WOW
- Thread starter Jiffie
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Another f'in' joke by the crazy as bat **** government we have in Wales. More than a lot of lower income workers make.
And still paid if you get a job.
My first thought was what could possibly go wrong?
It was either a conversation I had or TV that kids in care once turned 18 then have to leave the care home. So effectively have to find rented accommodation and fend for themselves. It leaves loads of them unable to do this and end up on the streets.
This money is more than the National minimal wage but that is based on people living with their parents. If you’re on minimal wages, and renting you can then get top up through some benefits (This was on Martin Lewis, benefits special the other week) I think you can earn up to 30k before any benefits finish.
So is it worded wrong that that they get the full £1600 even if they are on higher than the 30k per year? This would be wrong if it helps sme but not the others
However at end of the day we are talking kids who’ve had a **** youth and probably lived through things we would kill for if it happened to one of our own kids. So to give them the help that the homing throws threw them out, is that such a bad thing?
I would rather my tax goes on helping them have a decent start to adult life rather than the spongers who won’t work.
This money is more than the National minimal wage but that is based on people living with their parents. If you’re on minimal wages, and renting you can then get top up through some benefits (This was on Martin Lewis, benefits special the other week) I think you can earn up to 30k before any benefits finish.
So is it worded wrong that that they get the full £1600 even if they are on higher than the 30k per year? This would be wrong if it helps sme but not the others
However at end of the day we are talking kids who’ve had a **** youth and probably lived through things we would kill for if it happened to one of our own kids. So to give them the help that the homing throws threw them out, is that such a bad thing?
I would rather my tax goes on helping them have a decent start to adult life rather than the spongers who won’t work.
Last edited:
I would suggest that most of these 'kids' are in care for anti social behaviour (to give what was criminality it's modern vernacular) I would also suggest that at 18 those who want a better life to change their circumstances, would already either have a job or be in higher education. I repeat my first thought was 'what could possibly go wrong' .
PS:- The BBC wrongly wording a piece of journalism? that's heresy.
Last edited:
Different care, I’m talking about the ones that are / were in the fostering system at the age where no one wanted them. Most due to their families not helping them when needed. People only like to foster babies or young kids. Special people and few of them take on kids past a certain age.
Anti social care homes are effectively borstals, youth homes. They choose their path.
The cost of keeping them in prison is much higher, anything that gives these kids a chance of making something of themselves is worth it, both from a cash point of view and a moral one.
I think that you find that this 'trial' will not differentiate between the different 'care systems', not even for those who choose their path, what could possibly go wrong.
Time will tell, although I would hope that this more about children in the care system through no fault of their own and not those already in prison. Otherwise it's the Welsh drug dealers that will be the only winners here.
Cynical? you bet.
It may well be, but help can change most people.
As a scenario, you mention the grooming in Rochdale and areas up around there. These are kids that can be from anti social, or failed family protection and ended up n the care system. Given their age, they would struggle to be fostered or adopted so will be looked after until 18. Then hoofed out onto the street. Do these kids that been raped and abused and at that point only know one way to survive. Do you think these should not be helped?
The alternative isn’t without costs, stealing, drugs and prison. At least this way it gives them a chance to make something of themselves, and become contributors to society, which is also cheaper in the long run for the rest of us.
Two different things here, most of these girls were/are young vulnerable children not 18 year olds, the scandal is not about their after care, the scandal is that local politicians, social workers, the police and the CPS (whom at the time a certain labour leader was in charge of) covered it up because of the fear of being branded racist or what was it that the wonderful labour MP Naz Shah retweeted about the abuse in Rotherham? oh yes.
'abuse victims should ‘shut their mouths for good of diversity’
That’s a different story all together. Some of those victims ended up in care so they’ve had a **** life to be thrown back out onto the streets once they’ve turned 18.
I wasn’t using the scandal just the fact that at the moment regardless of their story, the moment they get spat out the system at 18 with not if any help.
Last edited:
And quite a few of the girls were from normal, stable loving backgrounds and more than a few from middle class backgrounds, the scandal is that this because of reasons I already stated was allowed to continue at an industrial for nearly 20 years. it could and should have been stopped and best chance to stop it much earlier was avoided, all the evidence to secure a conviction against the illegal immigrant so called leader of the Rochdale gang was in place, a brave young girl was the first to report it to the police, she was even pregnant with his child FFS, but it still wasn't enough for the then DPP.
Even the head of the the north west CPS and the female head detective were incredulous at the decision not to prosecute and because of his ruling and advice regarding the racism angle chief police officers had the excuse they needed to bin the investigation for many years.
It's a bad example because the money would have ended up in place and one place only, those hundreds/thousands of girls needed protection , support and justice first, something now they are belatedly getting.
Here's the thing, what's going to happen in 2 years time, when suddenly the £1,600 stops and they still don't have a job (because they don't need one) or they do have a job and have become reliant on that extra £1,600 (which is human nature).
I know what you're saying.
But do you know if it saves 1 girl from from a terrible life it will, for me, worth the millions spent.
And who knows it may save a lot more girls and I'm content to see how it goes.
This is not about girls that is a deflection it's kids leaving care and I get your point but what about the dozens of drug addicts it may spurn?
As I say what could possibly go wrong.
The UK has a habit of throwing money at problems and not regulating it in any way shape or form, just take a look at the covid furlough scheme.