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

[Squall7]

As awesome as it would be for everyone to have any job they like, the real world doesn't work that way. How do you propose we get all these jobs created for everyone?

For a start bring the cost of living down, reduce people's work hours, create an opening in the jobs market, reduce educational costs to zero, promote work as a way of giving to the world instead of a requirement of existence, etc...

To put it bluntly- they had their chance. People shouldn't rely on the government to hold their hands forever, otherwise they'll have no incentive to look after themselves.

I disagree. People's incentive for work shouldn't be simply to put food on the table. It should be to give something of themselves to the world, to effect the world, heck even effect the local area. As for "chance", why is it that rights are earned? Rights are things we intrinsically have, whether we're good or bad. Now bonuses, fair enough. But people shouldn't be moved into action through negative reinforcement. It should be positive reinforcement. It should be "do this and you can get this shiny thing" rather than "either you do this or I'm going to make it even harder for you to live in the world". Negative stimuli has been proven over and over again to be a bad way of doing things. Heck, it's part of the reason for people's apathy today.

I know that we disagree fundamentally on this point from our previous outings on other threads.

Believe me, I appreciate debate. Heck, it'd be boring without such differences in opinion.

I'm reminded of a time a few years ago when there were 750 people in Crawley, West Sussex, claiming Unemployment Benefit (for that's what it was called then) while the jobcenter had 1000 vacancies advertised in the area. I appreciate that the job market isn't quite the same right now .. .. ..

Fair enough. If it was as plain and simple as that, I can see the point. Sometimes there are more jobs than people. However, that's taking out factors such as requirements for jobs, pay, not to mention those that aren't on JSA (there are people out there that go straight from one place of work to another, or get a job straight from school, not to mention those that are not entitled to it, for whatever reason). Kinda hard to get actual figures and such. Just saying the picture was probably not as clear cut as a sum.

I think that you can blame people without a job. Sorry, because that applies to you either now or in the past. It isn't the employers' fault that an individual doesn't have the necessary skills or personality to perform a job, it is the fault of the individual.

That's like blaming your PS3 because it cannot grill your steaks. Besides, that's not taking into account the fact that employers can usually train up people to perform a specific task. People should come first, not companies and money-making.

Creating jobs for the sake of it, a trick employed by every Labour Government, doesn't work.

Oh, I agree. Creating jobs for the need though, is a different matter (and more specifically, jobs people want).

They need to be paid for somehow. If there are more people in 'created' jobs than 'real' jobs (yes, I know, you have my permission to rip that comment to shreds ) then the tax burden on those who work in necessary employment becomes overbearing. Artificially creating employment doesn't work in the mid to long term.

I find it funny how people see tax. You don't pay tax, tax is taken. You don't get a say. You should be able to go to the government and say "we need this" though, but we shouldn't be complaining (unless it truly is inappropriate - but I argue that giving people money so they can afford to eat, albeit junk food, is a good cause for the tax money).
Going back to your point though, the 'created' jobs and 'real' jobs are both paying tax. The difference is, that the created jobs are artificial in terms of their conception.

But this is going off-topic.

^You can't say that not having a job is entirely the fault of the employee. There have been a lot of mass layoffs recently due to lack of funding to pay the employees, (granted, they might have more money if execs didn't award themselves million dollar bonuses, but that's another issue...) but this family wasn't a recent layoff, as they've been receiving money for quite a long time. And if they were searching for a job it might not be as bad, but these people have no desire to earn their own money.

You must have been following this family for a long time and know all their secrets for you to come out with a bold statement such as "these people have no desire to earn their own money."

Seriously, from the deliberately convoluted story that is portrayed in the media, how can anyone be so bold as to assume they know this family inside out? The facts have been distorted, their quotes have been mediated and their opinions (since they're the only ones who know exactly what they have/haven't done to resolve their problems) overruled. Why are people buying into this crap? The only reason this story out of thousands of others is in the spotlight, is because one of the daughters has her 3 minutes of fame on a crappy reality TV show.

 

[Napalmbrain]

For a start bring the cost of living down, reduce people's work hours, create an opening in the jobs market, reduce educational costs to zero, promote work as a way of giving to the world instead of a requirement of existence, etc...

And how do you propose the government actually does all that? Believe it or not, politicians don't just decide how many jobs are going to be available and how much stuff costs.

I disagree. People's incentive for work shouldn't be simply to put food on the table. It should be to give something of themselves to the world, to effect the world, heck even effect the local area. As for "chance", why is it that rights are earned? Rights are things we intrinsically have, whether we're good or bad. Now bonuses, fair enough. But people shouldn't be moved into action through negative reinforcement. It should be positive reinforcement. It should be "do this and you can get this shiny thing" rather than "either you do this or I'm going to make it even harder for you to live in the world". Negative stimuli has been proven over and over again to be a bad way of doing things. Heck, it's part of the reason for people's apathy today.

Oh, I believe deeply in rights. But one of the rights I happen to believe in is the right to not have to subsidise people who are too lazy to try and find a job for 11 years.

 

[Chewy]

Seriously, from the deliberately convoluted story that is portrayed in the media, how can anyone be so bold as to assume they know this family inside out? The facts have been distorted, their quotes have been mediated and their opinions (since they're the only ones who know exactly what they have/haven't done to resolve their problems) overruled. Why are people buying into this crap? The only reason this story out of thousands of others is in the spotlight, is because one of the daughters has her 3 minutes of fame on a crappy reality TV show.

I think living 11 years without a job speaks for itself.

 

[Squall7]

And how do you propose the government actually does all that? Believe it or not, politicians don't decide how many jobs are going to be available and how much stuff costs.

No, but they do decide where that money goes. If they used it properly, it could go a long way, such as stop using PFI's, stop with subsidising their second home expences with tax money, being not so highly paid, stop funding stupid projects, etc...

Oh, I believe deeply in rights. But one of the rights I happen to believe in is the right to not have to subsidise people who are too lazy to try and find a job for 11 years.

Quote:
Samantha receives £84 in Jobseekers’ Allowance each fortnight
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-fat-work.html
Quote:
eldest daughter Samantha (21)
Source: OP.

Either Samantha has been claiming JSA since she was 10 or JSA wasn't the benefit that they've been on for 11 years. Somehow I don't think it's the former.

Nobody was out of work for 11 years. The "benefits" they were talking about was probably the disability benefit, not the JSA.

I think living 11 years without a job speaks for itself.

See above.

The problem stems from the fact that the person looking for work is the 21 year old daughter, and she obviously hasn't been on JSA for 11 years.

On TV it says unemployment levels have hit two million. Audrey launches into a rant: "They should go to the JobCentre, look in the paper. People use too many excuses.

You can't be fussy these days, you need to take what's available."

Does she count herself and her family in that? I ask. "Er, well, yes and no," she stammers."

Thing is, I can't work. Neither can Philip. But the girls try, bless 'em."

Emma and Samantha - both trained hairdressers - say they apply for around 30 jobs every week but each time get refused. Samantha says: "The thing is, you go into a hairdresser's and all you see are skinny girls working there. You never see bigger girls." She adds: "I'd do anything I reckon.

Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...too-busy-watching-tv-to-diet-115875-21209579/

 

[Napalmbrain]

No, but they do decide where that money goes. If they used it properly, it could go a long way, such as stop using PFI's, stop with subsidising their second home expences with tax money, being not so highly paid, stop funding stupid projects, etc...

Can't argue with those methods. For another way to free up some cash, I suggest they stop subsidising people who can't be bothered to try and find work.

Nobody was out of work for 11 years. The "benefits" they were talking about was probably the disability benefit, not the JSA.


See above.

Geez, it's like people aren't aware that the media is manipulative...

From the OP: "The Chawner family claims £22,500 ($33,000, or $45,000 prior to the UK’s recent economic collapse) annually in benefits, having lived off state handouts without working for 11 years."

They didn't mention the daughter specifically. Besides, my point about not having to subsidise the bone idle stills stands.

P.S.- What's an obviously-socialist guy like you doing reading the Daily Mail?

 

[Squall7]

Can't argue with those methods. For another way to free up some cash, I suggest they stop subsidising people who can't be bothered to try and find work.

Actually, it would still cost money on the government's behalf to investigate and discern which people are legitimately claiming benefits from those illegitimate claims. Now, it'd be better to go after those large companies that don't pay tax...
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...anies-dont-pay-tax-radio-4-pick-up-the-theme/

They didn't mention the daughter specifically. Besides, my point about not having to subsidise the bone idle stills stands.

You're right, they didn't. However, what they didn't say was that only one of them is actually on JSA while she's looking for work, was the daughter. Ergo, the two people who aren't looking for work are the parents, the father whom is on incapacity benefit and the mother who is on disability benefit. The article made mention that they hadn't worked for 11 years, yet JSA isn't the benefit that person is claiming.

While you may have a point about the 'bone idle', it problem still needs to be addressed. How do we get them into jobs? Well, for a start, the first thing to do is to have jobs available, and jobs they can do. The second thing to do is to keep them happy in said job.

People aren't naturally lazy. For some that work in a dead end, no hope job that they hate, those people may seem 'wrong' simply because they aren't doing the same thing as them. However, from another perspective, it's all down to choice. They chose not to work in that situation (and they'll have their money cut if they have the balls to say it), and therefore are living off someone else. But then, why should that matter to anyone other than that person and the person they're living off?

P.S.- What's an obviously-socialist guy like you doing reading the Daily Mail?

I don't. I was just trying to find more details on the family. It seems any quotes about them actually trying to resolve the situation are either laughed at or left out. Hardly what I would call impartial. Likewise, the entire article is designed to be outlandish, I mean they are obese, but what is the point in combining their weights to form a total? Do families get weighed together often? And why is it that they decided to focus on the sum total of their benefits? It was an obvious ruse to make people think that they're getting more than they should. And that "we deserve more" could have been taken to mean "we deserve more in life than to be stuck in this situation". Likewise, demand and deserve aren't the same thing. This article missed out on so many points that might have actually led people to the conclusion that they weren't a obese family demanding more money to sit on their arses and watch TV. They left out about the parts where they try to lose weight, they left out the part where it was only the father that didn't like fruit and veg, and they left out the fact that they do take their dog for a walk. Heck, even saw one photo that was deliberately wide-angle, trying to make them look larger than they already are.

If I do end up buying a newspaper it's usually the independent.

P.S. I'm not pro-underclass or anything. I simply feel that the culture of not wanting to find a job is a symptom of an underlying condition which doesn't necessarily stem from the individual, but rather how they react to the world (whether justly or not). I might not be sticking up for this family had there been voices of opposition on here. Heck, I'd agree that they should continue to search for ways out of these problems (and from other sources, they say they are doing that) but I guess sometimes I put my controversial opinions out there to counter the general feeling (and hopefully force some to question their view).

 

[Brawny]

Yay for the UK.

 

[AoWFraggit]

some fat bastards are hilarious, but these fat leeches of society should sicken anyone with a sense of decency.

 

[Sovieto]

**** them and the government.

Natural selection should go as intended.

 

[navarre]

**** them and the government.

Natural selection should go as intended.

Surely natural selection is against your religion, Sovieto! Despite the blatant scientific evidence for it, discovered by a British scientist...

P.S.- What's an obviously-socialist guy like you doing reading the Daily Mail?

I was thinking the exact same thing. Hitler may as well have subscribed to the Communist Fansite.

Yay for the UK.

Seeing as the obesity endemic is far more highly proportionate in the US, your sarcasm doesn't bode well.

 

[Brawny]

We may be more obese, but at least we still haven't fallen anywhere near the level of complete and utter governmental nipple suckling that you have....yet. There are definitely people trying to get there. *cough*Obamunism*cough*

I'll likely end up living in the UK, so my hate for it is thusly acceptable.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Surely natural selection is against your religion, Sovieto! Despite the blatant scientific evidence for it, discovered by a British scientist...

I'm pretty sure Sovieto doesn't have a religion.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Hitler may as well have subscribed to the Communist Fansite.

I've always found it odd that Hitler said he hated communism, but ran his country like a communist state.

I'll likely end up living in the UK, so my hate for it is thusly acceptable.

Trust me, your hate would be acceptable either way.

 

[Sovieto]

Surely natural selection is against your religion, Sovieto! Despite the blatant scientific evidence for it, discovered by a British scientist...



I was thinking the exact same thing. Hitler may as well have subscribed to the Communist Fansite.



Seeing as the obesity endemic is far more highly proportionate in the US, your sarcasm doesn't bode well.

This is the second time you replied to me talking about "my religion". Are you mistaken or is there some cynical joke you're trying to push through? ut:

 

[ProShooter]

this is more amusing then the topic of the thread itself

 

[DBloke]

this is more amusing then the topic of the thread itself

I think I know know who to make a thread thats populer

Coming up
"Cheat Benefits by being fat in the UK with Mario and his new mature GTA stlye game"