Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
12 October 2009
08:0530233#1
I didn't want to put this in the jokes section, partly because I don't go there anymore and partly because it isn't really a joke.
This was sent to me yesterday - I guess what the person is asking is should we pay our taxes so people can sit at home all day drinking and taking drugs and if there was a way of filtering those out, the Government (and us) would save loads of money.
You will read that we aren't talking about those who need any kind of benefit, they should still be helped - what are your thoughts ?
Here it is:
"I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig for a drilling contractor. I am required to pass a random urine test for drugs and alcohol, with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope.
Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque?"
Does that make sense ?
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
12 October 2009
09:1430237#2
YES
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
12 October 2009
10:0030246#3
Roger
Are you taking the *iss...lol. Unfortunately the cost of such tests are prohibitive and secondly running the case through the European Courts of Human Rights to counter the appeals would be far too expensive.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
12 October 2009
10:4230248#4
Should councillors take a urine test before receiving their allowances?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 October 2009
12:0930251#5
someone said the other day to me that councillors were full of wind and p**s.
welcome james.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
12 October 2009
16:2030262#6
are we taking the pee here.
12 October 2009
17:2630267#7
The problem comes when we have to decide what to do with those who don't pass the widdle test - if we don't pay them they become homeless, increase their criminal activities, become perhaps more of a danger. My first instinct was, as Vic does, to say YES!!!! but on reflection - what to do?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
12 October 2009
17:4530271#8
Do you mean before every attendance James ? or just before pay-day ?
I have no problem taking a urine test - I don't drink much at all and I have never smoked dope.
At the end of the day Bern, what would you do with people who, say, constantly cause problems to their neighbours through anti-social behaviour. If they've broken their tenancy agreement, they'll get thrown out because they have caused themselves to be homeless - do we still look after those people ?
If we are saying yes, whatever they do we will house them, then there is no deterrent to bad or criminal behaviour is there ?
If people know that they can't be receiving benefits if that money is being spent on booze and drugs, would they stop ? I don't think so either.
There must be a way of making people realise there are bad consequences to their bad actions - there are always consequences.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 October 2009
17:4830272#9
i have the question on here many times in the past.
when a family is evicted where do they go to?
the other question i asked was what happens if they are owner occupiers?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
12 October 2009
17:5230275#10
I don't know Howard, that question has never been answered fully.
I think ultimately, prison is an option, but you can't throw someone out of their own home.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 October 2009
17:5830278#11
my suspicion is that the dodgy families are just shunted around to other areas, makes it easy for the councils involved.
when i was a kid, they delivered problem families out to an outlying part of the borough, where they all lived happily together.
then in the late sixties they decided that integration with the normal community was the answer.
12 October 2009
19:3330281#12
I believe fervently in consequences - we brought our children up with them, with varying degrees of success!!! Sadly, even consequences mean nothing to some - those who bounce in and out of nick, repeatedly end up in court, get slung out of their accommodation: for some these mean nothing. If we escalate the consequences,when do we stop?! trust me, I think boundariesa dn consequences matter profoundly, I am just not sure who should make some of those decisions to achieve the best outcomes.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
13 October 2009
20:4830406#13
Brilliant piece Roger, no joke, but a fact of this strange modern world we live in. I`ve read it several times. I`ll remember it next time I have a urine test at work. Excellent.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
14 October 2009
07:0330422#14
Thanks Colin.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
14 October 2009
07:4230428#15
ROGER
I think the forum i general is at 1 with you, I don't want muddy the waters(but i will) I would not want to dictate to some one where they can spend there money, although I do understand where your coming from.
On housing, all i can say is that some councils i'm aware of if they find through residents kicking off that a family is out of control and causing the n/hood grief, they get the info together via the anti social behaviour unit if they have one, keeping diaries so evidence is there, to produce to the landlord.
If its council they can be evicted and council has no responibility to re house so i understand, but even private lanlords, pressure can be put on them to show what effect problem families can have.
I'm aware of it happening and landlord evicted them, council refused to rehouse them, sadly though oher private landlords housed them
14 October 2009
09:1230436#16
We already tell people what they can or cannot spend their money on: firearms are tightly controlled, cigarette sales will be even further restricted soon and fags and booze are not to be sold to those under a certain age. Behaviour is also proscribed, that's why we have laws and sanctions - if someone burgles or fights, the law is there. That is the point of Governement, local or otherwise: to enable social constraints and actions via legislation and enforcements. Guidelines and restrictions are inevitable, so I am not sure why we can't have restrictions on people receiving benefits in terms of behaviours and drug/alcohol use.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
14 October 2009
10:0530439#17
Just apoint from me I do think that cllrs should take the urine test,and also a test for drinking before a meeting it would not be the first time that a Cllr has turned up at a meeting and with the public there to after having two much to drink,at any meeting you need to show the public that you are at your best.I can not say any more on this matter.