Protecting Our Children - BBC2 - 9pm - 30th Jan

I think if the degree was full time there COULD be an issue, especially as social work degrees are very full/busy with work placements etc, all we got told was one person is expected to be at home full time, so feeble i don't think home schooling would be a problem at all :)

My degree is technically part time from home! (even tho i am studying at a full time pace) so i am always home, so i know thats okay, personally i would think it would be too much to take on at the same time anyways, (full time social work training and fostering ) x
 
my views on this are probably not popular and not "pc" but personally I think the pair of them should be sterilised. He had 7 kids and she had 4, none of them are with them.

No more chances as far as im concerned. Why the hell should they keep getting chances to be parents when there are thousands of deserving couples who would give anything to have a baby. They disgusted me to be honest.

They are probably still together and will probably have another baby as they didnt seem to have enough braincells between them to think of contraception. Then more money will be wasted holding meetings and visiting them and supporting them. Then they will mess it up and another baby will be taken away.

I so couldnt be a social worker!
 
i have ended up deciding to do a degree in politics LOL

but thanks to this thread because i wouldnt have even looked at it without...

I cannot WAIT i am so excited.

It will actually be a degree in 'social science'

so will be relevant if i choose to go down the care work route...
 
whoa politics..i looked at that, alongside global governance as well..interesting
 
Smelly- some local authorities are trialling a system where if you have 2 adults on benefits, one of you has to do volunteering on a full-time basis, at a place of their choosing failing which, benefits are terminated.
Its a good idea..so many organizations need volunteers its weird nobody thought of this before now.
 
Smelly- some local authorities are trialling a system where if you have 2 adults on benefits, one of you has to do volunteering on a full-time basis, at a place of their choosing failing which, benefits are terminated.
Its a good idea..so many organizations need volunteers its weird nobody thought of this before now.

REALLY!!! that is really good!!!!! and yeah i cant believe its only just been thought of.
I can imagine some people are not going to be happy.

xxx
 
Feeble you have let me down :cry:

no seriously.... good for you!!!! xxx
 
Smelly we can still support each other through our degrees ;) Just be different ones (ish)

i want to do mostly politics, with a bit of (none maths) economics in there... i cannot WAIT

I might even be less arsey on the forum if i can rant about the powers that be... heheehh
 
I think volunteering is a good idea but then companies could just use them as free labour instead of hiring paid workers, like poundland currently does.
 
I think volunteering should be restricted to social services (not like social workers) like sweeping streets, working for the council etc

that way, if they are being used as free labour, the people who benefit are (ultimately) the tax payer who does not have to pay a worker 10quid an hour to sweep the streets or clean the bins at the same time as paying someone to sit at home on the dole

same could be said for council call centers, data entry, envelope stuffing etc etc
 
I think the volunteering issue is not as simple as all that. For people to be accepted as volunteers they still need to have a certain employability about them, just the same as they would to be given a regular job. In fact there are voluntary jobs that require CRB checks, and a lot of people who find themselves long term unemployed and unemployable are going to be in the category that would fail a CRB check.

The benefits system is there to help everyone - it is what makes this country one of the best in the world to live in. Plenty of people think it is going to the dogs, but in fact, we have so much to be thankful for, living in Britain. We have a benefits system that is there to help low paid workers (remember, tax credits are still a means tested benefit - you can be working and still claiming off the state, it's not just those who are out of work), as well as those who find themselves out of work due to redundancy, ill health, accident, etc. There are others who, for many reasons, are simply unable to work. Look at Marva and Shaun. These are two people who will never ever be employable. They do not come from happy homes. These people are a part of society that many wish to shun and treat like scum but the fact is they are incapable of even getting into the normal social ladder. They wont get a nice regular job and live in a nice house with happy children all around them. It just wont happen for them. They have lived with abuse (certainly Shaun mentioned it as a child), have lived with drugs, alcohol, homelessness and poverty, a life most of us here have absolutely no experience or understanding of.

I work in the benefits system and while there are many who abuse it, the majority don't, and are doing their best in a very poor economic climate. Wages are low, jobs scarce, and cost of living is high. A lot of the people I have contact with are trying very hard to get themselves out of the poverty trap, and depression and low self esteem feature very highly.

There are bankers out there getting paid a million pounds a year and then getting a million pound bonus on top of that just for doing their jobs, when the banks are owned by the taxpayer, and we certainly aren't getting any lovely payouts and bonuses for having bailed them out, yet we are getting benefits capped and the poorest people in the country are being penalised yet again. I think talking of sterilising people on benefits and forcing them to take unpaid voluntary work is misplaced anger. There are people at the top of the chain who deserve our anger a lot more.
 
I agree Hellylou, but thats capitalism. In a nutshell

and actually, the benefits system does NOT work

Currently myself and my husband receive enough money in benefits to bump our income up to £105 per week for food and fuel

(after rent/council tax etc etc)

if i were a single mother, i would get £127

Yep, it costs (apparently) 12 LESS per week to feed a family of three than it does a family of two

I know people who are on incapacity, which is more AGAIN (150 a week i believe) who lie about living together so basically have an income of 300 A WEEK after rent/council tax same as us

that is NOT RIGHT and absolutely not fair

yes its great that people are helped, i would never ever ever deny people (especially children) help, but to pretend there is nothing wrong with this culture is absolutely blind to what is really going on.
 
That is fraud though, it is completely different. Also there is no such thing as incapacity benefit any more. No one is claim any government/public service is perfect. Nor is humanity
 
what the fact i get 12 less per week to feed a fully grown (and fulltime working) male is fraud?

Nope its totally legal actually. It Just Is
 
I know people who are on incapacity, which is more AGAIN (150 a week i believe) who lie about living together so basically have an income of 300 A WEEK after rent/council tax same as us

It was that bit I was referring to. Is it right that single mothers get more, no perhaps not. Do I begrudge them it, no I dont actually
 
wow, thanks for your support...

Really helps keep families together you know, really pushes the boat out for working fathers.

Its not the women i begrudge, its the warped system.

we have had to CONSIDER splitting up because we didnt not know how we would cope otherwise, and we are absolutely, madly in love. Thats why we are still together, no wonder some women view men as sperm donors, our culture positively pays them to.
 
Its not like im sitting her in piles on money you know. I was made redundant last year, from a government funded role. Ive lost my house, my car, holidays, a lifestyle that I cannot afford anymore. We now just have Oh's income and my esa, which is £64 a week, for the record. After 3 serious RTA within 2 years my spine is wrecked, im on morphine and would have to have a understanding employer as well as immediate 'reasonable' adjustments make to my work place
None of this is my doing, I was 'better off' on benefits, when I worked the two days I did. But waving our arms about shouting it isnt fair isnt the answer. Pointing the finger away from ourselves isnt going to help either.


I agree with you that a situation should be created where minimum wage, without top ups with one wage earner is enough, it should be enough to support a small home and a small family. The system isnt right or fair, but very little in life is.

Some people, the people I used to work with in my last job. Were barely able to sit in a training room let alone do any kind of work. You say get them to sweep the streets? Taking jobs from people who are paid to do this? In a family where both arent working. What if the male parent had been made redundant and struggled to find work again, say the other parent was home schooling, as you mention. A suitable place couldnt be found for the male figure but could be for the mother, after all we cant discriminate on gender. Would you be okay with that?
 
The bankers bonuses is not just capitalism - it's different now. We own the banks. They should be effectively classed as public sector workers now. How can they take taxpayers' money and award themselves massive bonuses with it, when they are largely responsible for the recession? Businesses have gone under, high street shops are closing down all over, people are being laid off in their droves and end up relying on the very benefits system being vilified here, when it's not the benefits system that is at fault here. More people are claiming benefits now because more people are unemployed, because more businesses are going under, because banks screwed up, and the bankers keep benefitting! That is what is unfair.

Without knowing individual figures here it's hard to make a judgement on who is better off than who here. Theoretically people should be better off working than not working, but how much people get in benefits depends entirely on their circumstances - age, dependent children, disabilities, etc. It's easy to think single mothers have it all on a plate when working families don't, but single mothers wont get working tax credit, which working families will, under an earnings threshold. Without seeing two cases side by side it's difficult to say who gets more - there is a lot to take into account.
 
I am saying in my situation as a single mother I would get more to live on than myself and husband and son get as a family

I could bore you with the details but I won't

Let's just say we have very much done the math, weighed everything up all included, his wage, our benefits

My benefits alone would be more all in than our income as a family will benefits all in

I cannot imagine its much different for others. The amount of mothers who are single as a matter of choice proves this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,650,307
Messages
27,144,916
Members
255,759
Latest member
boom2211
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "c48fb0faa520c8dfff8c4deab485d3d2"
<-- Admiral -->