Channel 4 tonight 19:30

[srb7677]

you clearly don't accept accept some take the p!ss. 

I do actually accept that some might. What I do not accept - and what all the evidence clearly backs up - is that most of them are at at. The latter is just a cherished little bit of malice you enjoy indulging in for whatever self-righteous reasons and are reluctant to give up whatever the evidence says.

[Nick]

And with respect you yourself come out with the same rabid shite. And Amazon has an appalling reputation in regards to the way it treats it's workforce. I wouldn't work for them unless they paid a lot more for that.

I have not supplied excuses but legitimate reasons in regards to the barriers some face.

Meanwhile, you keep telling us that almost everyone on welfare is a layabout. Yet only a fraction  are bona fide jobseekers. Most of the rest are retired or already in work but just not earning enough, or are on the sick. And even three quarters of jobseekers are only out of work for a very short time, and you have just explicitly excluded them from your criticisms.

So on what basis can you possibly claim that most welfare claimants are layabouts? Clearly the stats say otherwise, but your sort never lets the truth get in the way of some self serving and highly cherished malice.

You have know knowledge of the work conditions at an Amazon warehouse, only what your mates have said or a BBC Panorama program that was edited to show what the masses wanted. I've just finished some work over peak in Haydock, everyone in Christmas jumpers with music blasting out. Laid back isn't the word. 
Again, I talk about UNEMPLOYED, that means no job but you keep coming back with those getting UC who have jobs, let's leave it there cause you clearly don't accept accept some take the p!ss. 

[srb7677]

You have not explained anything Steve, you've just come up with a bunch of excuses why you think they are unemployed. I'm not talking about the short termers, I'm focusing on the ones that make a career out of it.

Affordable housing is not the problem, the figures show that.
The highest unemployment in the country is the North East, where my company has just finished off another Amazon Warehouse, they can't fully staff it even though Amazon lay busses on that go from Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland tight to the factory in Washington. The jobs need no previous experience or qualifications so explain that away Steve. Another Amazon at Haydock couldn't get staff even though they are close to Liverpool, again a high level of unemployed.

It's the same lame excuses the left make all the time, the reality being a lot of them just don't want to work but you won't accept it.
This was borne out by UC, with masses of unemployed getting jobs when they realised they would get nothing for 6 to 8 weeks.

It's called having a working mindset, and the long term dolies don't have it, but you keep making excuses for them.

And with respect you yourself come out with the same rabid shite. And Amazon has an appalling reputation in regards to the way it treats it's workforce. I wouldn't work for them unless they paid a lot more for that.

I have not supplied excuses but legitimate reasons in regards to the barriers some face.

Meanwhile, you keep telling us that almost everyone on welfare is a layabout. Yet only a fraction  are bona fide jobseekers. Most of the rest are retired or already in work but just not earning enough, or are on the sick. And even three quarters of jobseekers are only out of work for a very short time, and you have just explicitly excluded them from your criticisms.

So on what basis can you possibly claim that most welfare claimants are layabouts? Clearly the stats say otherwise, but your sort never lets the truth get in the way of some self serving and highly cherished malice.

[Nick]

I have explained why, is it just a case of in one ear and out the other with you?


Many of the unemployed are not qualified for the jobs on offer, eg HGV driving. And they lack the financial resources to pay for the necessary training. Some areas have insufficient affordable housing for jobseekers to relocate to and they cannot abandon their existing home to live in a temporary caravan because housing benefit will not fund that and they would need an unfeasibly large pay packet from the job to fund it. I have explained all this to you before and you asked for evidence. What the feck kind of evidence do you expect? Evidence that most of the unemployed do not possess HGV licenses for example? Any fool knows that because most people we know do not possess one. Evidence that there is a lack of affordable housing in many areas? Evidence that housing benefit will not continue to pay for your home if you dont earn enough when you relocate to a temporary caravan? All these things are blatantly obvious and shouldn't need evidence.

I also told you there is an enormous amount of churn in the figures, with three quarters of the unemployed having become so in the last three months, and most of them back in work again within the next three. So most of them are not some army of long term layabouts but hardworking people temporarily without a job. I suppose you will want evidence of that now because it does not conform with your prejudices? Go look for it yourself, it is there to find. I lack the time for pandering to ignorance right now and am about to go to bed, being a hard working person who needs to be up in the morning yet who was once labelled a layabout by people like you for being temporarily out of work.

You have not explained anything Steve, you've just come up with a bunch of excuses why you think they are unemployed. I'm not talking about the short termers, I'm focusing on the ones that make a career out of it.

Affordable housing is not the problem, the figures show that.
The highest unemployment in the country is the North East, where my company has just finished off another Amazon Warehouse, they can't fully staff it even though Amazon lay busses on that go from Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland tight to the factory in Washington. The jobs need no previous experience or qualifications so explain that away Steve. Another Amazon at Haydock couldn't get staff even though they are close to Liverpool, again a high level of unemployed.

It's the same lame excuses the left make all the time, the reality being a lot of them just don't want to work but you won't accept it.
This was borne out by UC, with masses of unemployed getting jobs when they realised they would get nothing for 6 to 8 weeks.

It's called having a working mindset, and the long term dolies don't have it, but you keep making excuses for them.

[srb7677]

More jobs than job seekers but they still don't work, why?

I have explained why, is it just a case of in one ear and out the other with you?

Many of the unemployed are not qualified for the jobs on offer, eg HGV driving. And they lack the financial resources to pay for the necessary training. Some areas have insufficient affordable housing for jobseekers to relocate to and they cannot abandon their existing home to live in a temporary caravan because housing benefit will not fund that and they would need an unfeasibly large pay packet from the job to fund it. I have explained all this to you before and you asked for evidence. What the feck kind of evidence do you expect? Evidence that most of the unemployed do not possess HGV licenses for example? Any fool knows that because most people we know do not possess one. Evidence that there is a lack of affordable housing in many areas? Evidence that housing benefit will not continue to pay for your home if you dont earn enough when you relocate to a temporary caravan? All these things are blatantly obvious and shouldn't need evidence.

I also told you there is an enormous amount of churn in the figures, with three quarters of the unemployed having become so in the last three months, and most of them back in work again within the next three. So most of them are not some army of long term layabouts but hardworking people temporarily without a job. I suppose you will want evidence of that now because it does not conform with your prejudices? Go look for it yourself, it is there to find. I lack the time for pandering to ignorance right now and am about to go to bed, being a hard working person who needs to be up in the morning yet who was once labelled a layabout by people like you for being temporarily out of work.

[Nick]

That is a factually incorrect assumption. I see nothing virtuous about having to sign on, though I have been there myself in the past. But it is sometimes a necessity and people should not be automatically demonised for it.

But it shouldn't be used as a lifestyle choice but for some it is. 

More jobs than job seekers but they still don't work, why?

[srb7677]

You think that signing on is a virtue.

That is a factually incorrect assumption. I see nothing virtuous about having to sign on, though I have been there myself in the past. But it is sometimes a necessity and people should not be automatically demonised for it.

[Borchester]

That is not evidence. Only a fairly small minority of welfare claimants are actually on the dole with an obligation to look for work. And there is a lot of churn in those figures, with the majority of them only recently out of work and soon to be back in work somewhere else. There is also a further difficulty in some areas due to locals being unable to afford to live in these areas on the wages on offer, due to a dearth of affordable housing. And many jobs require skills that a lot of people don't have. It takes a lot of money to train to be a HGV driver for example, and very few people out of work will have the financial resources for that.

So come on. Instead of making assumptions about those out of work and calling it evidence, what about some actual evidence?

There isn't an actual evidence. Only the common sense approach adopted by commonsensical chaps such as my self.

Nick believes that all the unemployed are shiftless layabouts who deserve nothing better by way of state aid than a crust of stale bread for dinner and a kick in the balls by way of a dessert.

You think that signing on is a virtue.

I believe that pretty soon there will be an automatic barcode reader and shelf stacker that will see you out on your arse and on the dole for the rest of your life because you prefer excuses to retraining. And it does not matter because we don't need so many people in the workforce. Most people work because they want to, not because they are needed. As said before, soon everything will be done by one Chinaman getting up in the morning and pressing a button. Then he will have a lie in and discover that the job has been automated...

[srb7677]

None of what you posted is evidenced so how about you stick some numbers on it.

They are sensible and obvious reasons, not evidence for or against fraud. 

And they were given in answer to your assertion that all was only explicable as most welfare claimants being layabouts, for which you gave no evidence at all. If it is evidence you want, the welfare fraud figure runs at £1.3 billion, which is a figure you yourself provided and no one is challenging. The total welfare budget however is some £212 billion...


• Benefit expenditure in the UK 2021 | Statista

Now do the maths. Clearly the amount being lost to fraud is a tiny fraction of much less than 1% of the total budget, glaring evidence that the vast majority of claims are not fraudulent. Where is your evidence that can refute any of this? Something a bit more admissable than three guys you claim to know please.

[Nick]

That is still not evidence. There are many potential reasons. For one thing it is likely to be those who qualify for certain jobs who come here in the first place. Also, those too unfit for work at all are far less likely to come. And the fit and able ones who do come can often afford to live in temporary accommodation like caravans because they have no permanent address here to maintain like most of our own poor do. Housing benefits will not pay your rent if you are living anywhere else even temporarily.

Yet you keep making the un-evidenced assertion that most welfare claimants are fraudulent without any evidence. Yet the actual £1.3 billion lost in fraud is a tiny fraction of the welfare bill, clear evidence that the level of actual fraud is small in percentage terms.

As others have said, vastly more is lost through tax evasion, but you seem to think that is ok. Perhaps because it is fraud committed b y the kind of people you identify with and associate yourself with and who are similar to you? So that makes it ok, eh?

None of what you posted is evidenced so how about you stick some numbers on it. 

[srb7677]

Are you saying Eastern Europeans have more money to train for jobs, live in areas with lower rents and more jobs? Explain why they are exponentially less likely to be out of work than Brits if it isn't work ethic.

As for your tiny number not working, there are 1.4 million unemployed. Not what I call insignificant.

That is still not evidence. There are many potential reasons. For one thing it is likely to be those who qualify for certain jobs who come here in the first place. Also, those too unfit for work at all are far less likely to come. And the fit and able ones who do come can often afford to live in temporary accommodation like caravans because they have no permanent address here to maintain like most of our own poor do. Housing benefits will not pay your rent if you are living anywhere else even temporarily. 

Yet you keep making the un-evidenced assertion that most welfare claimants are fraudulent without any evidence. Yet the actual £1.3 billion lost in fraud is a tiny fraction of the welfare bill, clear evidence that the level of actual fraud is small in percentage terms.

As others have said, vastly more is lost through tax evasion, but you seem to think that is ok. Perhaps because it is fraud committed b y the kind of people you identify with and associate yourself with and who are similar to you? So that makes it ok, eh?

[cromwell]

No it's not, benefit fraud is £1.3bn

Yep I got the figures wrong,however the lost revenue in tax evasion is many billions more.

[Nick]

What should be said is recorded benefit fraud is in millions,tax fraud in billions.

No it's not, benefit fraud is £1.3bn

[cromwell]

Are you saying Eastern Europeans have more money to train for jobs, live in areas with lower rents and more jobs? Explain why they are exponentially less likely to be out of work than Brits if it isn't work ethic.

As for your tiny number not working, there are 1.4 million unemployed. Not what I call insignificant.

What should be said is recorded benefit fraud is in millions,tax fraud in billions.

[Nick]

That is not evidence. Only a fairly small minority of welfare claimants are actually on the dole with an obligation to look for work. And there is a lot of churn in those figures, with the majority of them only recently out of work and soon to be back in work somewhere else. There is also a further difficulty in some areas due to locals being unable to afford to live in these areas on the wages on offer, due to a dearth of affordable housing. And many jobs require skills that a lot of people don't have. It takes a lot of money to train to be a HGV driver for example, and very few people out of work will have the financial resources for that.

So come on. Instead of making assumptions about those out of work and calling it evidence, what about some actual evidence?

Are you saying Eastern Europeans have more money to train for jobs, live in areas with lower rents and more jobs? Explain why they are exponentially less likely to be out of work than Brits if it isn't work ethic. 

As for your tiny number not working, there are 1.4 million unemployed. Not what I call insignificant.