Obese Family “Too Fat To Work”, Demands More Benefits

[Napalmbrain]

I'm not against fat people. I'm also not against people on benefits, and especially disability benefits. I'm not even bothered about the amount of money they get.

What I am against is people resigning themselves to a specific fate, simply because they see themselves as unchangable. Genetics are only a single factor. Environment is also a factor.

And in actual fact, it's a psychological misinterpretation about the price of veg being high while the price of junk food being low. I find that if you're not after all the 'organic' stuff, it's not too bad. Certainly enough to live on with JSA as well as Disability benefits and such.

What I dislike is the emphasis supermarkets have on bulk buying. While I see the need for deals on bulk food, I do feel that it's actually economically disadvantagous for couples or single people. Also, I've noticed the general price of food slowly rise, but even so, fast food prices have also risen.

I don't think anger towards this family would really help, nor would any other knee-jerk response. What this family needs is education; to be able to see how much they should be eating, and of what kind of things, how to budget and generally have positive reinforcements into healthy behaviour.

Pity they'll only recieve things like hate mail. As a nation, we're very bitter about the way our taxes are spent (sometimes rightfully, but often wrongfully).

Well they don't get much sympathy for me. While I do think there's too much discrimination against fat people, this family has been claiming off the state for 11 years. The Jobseeker's Allowance states that those claiming should be seeking a job (like it says on the tin), something they're evidently not doing if they've been on benefits that long. And since they don't have jobs, surely they have plenty of time to exercise and lose weight?

[Ads]

[Bodine]

I agree with Rob. This just pisses me off. They demand more than what people with ACTUAL problems get. That's just ****ing stupid.

[DBloke]

Ah, but how would they pay for the bacon butties, microwave pies, and (I'm sure) the numerous couches, beds and chairs that the family goes through? Not to mention reinforcing the floor joists...

I have yet to taste a nice microwave pie

[Dal]

I have yet to taste a nice microwave pie

I don't believe they exist. Good ones, anyway.

Now, this family is effed up. They get money... for being obese... The government should give the really poor, skinny people who need food money instead.

[Squall7]

Well they don't get much sympathy for me. While I do think there's too much discrimination against fat people, this family has been claiming off the state for 11 years. The Jobseeker's Allowance states that those claiming should be seeking a job (like it says on the tin), something they're evidently not doing if they've been on benefits that long. And since they don't have jobs, surely they have plenty of time to exercise and lose weight?

To be fair though, the article isn't exactly neutral.

For a start, it lumps the family in together. They're racking up benefits, because each one of them is having one of the benefits, rather than a few having multiple. It's four people, all adults, claiming four benefits. Not exactly news worthy for a 4:4 ratio. The fact that they had to say "“Jobseeker’s Allowance” (unemployment benefit)" kinda makes me wonder about the intended audience for this article, with the need to use brackets.

Besides, chances are that the family members that can work, are probably from the underclass, regardless of the current economy. They're likely to be unqualified, undesirable (in terms of age or experience) and have simply fallen through the gaps in the system. Not to mention that nowadays, with so much unemployment, we cannot be seriously saying "get a job, lazy", when there are people being laid off left, right and centre. If they couldn't get a job (for whatever reason - the Jobcentre isn't exactly easy going on people not actively looking for work (and lets face it, I don't truely think that living on £120 a fortnight and having nothing to really contribute to the world is an ideal way of living, and I don't think those people in that situation would disagree with me), and they must have been searching for a job and provide evidence for it, or else they wouldn't still be claiming).

As for time to lose weight, I think it's also a case of whether they have the facilities to do so. Walking works only certain muscles, and those usually aren't the ones around the midrift. They're the legs and lungs. And that's not talking about the two members of the family that are at least temporarily disabled.

While I see many reasons for them behaving in the way they do, I also see why they're flawed in their reasoning. Everybody has to take responsibility for their own lives. Sometimes it isn't a case of having enough cash. But then the combined benefits are misleading in this regard as well, claiming £22,500 per year for the family, rather than an individual. Between four of them, it is £5625 per year. Per month it is £468.75 each. Per week it is £108 each. Not exactly livin' it up. Considering the national average salary is (in 2008 at least) £23,700. So they're 4 adults living on a budget just below the national average for one person.

EDIT:

Mr Chawner gets £71 a month after developing Type 2 diabetes because of his size. He was on a waiting list for a gastric band last year, but a heart condition made the operation unsuitable.

At least they're actually searching for ways out of the problem, even if it's not in the right way.

[Liger_zero9999]

It’s not our fault we can’t work. We deserve more

ummm. YES it is your fault, and no you dont deserve more!

[Napalmbrain]

To be fair though, the article isn't exactly neutral.

For a start, it lumps the family in together. They're racking up benefits, because each one of them is having one of the benefits, rather than a few having multiple. It's four people, all adults, claiming four benefits. Not exactly news worthy for a 4:4 ratio. The fact that they had to say "“Jobseeker’s Allowance” (unemployment benefit)" kinda makes me wonder about the intended audience for this article, with the need to use brackets.

Besides, chances are that the family members that can work, are probably from the underclass, regardless of the current economy. They're likely to be unqualified, undesirable (in terms of age or experience) and have simply fallen through the gaps in the system. Not to mention that nowadays, with so much unemployment, we cannot be seriously saying "get a job, lazy", when there are people being laid off left, right and centre. If they couldn't get a job (for whatever reason - the Jobcentre isn't exactly easy going on people not actively looking for work (and lets face it, I don't truely think that living on £120 a fortnight and having nothing to really contribute to the world is an ideal way of living, and I don't think those people in that situation would disagree with me), and they must have been searching for a job and provide evidence for it, or else they wouldn't still be claiming).

As for time to lose weight, I think it's also a case of whether they have the facilities to do so. Walking works only certain muscles, and those usually aren't the ones around the midrift. They're the legs and lungs. And that's not talking about the two members of the family that are at least temporarily disabled.

While I see many reasons for them behaving in the way they do, I also see why they're flawed in their reasoning. Everybody has to take responsibility for their own lives. Sometimes it isn't a case of having enough cash. But then the combined benefits are misleading in this regard as well, claiming £22,500 per year for the family, rather than an individual. Between four of them, it is £5625 per year. Per month it is £468.75 each. Per week it is £108 each. Not exactly livin' it up. Considering the national average salary is (in 2008 at least) £23,700. So they're 4 adults living on a budget just below the national average for one person.

You're missing my point. I'm not annoyed because they can't get a job at the moment- hell, loads of us can't a job right now. It's because they haven't got a job in 11 years.

[captainff]

But then the combined benefits are misleading in this regard as well, claiming £22,500 per year for the family, rather than an individual. Between four of them, it is £5625 per year. Per month it is £468.75 each. Per week it is £108 each. Not exactly livin' it up. Considering the national average salary is (in 2008 at least) £23,700. So they're 4 adults living on a budget just below the national average for one person.

A small correction to your maths if I may? It doesn't make a huge difference but .. .. .. .. ..

If they are getting, as reported, £22,500 per year that would equate to roughly £30k annual salary because of the tax and NI that a working person would have deducted from their earnings. So the equivalent amounts for a working person would be gross of £7500 per year each or £144 per week.




Back to the specific family .. .. .. as I linked earlier they were one of the few families evicted from their house for antisocial behaviour. Your suggestion of them being "undesirable" is likely therefore to be accurate. If that's the case then, knowing that this could take the conversation to a whole new heated level, why should they receive the level of benefit payout that they do?

[Squall7]

You're missing my point. I'm not annoyed because they can't get a job at the moment- hell, loads of us can't a job right now. It's because they haven't got a job in 11 years.

While it does seem a bit excessive, it's easily explainable. Personally, I think this is the problem in a society which tries to cram (many) people into (few) jobs (often unsuccessfully and unjustly) instead of creating jobs for people.

Give this family an internet connection, some training, and a computer and they'll be capable of doing work from home. But how many jobs that can be done from home, simply aren't?

[DBloke]

Just noticed the pics not in the op

Besides, chances are that the family members that can work, are probably from the underclass, regardless of the current economy. They're likely to be unqualified, undesirable (in terms of age or experience) and have simply fallen through the gaps in the system. Not to mention that nowadays, with so much unemployment, we cannot be seriously saying "get a job, lazy", when there are people being laid off left, right and centre. If they couldn't get a job (for whatever reason - the Jobcentre isn't exactly easy going on people not actively looking for work (and lets face it, I don't truely think that living on £120 a fortnight and having nothing to really contribute to the world is an ideal way of living, and I don't think those people in that situation would disagree with me), and they must have been searching for a job and provide evidence for it, or else they wouldn't still be claiming).

11 years tho
Its a very long time
Im what you would call unqualified as well and ive had jobs
The JSA is ment for people that are looking for work (I know im on it) and they like to ask "What have you done to look for work?"
Desk jobs are for people like that
As are jobs on chat up lines

As for time to lose weight, I think it's also a case of whether they have the facilities to do so. Walking works only certain muscles, and those usually aren't the ones around the midrift. They're the legs and lungs. And that's not talking about the two members of the family that are at least temporarily disabled.

You can loose weight by getting of your arse at least once a day