at him twice due to his condition (and he is from a cultural background where being an unmarried man at nearly 30 is very unfashionable), and he hates the long spells in hospitals being prodded and poked. As soon as he feels well, he goes out to work because it keeps him sane and keeps him in touch with people other than his family.

I know a number of disabled people, some of whom receive certain benefits that are not means tested, e.g. free transport passes, motability cars etc. and I wholly support this. It means my friends are able to live what most would consider "normal lives" despite some serious potential barriers. I am sure they would all go stir crazy if they sat at home all day.

There are plenty of people with illness/disabilities who can work, at least part time, and who can be supported by such benefits. After all, these are the people for whom disability benefits are intended.

They are not intended for people with a "bad back" who happen to be able to do the gardening, carry out car maintenance lying on their back on concrete, or carry heavy boxes/bags in and out of white vans. My "disabled" neighbour does all those. He often has very heavy equipment inside his motability car, which he seems more than able to carry despite his "bad back".

[ruftytuftyrider]

I have no issues with the genuine disabled who are unable to work being given benefits but it is those people who are unable to work but perfectly able to climb up on to the roof to fix a leak etc who get the same benefit when obviously they could work that I have an issue with.

My mother went into hospital to undergo chemotherapy for leukaemia approximately 15 years ago. Whilst in hospital she made friends with a number of other patients. She and another patient had the same form of leukaemia and were given the same prognosis. They even went into remission at the same time. The only difference is my mother's blood results have remained lower than the other patient.

When they started chemotherapy they were both given forms to claim disability benefit. The other patient ticked the box to confirm that he accepted he had a terminal illness whilst my mother didn't because she felt it was admitting defeat. My mum was given disability benefit for 3 years (I think) after which it was reviewed and taken away from her. The other patient was given it for the rest of his life with no reviews - he works as a builder often getting paid cash in hand, they have bought a new house and they have had numorous holidays to USA.

The only difference was that he accepted he was going to die and my mum didn't - some 14 years later they are both still alive although he is in better health but then he is some 20+ years younger than my mum.

At the end of the day benefits should be paid to those who really deserve it, monitoring should be more stringent so that if people's circumstances change either way their benefit can change either way.

I think it is important that the unemployed are encouraged to apply for all jobs that they would be capable of not just their first choice. Again this needs monitoring to ensure that people are putting in the effort applying for jobs and at interview.

If the welfare state was only paying benefits to those that deserved them it would not be in the position it is in. The only reason the welfare state is in the state is in is because for too long it has been paying out to people who do not work because they don't want to not because they can't. We are now in the situation where children are growing up in families with parents who have never worked.

At the end of the day it should never be possible to obtain more in benefits than you can earn at work. If benefits were lower people would be more inclined to go out and earn a living.

The area where I work is an area of the country with high unemployment so see a lot of people who claim benefits and the attitude of those people - a real eye opener for someone who has worked all their life as did my parents and grandparents.

[sometime]

I agree that the benefit should not pay more than work but it should be at a level where the families can feed,clothe and house themselves. If this is deemed to be the current level then wages should be increased to provide a reward for work.
What riles people is the perceived few that fiddle the system as a majority not a 1% minority. We need to employ more inspectors and researchers to find out those few that are diddling the system.
There are many disabled people at the moment losing benefit inspite of it being a necessity due to the reviews going on now Perhaps the new notion of back pain being best treated by activity will eliminate those that are using at as an excuse not to work.

[ruftytuftyrider]

Agree totally on the need for more inspectors and researchers to weed out the benefit fiddlers.

Whilst the number of fiddlers would be in the minority I would be extremely surprised if it was as low as 1% but that is from personal experience as out of the number of people I actually know personally who are on benefits it is a lot more than 1% who don't deserve it.

Think we would all love wages to be higher but we have to live in the real world. Benefit should cover living expenses but not holidays abroad, new cars etc.

[frozzy]

I worked with a female who appeared to have won the lottery such was her spending. She was caught red handed thanks to the bank employee who noticed that a housebound frail elderly lady had made several fairly large withdrawals in Blackpool. CCTV is a wonderful thing and this thieving excuse for a carer got six months detention (but of course was out in around three) and now has made herself unemployable.
She and her three offspring and her partner are managing to have a nice all inclusive holiday of two weeks duration in Turkey in a couple of weeks.
I work pretty d**ned hard to feed, clothe, pay my mortgage etc etc, but I have given up hoping that my OH and I might manage a week in the sun, but this thieving, benefit scrounging, excuse for a human being manages two.
Who is the mug?

[cayo]

The main point here is that benefit claiments are not the cheats and skullians that the government wants us all to tar them all ,benefit cheats are criminals not benefit claiments we must keep the criminal element seperate form the poor sods who need benefits when we refer to the cheats or we are playing into the goverments hands and going the right way to allow them to make even the genuine cases suffer beyond what is acceptable in our society ,tax evasion is ok with them as long as your rich enough to pay someone to aviod it for you but us poor sods on paye get it deducted from our wages at source dont we

[leeann]

I know someone who's on benifits, there's nothing wrong with her, she keeps 7 ponies and runs a horse box (if you can call it that!!) She has never worked for years! Lazy.. thats what everyone thinks.

Us tax payers are paying for these people which is so wrong, it's about time something was done! We work bloody hard for what we have, and others just sit back and take. Grr!

[sometime]

She i what Cayo described as a criminal not a benefit claimant. Those cheating both the tax payer and by not paying tax should all be prosecuted and leave the poor alone. It is a tiny proportion that are doing this and seem to draw attention to themselves If you think she is milking the system report her especially if a lot of you believe it. She will then either be cleared of wrongdoing and you can sleep easy or she will be charged and punished. Dont just make assumptions and tar everyone with the same brush

[leeann]

Jul 6, 2012 9:45:15 GMT sarahlucysmith said:

I'd be very surprised if someone on benefits could afford 7 horses & a lorry - I think that is somewhat of an exaggeration, maybe they have a job that you don't know about.

I run my own business from home & have 8 horses & a lorry so know full well that there is no way anyone on benefits could afford to do it!!

I agree that people should be made to 'do' something to earn their benefits, but quite what & how to implement it is another matter.

Modified to agree with sometime above, if you think they are claiming fraudulently instead of putting it on here report them for it - I would!

This is an open deduction!! I can air my views, no names were mentioned!!

Mm your right why should they get away with it!

Its the horses I feel sorry for, who could look after 7 horses properly on benefits.

[ruftytuftyrider]

Actually sts I think you would be surprised how much some people get from benefits as once you get one benefit it opens the door to lots more.

As to reporting them sometimes it is not as easy as you make out because whilst it may be possible to do it anonymously to the relevant office that does not mean that the person claiming benefit isn't able to identify you - you may be the only peson who knows certain things.

If you read this thread no one is making negative comments about genuine claimants ONLY the ones that claim fraudulently.

I think it was sometime who quoted 1% of claimants being fraudulent - may I ask the source of that?

[ruftytuftyrider]

Leeann you have every right to air your views - surely that is the point of a forum.

[rough deal]

On the subject of benefits for those disabled or ill, i had a friend who over 6 years had breast cancer, lung cancer and a brain tumour (R.I.P to her) she received benefits, but she also showed horses at a high level, had her own yard, did all the jobs, drove the lorry etc. Would she too be kicked off benefits by the HG government? She was fully able after all, even though on Chemo one day at a show/mucking out the next.