The cost of civil disobedience?

You were quite happy to abuse remainers but hate getting it back, you're quite the little snowflake aren't you.

 

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.

 

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 ?

 

Not all and sundry jj, are you trying to say you never insult posters on here?

 

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?

 

I think I've learnt my lesson chip, something that can't be said about you.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Perhaps society could provide a job in the first place so they didn't need benefits.

 

So why did you say it?

 

Why do they have to commit a crime before being offered this work?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

Do you know what a benefit claimant gets?

 

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.