The EU debate - Part III

don't know but it would still be better to stop people from claiming benefits if they are not willing to work when they are able to work

 

As was said multiple times yesterday and before, it's not going to suddenly be easier for that 93% just because it's harder for the 7%. So, no we don't agree.

 

That's what the system currently does, but they've sold off the assessment, so genuinely ill people get cut off, instead.

If you don't know how many people fit into the stereotype, then why are you operating as if you do?
Is it a significant issue? At what point does the risk of cutting off genuine claimants outweigh the payments to the lazy?

 

1.3% are long term, but I do accept some will have a disability and should be excused from working.

 

And some can't find work, have criminal records and/or mental health problems or physical ones.
So what number are just lazy and workshy, which was my original question?

 

the system currently does that does it? I dont believe it.
operating?

 

If I was an employer looking for an employee for a basic but physically demanding job, that doesn't strike me as who I'd be looking to give the job to.

 

how can you know for sure when people deliberately hide their laziness?

 

Always thinking about Stan. I get a mention in the majority of your posts! Not that you're bothered

Have you threatened to sexually assault anyone's missus recently or has your boss kept you busy showing box flats to get the numbers up before year end?

 

You have to demonstrate that you're actively looking for work or you have your benefits cut.
Were you not aware of that?

Sorry, but I don't know what operating is supposed to refer to.

I don't know. How can you?

 

It doesn't ignore the simple fact that there's someone on the other side of the table

What it does is set out the Govt's aims. If the aim is the control borders ahead of single market access for example. It's got **** all to do with stalling and everything to with accountability

 

Are you suggesting that our system is adequate enough to prevent false claims?

Are you suggesting false claimants are not costing the taxpayer a significant amount of money each year?

Why are you seemingly opposed to the idea that the current scrutiny process be improved upon?

 

Yeah right oh.

Can you see Wayne and Waynetta wiping senior citizens arses?

The care industry would collapse without the EU migrant workers.

 

you mentioned "operating"
I'm not saying I can but I would think it would make sense that the DWP people would have people and resources to do that rather than throw their hands in the air and say it's too difficult to stop paying lazy people benefits

 

No system will prevent false claims. There is no perfect system.

What amount would you class as an insignificant amount of money?

When did I say that? I specifically pointed out that there were problems with the current process.

 

Yeah the Tories want to 'correct this divisiveness' by letting virtually none of them in.

Pull up the drawbridge

 

Operating as in acting. The verb. To operate.

Is that what you think that the DWP do? Really?

 

I'm sure there are false claims though the scrutiny process seems good based on what's been mentioned on here.

How many false claimants are in a location where there's a job going and the employer would want them? I'd guess not many given the long term UE rate.

 

1. So the system has got room for improvement?
2. Was the question so difficult that all you could do was swerve it by putting out a question of your own?
3. You suggested, very clearly, that you are opposed to improving the scrutiny format as any attempt to clamp down on benefit fraud would only result in hurting innocent people.

 

... tickle its' tits?