New social security.

[orchard101]

Watched a programme on the new rules about amount of annual SC paid and how it affected those who claimed it.

The thing that really irritated me was that all the examples given were single mums, one with 5 children, one with 4 and the other with multiple kids. They all exuded a sense of entitlement,' why were they not given more' 'couldn't feed their kids' couldn't buy their kids what they wanted'.

To me, however, this wasn't the worst thing. Throughout the whole programme their was no mention of the fathers of these kids. Do they not have any responsibility? Surely the whole burden should not fall on the mothers or, for that matter, the state.

One mother (of 5) even had the gall to suggest that she couldn't possibly leave her youngest child with a stranger and had to stay at home to care for him. (This mother has never had a job).

Social security was supposed to be a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

It makes my blood boil.

[Slarti]

Watched a programme on the new rules about amount of annual SC paid and how it affected those who claimed it.

The thing that really irritated me was that all the examples given were single mums, one with 5 children, one with 4 and the other with multiple kids. They all exuded a sense of entitlement,' why were they not given more' 'couldn't feed their kids' couldn't buy their kids what they wanted'.

To me, however, this wasn't the worst thing. Throughout the whole programme their was no mention of the fathers of these kids. Do they not have any responsibility? Surely the whole burden should not fall on the mothers or, for that matter, the state.

One mother (of 5) even had the gall to suggest that she couldn't possibly leave her youngest child with a stranger and had to stay at home to care for him. (This mother has never had a job).

Social security was supposed to be a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

It makes my blood boil.

So the programme worked then, in making you mad.

Slarti

[didds]

So the programme worked then, in making you mad.

Slarti

What he said.

Its voyeur TV. Get the chattering classes ... welll.. chattering. Job done. That'll attract more voyeurs for next week's TV program, sell more advertising. End.



didds

[orchard101]

Do you two think it doesn't happen away from the cameras?

Where I live there is a plethora of single mums, always moaning about how little they get. Never any mention of trying to get the fathers to pay their share.

Apart from that the whole tone of the programme was sympathy for these poor mothers and their deprived kids (not that you would think that judging from the amount of toys and electronic gadgets strewn around).

[Slarti]

Do you two think it doesn't happen away from the cameras?

Where I live there is a plethora of single mums, always moaning about how little they get. Never any mention of trying to get the fathers to pay their share.

Apart from that the whole tone of the programme was sympathy for these poor mothers and their deprived kids (not that you would think that judging from the amount of toys and electronic gadgets strewn around).

Of course I think it happens, together with the attitude, but I also think that the majority of people on benefits who are suffering are hones people on hard times. Like a girl who was at school with my son who is now the widowed, disabled, mother of 2. She was disabled in the same driving accident that killed her husband and orphaned her kids.

Then there all those who find it difficult to get employment because they are disabled and many employers just don't want them.

And those who were working but the employer went bust leaving them unemployed, but unfortunately they bought into the dream that you can have whatever you want on credit and are now struggling to survive.

I strongly suspect that those "on benefits" with a good lifestyle are either scamming the system, or have an alternative, black market, source of income and that much of their "stuff" is also black market.


But as I don't watch programmes like that, because I don't trust the programme makers, who am I to comment?


Slarti

[Clitheroekid]

Like a girl who was at school with my son who is now the widowed, disabled, mother of 2. She was disabled in the same driving accident that killed her husband and orphaned her kids.

Someone in her unfortunate position should have received compensation from the insurers that would have been sufficient to prevent her having to claim benefits.

[UncleEbenezer]

Someone in her unfortunate position should have received compensation from the insurers that would have been sufficient to prevent her having to claim benefits.

You must be joking!

Look at the fuss the motoring lobby make at a few quid on insurance for having to compensate accident victims where there's ambiguity - whether real or whipped up by the media - over whether injuries like "whiplash" are real. Then just imagine if they had to pay real money to compensate everyone killed or disabled and their families!

And that's discounting any question over where she might sit on the wide spectrum between innocent victim and that fellow who made the headlines on Westminster bridge last week. Does the system award unconditionally, or argue at length (and at hideous cost) about responsibility and guilt (while also generally failing to distinguish those concepts)?

[Slarti]

Like a girl who was at school with my son who is now the widowed, disabled, mother of 2. She was disabled in the same driving accident that killed her husband and orphaned her kids.

Someone in her unfortunate position should have received compensation from the insurers that would have been sufficient to prevent her having to claim benefits.

Should have, but didn't.

I don't know the full details, but the insurance company(s) weaselled their way out of a decent payout, somehow.

And along with many people, they had never taken Basic Personal Finance, and were in rolling debt. Sort of the reason there is a Dealing with Debt board here.

Slarti

[Clitheroekid]

Someone in her unfortunate position should have received compensation from the insurers that would have been sufficient to prevent her having to claim benefits.

You must be joking!

No, of course I'm not joking.

Look at the fuss the motoring lobby make at a few quid on insurance for having to compensate accident victims where there's ambiguity - whether real or whipped up by the media - over whether injuries like "whiplash" are real. Then just imagine if they had to pay real money to compensate everyone killed or disabled and their families!

Now I assume it's you who are joking! Insurance companies do pay real money to compensate people who are killed or disabled and their families every day of the week. Sometimes such payments run into millions of pounds.

And that's discounting any question over where she might sit on the wide spectrum between innocent victim and that fellow who made the headlines on Westminster bridge last week. Does the system award unconditionally, or argue at length (and at hideous cost) about responsibility and guilt (while also generally failing to distinguish those concepts)?

"The system" awards damages where the victim is innocent, so all those people who were injured on Westminster Bridge will receive compensation. There will be no arguments about responsibility and guilt, and in fact such arguments are very rare - in the vast majority of cases the question of blame is not in issue.

Should have, but didn't.

I don't know the full details, but the insurance company(s) weaselled their way out of a decent payout, somehow.

I don't understand this. Assuming she wasn't driving the vehicle then liability couldn't have been an issue, so there's no obvious reason she wouldn't have received the full compensation to which she was entitled.

If the circumstances were as bad as you say this would have been a sum that, as I said, would have negated any need to claim benefits. In an accident where the husband was killed any insurance settlement would (or should) have compensated the widow and children not just for the injuries they received but also for the money that he would have earned during the rest of his working life.

Likewise, if she was disabled by the accident she would (or should) also have received compensation in her own right for her future loss of earnings arising out of her inability to work.

If she really didn't receive such compensation then there must be an element of the story that neither you nor I are aware of.

[Slarti]

Should have, but didn't.

I don't know the full details, but the insurance company(s) weaselled their way out of a decent payout, somehow.

I don't understand this. Assuming she wasn't driving the vehicle then liability couldn't have been an issue, so there's no obvious reason she wouldn't have received the full compensation to which she was entitled.

If the circumstances were as bad as you say this would have been a sum that, as I said, would have negated any need to claim benefits. In an accident where the husband was killed any insurance settlement would (or should) have compensated the widow and children not just for the injuries they received but also for the money that he would have earned during the rest of his working life.

Likewise, if she was disabled by the accident she would (or should) also have received compensation in her own right for her future loss of earnings arising out of her inability to work.

If she really didn't receive such compensation then there must be an element of the story that neither you nor I are aware of.

I'm sure that there are elements we are not aware of. For all I know he (the driver, no body else involved) may not have been insured. He was also at school with my son and from what I know of him, that would not surprise me.

Or there may have been one of the personal accident "specialists" who advertise on TV, involved. Which I'm sure wouldn't have helped her.


All I can do is report what I know.

Slarti

[Clitheroekid]

For all I know he (the driver, no body else involved) may not have been insured. He was also at school with my son and from what I know of him, that would not surprise me.

It doesn't matter whether he was insured or not. She would still be able to obtain full compensation from the Motor Insurers' Bureau, which was specifically set up to compensate the victims of uninsured drivers.

I appreciate that you don't know the full story, or why she doesn't appear to have recovered proper compensation, but it's important that people reading posts on LF aren't given the wrong impression. Anyone who was in the position of the woman mentioned would be entitled as of right to very substantial compensation, probably running well into six figures.

[Slarti]

For all I know he (the driver, no body else involved) may not have been insured. He was also at school with my son and from what I know of him, that would not surprise me.

It doesn't matter whether he was insured or not. She would still be able to obtain full compensation from the Motor Insurers' Bureau, which was specifically set up to compensate the victims of uninsured drivers.

I appreciate that you don't know the full story, or why she doesn't appear to have recovered proper compensation, but it's important that people reading posts on LF aren't given the wrong impression. Anyone who was in the position of the woman mentioned would be entitled as of right to very substantial compensation, probably running well into six figures.

I bow to your superior knowledge.

I have no idea how they got into the situation they are in, but they are skint and don't have much new stuff.

Slarti