Showing posts with label Benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benefits. Show all posts

Sunday, April 07, 2013

Welfare Police State

When I heard that Greater Manchester Police were banging on about people having a go at Goths and Punks having committed 'hate crimes' I thought it was an April Fool's joke a little late. Then I heard an interview with a senior officer and I realised that it really is GMP being a bunch of wet, pinko liberal arsewipes trying to ingratiate themselves with 'sections of the community' while alienating, which they don't seem to realise, the vast majority.

When this idiot was being interviewed I fell deeper and deeper into despair. The interviewer kept asking him if this meant that an attack on a Goth would get more resources than an attack on a bloke in a suit and tie he kept wriggling until I almost felt sorry for him. Well actually, I ended up wondering how he'd ever managed to become a copper, let alone a senior one but that's beside the point.

When I was at school I was taught that we were all equal under the law. No longer it seems. So-called 'hate crimes' apparently get priority meaning that somebody else, somebody who isn't the correct race, the correct sexuality, the correct sub-culture or whatever, is going to get second class treatment by the police if assaulted, abused or anything else. Another example of the tyranny of the minorities.

Before some leftard starts having a pop about me being some kind of 'ist' I'm not. I believe that the full weight of the law should be brought to bear on any criminal, whether motivated to carry out a violent crime against somebody because of their sexuality or because of which football team they support. It's surely commonsense isn't it?

Then this week we've had whining in the football fraternity about homophobic chanting against Brighton supporters. Again I misunderstood at first and thought that being gay must have become a prerequisite for supporting Brighton FC. But no, it was opposition fans having a pop at the liberal culture of the town with the country's first Green MP by chanting 'does your boyfriend know you're here?' at Brighton fans. Now, maybe I'm being all hard and macho but I hardly think that's going to drive any self-respecting gay person to weep any more than chanting 'you fat bastard' at me will drive me to a bottle of whisky and a gob full of paracetomol. Sodding hell some people really should  look at what hatred really is and get a sense of perspective.

Now if I've upset, or offended anybody please do not read any further. You've been warned.

I've spoken to a few people about that evil bastard Mick Philpott this week. The general consensus being that we hope he gets a bit of corporal punishment when he's in chokey from his fellow campers. Indeed a couple of us pondered the satisfaction to be gained by getting imprisoned if you could be guaranteed access to Mr Philpott. But on the whole I decided that wasn't a very good, or very practical idea.

I know that certain newspapers and politicos have been attacked for daring to link the welfare state with Philpott's crime of torching his own home and killing six children, but I think they are right to make a link. There is a problem in this country when the authorities hand over ever more of our cash in benefits to scum like Philpott who breed children to sponge more money from the system. Personally I would scrap child benefit, why should people receive tax money for having children? If they can't afford them don't have them.

In the case of Philpott didn't alarm bells ring that he was living, with two women and sixteen children, in a three bedroomed council house? If we have to waste money on social workers aren't these the kinds of cases they are supposed to sort out? I suspect their attitude would have been to tolerate Philpott and his harem as just another lifestyle choice. It wasn't the welfare state that made him do what he did, it didn't make him a vile psychopath, but it certainly created the environment for his evil to be enacted.

Fair enough, the country isn't full of psychos like that, but the welfare state has created a culture where the lazy, the feckless and the irresponsible can survive comfortably without having to trouble themselves with the responsibilities and hassles of those who work to pay their taxes to fund the parasites.

If welfare benefits aren't too high then why do so many people from eastern Europe come here to work despite us having so many unemployed? They work hard and evidently find coming here worthwhile, so benefits are quite obviously too high. Just a shame we don't have a government strong enough to deal with the problem.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

An Englishman's Home Is His Castle?

I have no time for this government. I loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg for their smarmy self-satisfaction, a bit rich considering neither actually won the 2010 General Election.

As far as welfare goes I broadly agree that changes need to be made to a system that over many years, has rewarded the feckless and the lazy. However, I do not object in the least to paying my taxes to help pay benefits for those genuinely in need, it is the wasters I object to funding. So reform of benefits is a must but in at least one area I believe that this government has got it seriously wrong. What's new?

Among the forthcoming welfare reforms is a reform of Housing Benefit. Currently those who qualify have their rent paid by the state to the landlord. In their wisdom this government is going to change the system so that Housing Benefit is paid to the tenant who must then pay the landlord. Madness. The overwelming majority of people in rented accomodation, and receiving Housing Benefit, are fine but there is a sizeable group who are not. If a junkie is faced with paying his landlord or his dealer what will he choose? The family in hock to a local loan shark. Are they likely to pay the rent or use the money to stop said loan shark breaking legs for non-payment. To many it will be like giving the keys to the sweet shop to a child.

Then the reform will introduce the concept of 'under occupation'. Social landlords will have to check occupancy and if a family have a spare bedroom they will lose 14% of their Housing Benefit. Two spare bedrooms and they lose 25%. This means that when the children grow up and leave the home, their parents will either have to find more money to top up their benefit, find a lodger to pay rent to cover their loss of benefits, or move out into a smaller property, often private which will cost the taxpayers much more in Housing Benefit.

We are talking here about family homes, not just bricks and mortar. Many of us bought our houses but many more, for whatever reasons, chose to rent. If a couple have lived in a home for thirty years or more, raised a family in that home but in retirement exist on a state pension and Housing Benefit, why should they be forced out of the family home with all its memories and momentoes? Why should they be forced to take in a styranger as a lodger? These are peoples' homes we are talkng about, not state operated workers' hostels or workers' dormitories.

In many ways Cameron and Clegg seem to go out of their way to appear 'caring' and 'of the people'. These reforms merely show how very out of touch both of them are with the real world. The sooner they are gone the better. At least then the Tories may actually find a conservative to lead them.