UK Riots (with the exception of Manchester which has its own thread)

[Eugenius]

So what do they live on if they've got a criminal record and no job?

They'll go back to crime and end up in prison costing a heck of a lot more than they do in benefits.

 

[Kinky Melinky]

How the feck is taking there benefits away going to help matters.

How the feck is endlessly providing them with rent money, free healthcare, and money to live on which exceeds that of many of those who working in low income jobs to feed their families going to work? They still want more and will feck anyone over to get it. I think it is possible to separate poverty from basic human morals. The people who have taken part in these riots have not done anything to convince anyone that the benefits system works for them, and perhaps the threat of losing it might repel further instances and protect the people who are really important - the victims of the riots

Can I just throw my two pence in on this one. I'm not taking sides because I think I'm somewhere half way between.

As some of you may know I work for a private company sub-contracted to the government. Our job is to take on a large portion of Job Centre Plus staff and help them back into employment. Needless to say I meet a lot of unemployed people in my week

Some of them are unfortunate in their circumstances and are out of work for genuine reasons. It might be through illness. For example I was chatting to this highly successful, intelligent middle aged man who cannot work due to Crohn's Disease. The poor bugger desperately wants to work but he can't. It all hinges on an operation he awaits

Then you get those who haven't got great experience, their skills are outdated but they still really want to work. Obviously you have to help them as much you can with courses and what not.

But then you get the largest group of all; the customers who simply do not want to work. I deal with this crowd. I meet 50 - 60 of them a week. Some for the first time and others I've seen time and time again within my case load. I have got to say that they all sing the same tune, and this is coming directly from the heart of it. I'm not speaking my opinion here, I am talking facts. Some of them are just so fecking arrogant it's not even funny. They almost look down on you because their housing situation is safe, they're earning money via a cash in hand arrangement and they are collecting their £160 odd every second week.

One of the most consistent conversations I find I'm having with this particular category is whether it's worth their while working from a financial perspective. We actually have a person employed who works it out for them based on various criteria. I'm not the one who brings this conversation up. It's always the customer. They are fully aware that it is completely pointless for them to go back to work (even working 37.5 hours per week) if the wage isn't right. They lose too many benefits and ultimately end up losing out. So they come in week in, week out and pretend to be interested in order to avoid being sanctioned by the Job Centre Plus. Most of them are aware, based on their skill sets and work experience, that the chances of landing a job that leaves them better off is slim.

This has to be considered, and a look at the government's approach to benefits has also to be considered before valid opinions are formed regarding benefits in general. People think differently. Some people just need to work to feel sane, and they are the ones who are glad to get off benefits and get into a job they might have the chance to work their way up in. Others just think of money, don't really see themselves as promotional material and would rather take an easier option. I have found that these are the people who complain the most when the government take a harder line obviously because it directly effects them. They are also the ones who moan most about the Police, the Government and they do not vote. We take statistics on all our customers

I personally feel the main problem keeping people on benefits is the fact that once you work over 15 hours a week you lose your benefits. In a job market that is volatile to say the least, those who collect the dole and are having their rent paid for them do not see the valid reason in working, particularly if they have other means of earning that are near impossible to detect

 

[Redlambs]

I personally feel the main problem keeping people on benefits is the fact that once you work over 15 hours a week you lose your benefits. In a job market that is volatile to say the least, those who collect the dole and are having their rent paid for them do not see the valid reason in working, particularly if they have other means of earning that are near impossible to detect

I know two friends who have recently lost their jobs and are in that very position because they both have young children, and a couple more (and lets face it, who is really safe?) who could go under at any time if their jobs go. They simply can't afford all the childcare, rent and everything else chucked down on their heads.

The problem seems to be there's little differentiation between people who don't want to work and those who do, but ridiculously can't afford to. They are all treated the same rather than those who genuinely need the help getting it.

 

[Dave89]

Kinky's right, we need to make work pay. Not through benefit cuts but through a more graded system, not such a sharp cut off.

Out of curiosity, and I really should know this, is that 15 hours a week thing regardless of your hourly rate, or are you only allowed the equivalent of 15 hours at minimum wage?

 

[Kinky Melinky]

One particular issue I have since working with this company is ageism. It's rife. Companies try to deny it but it's as plain as day.

The government have adopted a new approach to getting the long-term and short-term unemployed back into the work force. It's pretty simple. It's "Work First. Think later," and that is the message they are sending us loud and clear.

Bearing this in mind, and considering just how important the government currently view tax money you would think that the government would not only come down hot and heavy on companies exercising ageism, but would implement fines.

I have a good group of over 50's who are ready and willing to work. They are able to do the job and they are desperate to work for their sanity yet they are not getting a single look in

 

[Kinky Melinky]

Kinky's right, we need to make work pay. Not through benefit cuts but through a more graded system, not such a sharp cut off.

Totally agree

 

[Grinner]

How the feck is endlessly providing them with rent money, free healthcare, and money to live on which exceeds that of many of those who working in low income jobs to feed their families going to work? They still want more and will feck anyone over to get it. I think it is possible to separate poverty from basic human morals. The people who have taken part in these riots have not done anything to convince anyone that the benefits system works for them, and perhaps the threat of losing it might repel further instances and protect the people who are really important - the victims of the riots

Don't forget the free playstations and holidays.

 

[Crustanoid]

Working Tax Credits was one of Labour's better contributions - it gives an incentive to people to work and makes up their monthly incoming to a decent amount. The main problem is that over a certain level there is a sharp decrease, which puts those people working longer hours in a worse position in terms of money available to live. The Tories are in the process of changing all that though, and it appears that the changes will only reinforce the problems with the system. Not working at all is more financially rewarding than working full time on a low wage, given the council tax, healthcare costs and so on.

 

[Kinky Melinky]

Out of curiosity, and I really should know this, is that 15 hours a week thing regardless of your hourly rate, or are you only allowed the equivalent of 15 hours at minimum wage?

If you work 16 hours on the minimum wage you stand to lose your benefits. There is a period of time that your housing benefit remains, but you have to fight tooth and nail with the Council in order to hold on to your benefit. This can be awkward, confusing and time consuming. There is a chance they will reject your claim, or will implement a cessation of housing benefit if your hours increase

So it's not a setup that inspires you to get into a company and work your way up

 

[Team Brian GB]

So what do they live on if they've got a criminal record and no job?

We have the worst crime rates per capita in the western world and we are the most generous in social welfare, it isn't working so far is it?

If they don't want to lose their benefits then do not commit crime, it is that simple. Once they realise we will not be taken for a ride, and the police are allowed to become tougher then crime will come down. Essentially it is a carrot and stick approach, you will be helped with JSA/ESA, housing benefit etc. but there will be very serious consequences for breaking the law. We absolutely cannot allow benefits eligibility to be unconditional on behavioural grounds.

 

[Kinky Melinky]

Working Tax Credits was one of Labour's better contributions - it gives an incentive to people to work and makes up their monthly incoming to a decent amount. The main problem is that over a certain level there is a sharp decrease, which puts those people working longer hours in a worse position in terms of money available to live. The Tories are in the process of changing all that though, and it appears that the changes will only reinforce the problems with the system. Not working at all is more financially rewarding than working full time on a low wage, given the council tax, healthcare costs and so on.

Right. And so lets bring this back (slightly) to the the thread topic.

Work is so important. We are born to work in my opinion. Whether that is in an orthodox or unorthodox day we need a beginning and an end, a project etc. It's good for us. If we are living in a society that simply does not promote working we are doomed for the get go.

Add this factor into the lives of kids who have grown up in the most grim of circumstances where the home is a war zone, where parents are abusing one another (and their children). All these faceless, isolated, identity-less, unloved and extremely angry children have to aspire to is an older gang leader who is just as faceless.

You know the rest

 

[Commadus]

The birmingham guys are pissed at the police. According to a mate of one of the deceased, after the incident happened, the police blocked off the road and would not let the ambulance through even though the locals were pleading with them.
As a result, more rioting is expected as people from outside of birmingham have pledged to come and 'trash' the city.

Well if this is *true* it shows just how idotic the police can be - tough on innocents soft on criminals.

 

[kietotheworld]

We have the worst crime rates per capita in the western world and we are the most generous in social welfare, it isn't working so far is it?

If they don't want to lose their benefits then do not commit crime, it is that simple. Once they realise we will not be taken for a ride, and the police are allowed to become tougher then crime will come down. Essentially it is a carrot and stick approach, you will be helped with JSA/ESA, housing benefit etc. but there will be very serious consequences for breaking the law. We absolutely cannot allow benefits eligibility to be unconditional on behavioural grounds.

Could you answer the question? How will these people live if they have no money?

 

[giggs-beckham]

Saw the vigilantes on tv earlier they're like a football firm who are out hoody bashing. Fed up with left wing soft handed aproach. Fair fecking play in my opinion, with those headcases running at them they'll soon feck off.

You saw people beeping in support of them, the police are next to useless cus their hands seem tied on how hard they can react. They are standing by idly or aren't there at all. I'd feel safer in my community if these vigilantes were roaming the streets.

I appreciate the view of not adding fuel to the fire and keeping calm and that but talking to these bums ain't gonna solve it. It's not a political movement, they just want some mindless excitement.

 

[Kinky Melinky]

So what do they live on if they've got a criminal record and no job?

I normally talk about self employment to those on my caseload with criminal records rather than frustrating them through job rejection after job rejection. It is extremely difficult to get someone with a criminal record into a job unless the record is either spent or considerably minor.

I try to get them to a place where they are not only thinking outside the box, but also being creative. When they come up with something worthwhile pursuing, you praise them and remind them that they have conjured up something with potential from absolutely nothing. Many of mine have gone on to be self employed personal trainers.

They normally get quite encouraged by the praise. We also have self employment advisers to help.

 

[Kinky Melinky]

We have the worst crime rates per capita in the western world and we are the most generous in social welfare, it isn't working so far is it?

If they don't want to lose their benefits then do not commit crime, it is that simple. Once they realise we will not be taken for a ride, and the police are allowed to become tougher then crime will come down. Essentially it is a carrot and stick approach, you will be helped with JSA/ESA, housing benefit etc. but there will be very serious consequences for breaking the law. We absolutely cannot allow benefits eligibility to be unconditional on behavioural grounds.

Nah I'm not with you on that. Breaking the law doesn't rid you of your human rights. Law breakers that have their benefits taken from them will not only commit more crime to survive, but it also puts any children they may have at risk

 

[Pogue Mahone]

They'll go back to crime and end up in prison costing a heck of a lot more than they do in benefits.

Bingo. Or end up dead.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Kinky, I agree with everything you say about thresholds and cut-offs. I'd also change the level of JSA payable based on qualifications. I'd retain the current mean level but those with less than 5 GCSEs will get less than that and those with a degree will get more.


I do have trouble with the idea of subsidising the low paid, because not be fair to all those who make a low wage that some have salaries 'topped up' with benefits.

 

[Dave89]

If you work 16 hours on the minimum wage you stand to lose your benefits. There is a period of time that your housing benefit remains, but you have to fight tooth and nail with the Council in order to hold on to your benefit. This can be awkward, confusing and time consuming. There is a chance they will reject your claim, or will implement a cessation of housing benefit if your hours increase

So it's not a setup that inspires you to get into a company and work your way up

But if you earn double the minimum wage, are you allowed 15 or 7.5 hours?

 

[Red Defence]

The birmingham guys are pissed at the police. According to a mate of one of the deceased, after the incident happened, the police blocked off the road and would not let the ambulance through even though the locals were pleading with them.
As a result, more rioting is expected as people from outside of birmingham have pledged to come and 'trash' the city.

I have difficulty believing that the police wouldn't let an ambulance through. Throughout the country they work very closely with the ambulance service and always have done.

Perhaps we should wait to see if that turns out to be true or if the tale has become muddled as it's passed through different people.

As for trashing Birmingham up because of this "alleged" incident.....doesn't sound a sensible course of action for anyone to take does it.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Could you answer the question? How will these people live if they have no money?

They will live by not committing crime and by making something of themselves. Everybody in the country gets free education to 18, everybody in the country has access to university free at the point of use.

For too long we have allowed people to become complacent and not take responsibility for their actions or their future. It is not the duty of the government to provide for those who cannot be bothered.

 

[adexkola]

Nah I'm not with you on that. Breaking the law doesn't rid you of your human rights. Law breakers that have their benefits taken from them will not only commit more crime to survive, but it also puts any children they may have at risk

Since when did benefits become a human right? As for children, if you can't afford them, don't have them.

 

[Feed Me]

It would be nice for that to happen , but we all know that this will never happen.
These people know that they will never have benefits taken off them and will carry on doing what they want.

Taking benefits off criminals is the snap, emotive decision that law-abiding people push for at the heat of the moment. In reality, such a move would only exacerbate these peoples' sense of disenchantment, which could be disastrous with the current state of the nation.

The root cause of much of this criminality is a lack of moral foundation, stability and money. That's not to say that I condone their behaviour as a result, because it's still abhorrent and, ultimately, people still have individual liberty to choose the 'right' path. BUT - you can understand why such people opt for a life of crime.

Taking them off benefits achieves nothing, except force them deeper into the criminal world. Linking benefits to community service is certainly an option...

 

[Kinky Melinky]

But if you earn double the minimum wage, are you allowed 15 or 7.5 hours?

That's a good question. I had one lady in who works 12 hours as a care worker. The guy who she works for is incapacitated and receives ESA from the Government. He uses this cheque to pay her hourly. She brought in a pay cheque because I was trying to get her more than 16 hours so she'd go off JSA but I needed the name of the company she worked for.

The cheque for one week's work amounted to something like £240. For 12 hours that is not bad, but she can also claim JSA

 

[Xander45]

Bloody hell those idiots on the BBC News channel then.

"Let's have a riot! You've got to do it ain't ya?"

Reporter: "Why?"

"Cause all them Polish and shit taking our jobs so we got no jobs."

Reporter: "Well it's not going to help you find a job by burning down shops!"

 

[Sir A1ex]

That last bloke sounded exactly like the star of Muslamic Rayguns... EDL special.

 

[Gambit]

Mockney, you have some sound thoughts in your post. It is all too common for new developments in London to be built with luxury price tags, though to be fair the profit margins on anything less are unpredictable.

I don't buy into the idea that there are socio-economic reasons behind this, but I have long believed that our biggest long term issue on a par with benefits is housing, how endemic shortage of supply have seen prices become staggering, a national ratio of 1:8 salary/house price is unsustainable and needs a major correction.

1:8 is an optimistic valuation i reckon.

 

[Kinky Melinky]

Since when did benefits become a human right? As for children, if you can't afford them, don't have them.

The money from benefits buys food and water. The cover from housing benefits provides shelter.

Need I explain anymore ?

While I personally agree with your point regarding children it's simply not the reality. Not everyone thinks as clearly as you and I on this point, but everyone is entitled to human rights

 

[Feed Me]

They will live by not committing crime and by making something of themselves. Everybody in the country gets free education to 18, everybody in the country has access to university free at the point of use.

For too long we have allowed people to become complacent and not take responsibility for their actions or their future. It is not the duty of the government to provide for those who cannot be bothered.

That's all fair in theory, but the fact is that the have nots are likely to reside in shit areas, with poorer schooling, housing and so on...

It's not as cut and dried as saying that everyone will be able to make something of themselves because the state provides for them. That is patently not the case.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Nah I'm not with you on that. Breaking the law doesn't rid you of your human rights. Law breakers that have their benefits taken from them will not only commit more crime to survive, but it also puts any children they may have at risk

Benefits are not a human right, they are a privilege. It is this sort of attitude that leads to a complacent sense of entitlement.

 

[Sir A1ex]

They will live by not committing crime and by making something of themselves.

Yep, famously throughout history people with no money have consistently refrained from crime.

I don't give a feck about the moral rights and wrongs, the idea driving the strata of society who are involved in this sort of thing into deeper poverty is just insane from a practical point of view, unless you want more crime and social disorder.

 

[Feed Me]

Bloody hell those idiots on the BBC News channel then.

"Let's have a riot! You've got to do it ain't ya?"

Reporter: "Why?"

"Cause all them Polish and shit taking our jobs so we got no jobs."

Reporter: "Well it's not going to help you find a job by burning down shops!"

It's embarrassing that they try and justify their acts with such ignorant logic.

I'd have more 'respect' for the imbeciles if they admitted they were just there for the craic.

I personally think a lot of the rioting/looting has actually stemmed from some warped sense of community, where groups have thought, "'ere, let's get a bit of coverage for our town/city; get us on the map."

 

[F-Red]

That's all fair in theory, but the fact is that the have nots are likely to reside in shit areas, with poorer schooling, housing and so on...

It's not as cut and dried as saying that everyone will be able to make something of themselves because the state provides for them. That is patently not the case.

It's down to parents, the state provides enough to get a qualification.

The rest boils down to the individual, the problem is society isn't making that individual responsible if they do not choose to use the service, the catalyst to help them contribute to society.

 

[Team Brian GB]

1:8 is an optimistic valuation i reckon.

That is the national average based I think on an average full time salary.

Here in the South West it is 1:12.

 

[Grinner]

Benefits are not a human right, they are a privilege. It is this sort of attitude that leads to a complacent sense of entitlement.

Do you have any examples of societies where your approach has worked?

 

[mjs020294]

Its fecking borderline retarded to be talking about benefits when a large percentage of the rioters are of school age.

Quite a few of them were working anyway, just out after free stuff.

 

[Xander45]

It's embarrassing that they try and justify their acts with such ignorant logic.

I'd have more 'respect' for the imbeciles if they admitted they were just there for the craic.

I personally think a lot of the rioting/looting has actually stemmed from some warped sense of community, where groups have thought, "'ere, let's get a bit of coverage for our town/city; get us on the map."

The mother they had on a few minutes ago with her kids had just as bad a logic.

Woman: "If they're seen as scum they'll act as scum won't they."

Random bloke walks into shot "But that doesn't give them the right to come and smash the place up does it?"

Woman "Yeah, well is it fair that a guy in London got shot for nothing?"

Man "What's that got to do with wrecking our shops here?"

Woman "Well that's why all this is happening."

I mean come on, the reason there are riots in Salford is because a guy in London that no one in Salford had even heard of before got shot made them riot. They know damn well they saw it on the tele the other night and thought "If they're doing it and getting away with it why aren't we getting in on it?"

 

[Team Brian GB]

Yep, famously throughout history people with no money have consistently refrained from crime.

I don't give a feck about the moral rights and wrongs, the idea driving the strata of society who are involved in this sort of thing into deeper poverty is just insane from a practical point of view, unless you want more crime and social disorder.

Then send them to prison for long stretches and don't make them so hospitable.

I am fine with generous benefits, as long as there is a very big stick if you deviate from the straight and narrow.

Something clearly has to happen, and the answer cannot be more benefits when we have a societal culture free of deterrence, punishment and negative consequence.

 

[Feed Me]

It's down to parents, the state provides enough to get a qualification.

The rest boils down to the individual, the problem is society isn't making that individual responsible if they do not choose to use the service, the catalyst to help them contribute to society.

Again, in theory, that's a fair argument.

But two points undermine your argument, in my view:

(1) The state provides educational entitlement, but in 99% of cases, the facilities afforded to those from impoverished backgrounds is far inferior to those in relatively affluent areas. Straight away, it's not a level playing field.

I come from an area where the local schools are far worse than the grammar school my parents bust their arses to send me to. Straight away, I had a big advantage...

(2)... which neatly ties into my second point. Not everyone is fortunate enough to come from a stable family. Some of these kids committing crimes are feral. They've got no structure. Civic culture and respect is fostered primarily in the household. If a kid has had no family structure during their formative years, are we shocked to see them jump on the bandwagon?

For me, the state provides education to all, but the minimum standard that they provide is not good enough.

I'd be all for schools to be fee paying, on a sliding scale depending on family income. All the revenue generated could be pumped directly back into the education system. Human beings are far too individualistic for such a system though...

 

[Crustanoid]

Bloody hell those idiots on the BBC News channel then.

"Let's have a riot! You've got to do it ain't ya?"

Reporter: "Why?"

"Cause all them Polish and shit taking our jobs so we got no jobs."

Reporter: "Well it's not going to help you find a job by burning down shops!"

I saw this. I would suggest we send them over to Poland to see if they could cope there without their handouts / flat screens / £100 quid trainers / Ounce of weed a week.

Or maybe a better punishment would be to ship them to Somalia to engage with some real poverty.