The cost of civil disobedience?

Heat said:
Seriously ?? Was it my EU comment?
Is that all you can say to what is a serious grown up debate?
We all know that crime that involves costs to the government, or third parties, rarely pays any money towards the crime.

And people on benefits should be given jobs for benefit money (providing it is to at least minimum wage level).
What human right would be broken to do this?
EU or U.K. laws, I don’t care. It is wrong, and unfair to those who are not on benefits but barely able to live on earnings, to be discriminated against.
Click to expand...
Of course it was the EU comment, it was totally unneeded in what you are calling a serious grown up debate that you brought up the EU.
 
chippie244 said:
You were quite happy to abuse remainers but hate getting it back, you're quite the little snowflake aren't you.
Click to expand...
Sadly, you are the one member on here who dishes out abuse to all and sundry chip. Almost constant, non stop abuse. You just don't seem to learn, do you ?
 
joinerjohn1 said:
Sadly, you are the one member on here who dishes out abuse to all and sundry chip. Almost constant, non stop abuse. You just don't seem to learn, do you ?
Click to expand...
Not all and sundry jj, are you trying to say you never insult posters on here?
 
Heat said:
Seriously ?? Was it my EU comment?
Is that all you can say to what is a serious grown up debate?
We all know that crime that involves costs to the government, or third parties, rarely pays any money towards the crime.

And people on benefits should be given jobs for benefit money (providing it is to at least minimum wage level).
What human right would be broken to do this?
EU or U.K. laws, I don’t care. It is wrong, and unfair to those who are not on benefits but barely able to live on earnings, to be discriminated against.
Click to expand...
We live in a corrupt society.
If you forced people to work for benefits, then pretty soon, everyone would be working for benefits.
I mean, why pay someone £40 grand a year, when you sack them and get them to do the same jobs for minimum wage?
 
spinlondon said:
It’s not done because it wouldn’t be right.
You don’t want to pay someone a decent wage to do a job, why should they then be forced to do the job?
Click to expand...

Why would it not be right?
You are on benefits, you commit a crime, law says you don’t lose any benefits but must pay costs of your crime, even if this means you do part time work the court offers you.
Seems fair to me.

Or you are simply on benefits and you contribute back to the country by working for some or all of the benefit money by doing work offered to you. (Providing your personal circumstances allow obviously)
Also seems fair to me.
 
joinerjohn1 said:
I think I've learnt my lesson chip, something that can't be said about you.
Click to expand...
Since when did you learn this lesson, since you said remainers were low intellect a few posts ago?
That's a very Trump like phrase by the way.
 
chippie244 said:
Of course it was the EU comment, it was totally unneeded in what you are calling a serious grown up debate that you brought up the EU.
Click to expand...

I genuinely do not know if the EU is responsible for what I think of as soft punishment that exists with criminals totally unaccountable to costs of their crimes.
I have no doubt that the U.K. by itself is soft, without the EU
 
Heat said:
Why would it not be right?
You are on benefits, you commit a crime, law says you don’t lose any benefits but must pay costs of your crime, even if this means you do part time work the court offers you.
Seems fair to me.

Or you are simply on benefits and you contribute back to the country by working for some or all of the benefit money by doing work offered to you. (Providing your personal circumstances allow obviously)
Also seems fair to me.
Click to expand...
Perhaps society could provide a job in the first place so they didn't need benefits.
 
Heat said:
I genuinely do not know if the EU is responsible for what I think of as soft punishment, unaccountable to costs of the crimes, that exists.
I have no doubt that the U.K. by itself is soft, without the EU
Click to expand...
So why did you say it?
 
Heat said:
Why would it not be right?
You are on benefits, you commit a crime, law says you don’t lose any benefits but must pay costs of your crime, even if this means you do part time work the court offers you.
Seems fair to me.

Or you are simply on benefits and you contribute back to the country by working for some or all of the benefit money by doing work offered to you. (Providing your personal circumstances allow obviously)
Also seems fair to me.
Click to expand...
Why do they have to commit a crime before being offered this work?
 
chippie244 said:
Perhaps society could provide a job in the first place so they didn't need benefits.
Click to expand...

Jobs are often already there.
Remember this point I make, - You could be unemployed, but the government might have to pay your rent, plus your living expenses, which can amount to a working wage, or more. So why would it be silly to say you could be doing something to contribute for the money, instead of watching daytime tv?
Has to be government run.
Are people all too proud to do some work around their local area, whether it is picking up litter, or helping out at a care home?
 
Heat said:
Jobs are often already there.
Remember this point I make, - You could be unemployed, but the government might have to pay your rent, plus your living expenses, which can amount to a working wage, or more. So why would it be silly to say you could be doing something to contribute for the money, instead of watching daytime tv?
Has to be government run.
Are people all too proud to do some work around their local area, whether it is picking up litter, or helping out at a care home?
Click to expand...
The things you are suggesting that could be done by criminals for benefits are real jobs.
Jobs that are filled by people who want to work.
So what you’re saying is: sack the people doing the jobs now, and instead give the jobs to some criminal so they can get benefits.
 
spinlondon said:
Why do they have to commit a crime before being offered this work?
Click to expand...

They don’t. They ideally should be offered some work while on benefits.
Personally, if I had to go on benefits tomorrow and am told the not unsubstantial amount of money and other benefits I will receive can be contributed by me with a choice of the lowest manual jobs, I would be very happy to do that.
 
Heat said:
They don’t. They ideally should be offered some work while on benefits.
Personally, if I had to go on benefits tomorrow and am told the not unsubstantial amount of money and other benefits I will receive can be contributed by me with a choice of the lowest manual jobs, I would be very happy to do that.
Click to expand...
There are two sides to your idea.
First is that all people on benefits should do work to obtain their benefits.
Second is that criminals should be made to work to get their benefits.
So you’re going to treat law abiding benefit claimants the same as if they were criminals?
 
spinlondon said:
The things you are suggesting that could be done by criminals for benefits are real jobs.
Jobs that are filled by people who want to work.
So what you’re saying is: sack the people doing the jobs now, and instead give the jobs to some criminal so they can get benefits.
Click to expand...

No I am absolutely not saying that.
You miss my point completely.
The jobs I meant are not filled by people.
They are jobs that the money is not there for, - extra workers for cleaning litter for example. Or extra help for cutting grass and hedges.
Apparently councils do not have the necessary funding for these jobs, yet the government is already paying many (but not all) people on benefits a great deal of money, often more than a typical ordinary worker earns.
Why not allow the claimant to earn what they claim?
Or is everything just free for you if you sign on?
 
spinlondon said:
There are two sides to your idea.
First is that all people on benefits should do work to obtain their benefits.
Second is that criminals should be made to work to get their benefits.
So you’re going to treat law abiding benefit claimants the same as if they were criminals?
Click to expand...

Quite different actually.
The person on benefits actually does get employment.
The criminal gets a fine that they must pay off by a punishment of a short term job.
 
Heat said:
No I am absolutely not saying that.
You miss my point completely.
The jobs I meant are not filled by people.
They are jobs that the money is not there for, - extra workers for cleaning litter for example. Or extra help for cutting grass and hedges.
Apparently councils do not have the necessary funding for these jobs, yet the government is already paying many (but not all) people on benefits a great deal of money, often more than a typical ordinary worker earns.
Why not allow the claimant to earn what they claim?
Or is everything just free for you if you sign on?
Click to expand...
You are not listening.
That sounds like a wonderful idea, until the chief constable needs to save some money and decides to sack 100 police officers.
The police officers go down the dole office to sign on, then get told they have to go back to work as police officers to get their benefits.
Or 100 nurses.
100 doctors.
100 teachers.
Etc.
Etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top