Free Internet Access for those on Benefit/ Low Income

MoonCircuit

The internet is the biggest waste of time ever invented

fast as fupp

N4PALM wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

theyre only disadvantaged because their lazy fat-arsed workshy dole bludging parents wont get off their fat arses and get a job

doleites breed more doleites

In the same way that stuck up, snobbish, prejudiced, Daily Mail reading bigots breed more of the same.

Dont have kids plsthx!

i read the guardian actually-but i work for the dwp and i know exactly what im talking about-what was designed as a safety net has become a lifestyle for an ever growing strata of our 'society'

and no im not talking about the newly unemployed who probably wont get the benefits they deserve coz they dont know the ropes but those for who claiming and grafting are a comfortable (too comfortable) way of life

W5454

Not so long ago a Leeds council estate of dolies got free computers as part of some learning scheme.All they did was moan that they already had better spec PCs.The PCs where loaded into a van and sold off at the local car boot sale and the proceeds shared out.
Many p!ss-ups were had on the back of that.

rapid_uphill

if life on the dole is so cushy why dont you sign on.
im thinking of leaving my job right now and holidaying 365 days a year.
i cant believe i wasted all this time working for a living.

W5454

rapid_uphill wrote:

If life on the dole is so cushy why don't you sign on.
I'm thinking of leaving my job right now and holidaying 365 days a year.
I cant believe I wasted all this time working for a living.

Now all the Poles are going home there will be a few hundred thousand job vacancies.
How many dolies will rush to sign off and get a job?
0

fuzzynavel

Sorry to keep this thread going but I bought a house in a predominantly council area. a lot of my neighbours admit to claiming benefits and they all seem perfectly fit to me...
There should be some testing inplace to make sure that those who are unable to work get the help they need but those who are fit for some sort of work should have a job allocated to them that will not aggrivate their sore backs, bring on a bout of depression, bring on anxiety etc to get their benefits.....
I hate f'ing scroungers....some of them live better lives than me; my wife and I both work full time. Since when was sky tv available to scroungers....It seems that all the council houses down my street (the ones that have new kitchens, central heating and bathrooms incidentally) have a satellite dish attached to their houses.

I would second the notion that if you are on benefits then you shouldn't have kids as all it will do it put extra strain on the system that could be avoided. It would also prevent second generation scroungers who have learned from their parents.

on the road

If people on benefits are living better lives then you, then why don't YOU quit your job and go on the dole?

rapid_uphill

yer give your job to the polish people after all thats what theyre here for.

fuzzynavel

on the road wrote:

If people on benefits are living better lives then you, then why don't YOU quit your job and go on the dole?

Cos I am not a scrounging layabout. Although I would be able to ride my bike 8 hours a day....maybe there is a plus side to dole bludging

Big Red S

fuzzynavel wrote:

maybe there is a plus side to dole bludging

Surely the plus side is that

fuzzynavel wrote:

scroungers....some of them live better lives than me; my wife and I both work full time.

alfablue

fuzzynavel wrote:

on the road wrote:

If people on benefits are living better lives then you, then why don't YOU quit your job and go on the dole?

Cos I am not a scrounging layabout. Although I would be able to ride my bike 8 hours a day....maybe there is a plus side to dole bludging

So all unemployed people are???????

I think not, nice to be in the comfortable position of employment so that you can generalise and sneer though.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

This story has been around for a while. It is in today's media

Free internet access plans revealed

Details of a government initiative to give disadvantaged children free computers and internet access were announced on Tuesday.

Schools minister Jim Knight said the programme will begin in February with two year-long pilot schemes in Oldham and Suffolk.

Grants will be provided to allow families to buy an "approved home access package" which will include a computer or lap top, basic software and broadband access for one year.

The £300 million initiative was announced by the prime minister at the Labour party conference last month and is intended to help ensure every child has access to a computer and the internet for their school or college work. Ministers hope the initiative will help to close the achievement gap between those from rich and poor backgrounds.

The programme will be rolled out nationally next autumn with every five to 19-year-old in England having internet access by 2011.

Mr Knight has said previously that said around 35% of families have no internet access.

Launching the first schemes at Lilian Baylis Technology School in south London on Tuesday morning, Mr Knight said that 20,000 children aged seven to 18, from low income families, will qualify for the pilots.

High profile marketing campaigns in local communities and schools will help to raise awareness about the importance of home access and the educational benefit of IT. The value of the home access grant will be announced in January.

IT suppliers will be invited to apply for approved supplier status, with those approved announced in January.

All local authorities will be able to submit proposals for additional funding for specific vulnerable groups, such as looked after children, pupils in alternative provision and low-income families in National Challenge schools.

Evening Standard


I have to say that this scheme has caused me to have some concerns. It seems to be the case that yet another thing that working people pay for out of their income is to be provided to those on benefits for free.

Surely providing these things free in the home for the unemployed is reducing the incentive to work.

Perhaps we should ensure that access is available at local libraries- as is usually the case. Then at least children etc can have access to the internet for school needs etc, but there remains an incentive for adults to get a job to provide for the children.

Well, you've just about sealed my opinion of you Spen.

The point, given that you are too self interested to see it, is that education is a means to not being on benefits later in life. It is increasingly advantageous to a child's education to have access to computers and the internet. In case you hadn't noticed, quite a few of the people on this forum arre computer literate, employed people.

Or would you prefer that the children referred to pay for your opinion of their parents?

If you object to paying tax for this sort of thing, go and live on the Isle of Man where income tax is only 10%. I'm considering it myself becuase some of my hard earned wage goes to pay taxes that pay your salary and that annoys me.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

N4PALM wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I saw figures this week suggesting average wage in Uk is now £27500.

Does that put it into perspective for you?

40hours at minimum wage is £11,481 before deductions.

no

The average wage is exactly what it says - the average pro-rata earnings of people who are employed.

The median is both more representative (there is a minimum wage but no maximum wage) and substantially lower - in the region of £23k.

Precisely why you are so dismissive of a perfectly valid point regarding what a very large number of people have to get by on is beyond me. Having sparked the debate, I would have thought you would have the manners to engage in some intelligent debate.

No, wait, what am I thinking......

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

N4PALM wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I saw figures this week suggesting average wage in Uk is now £27500.

Does that put it into perspective for you?

40hours at minimum wage is £11,481 before deductions.

no

The average wage is exactly what it says - the average pro-rata earnings of people who are employed.

The median is both more representative (there is a minimum wage but no maximum wage) and substantially lower - in the region of £23k.

Precisely why you are so dismissive of a perfectly valid point regarding what a very large number of people have to get by on is beyond me. Having sparked the debate, I would have thought you would have the manners to engage in some intelligent debate.

No, wait, what am I thinking......

Alternatively, perhaps I have the sense to realise that I have nothing I need or want to add, so do not post for the sake of it.

The democratic wish of the posters onhere has moved the focus of the debate onto an issue I have no comment on. It has moved away from the point I made.

N4PALM

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

N4PALM wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I saw figures this week suggesting average wage in Uk is now £27500.

Does that put it into perspective for you?

40hours at minimum wage is £11,481 before deductions.

no

The average wage is exactly what it says - the average pro-rata earnings of people who are employed.

The median is both more representative (there is a minimum wage but no maximum wage) and substantially lower - in the region of £23k.

Precisely why you are so dismissive of a perfectly valid point regarding what a very large number of people have to get by on is beyond me. Having sparked the debate, I would have thought you would have the manners to engage in some intelligent debate.

No, wait, what am I thinking......

Alternatively, perhaps I have the sense to realise that I have nothing I need or want to add, so do not post for the sake of it.

The democratic wish of the posters onhere has moved the focus of the debate onto an issue I have no comment on. It has moved away from the point I made.

Translation: You had no point to begin with, except to lay in to your perception of benefits claimaints as all being dolite scum. You realise you were wrong/people arent seeing it your way. You've seen the error of your judgements and therefore are perpared to let the subject rest.

Either that or youd had enough fun out of this one and your bored/ got other thread in which u can bait some responses.

spen666

N4PALM wrote:

...


Translation: You had no point to begin with, except to lay in to your perception of benefits claimaints as all being dolite scum. You realise you were wrong/people arent seeing it your way. You've seen the error of your judgements and therefore are perpared to let the subject rest.

Either that or youd had enough fun out of this one and your bored/ got other thread in which u can bait some responses.

Actually you are the one exhibiting prejudices here- I've never labelled anyone as scum in this thread.

I merely raised an issue re incentives to work.

If you want to label the unemployed as doleite scum, then go ahead, but its you putting that tag on not me.

Let your prejudices show your ignorance of what has been typed on here

rapid_uphill

hey theres nowt wrong with a bit of baiting.

N4PALM

oh purlease! :roll:

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

N4PALM wrote:

...


Translation: You had no point to begin with, except to lay in to your perception of benefits claimaints as all being dolite scum. You realise you were wrong/people arent seeing it your way. You've seen the error of your judgements and therefore are perpared to let the subject rest.

Either that or youd had enough fun out of this one and your bored/ got other thread in which u can bait some responses.

Actually you are the one exhibiting prejudices here- I've never labelled anyone as scum in this thread.

I merely raised an issue re incentives to work.

If you want to label the unemployed as doleite scum, then go ahead, but its you putting that tag on not me.

Let your prejudices show your ignorance of what has been typed on here

Spen, do you believe that everyone except you is an idiot? I posted my responses based upon YOUR post, and I didn't read too far into the thread. No, you haven't been responsible for some of the less englightened posts here. However, just to be absolutely clear, it is your original thread-starting post that I responsed to and, secondly, your objectionable manner thereafter. Thanks, but I can distinguish your username from others.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

[...Spen, do you believe that everyone except you is an idiot? I posted my responses based upon YOUR post, and I didn't read too far into the thread. No, you haven't been responsible for some of the less englightened posts here. However, just to be absolutely clear, it is your original thread-starting post that I responsed to and, secondly, your objectionable manner thereafter. Thanks, but I can distinguish your username from others.

Ahh yes my objectionable manner in not calling unemployed people doleite scum?

My objectionable behaviour in not getting involved in a thread that was not on a point I raised.

you seem to have completely ignored what I asked in my first post and sem to be harranguing me for things I have not said, nor do I support.

Can I suggest you read what I posted - I have not accused abnyone of anything.

I asked where was the incentive to work if you give those out of work the same things that people in work have to buy out of wages. There comes a point when there is no incentive to work.

I also proposed a way of ensuring that those not in work had access to computers and the internet.

I think you have let your rage ignore the reality of what I said

N4PALM

From the article you posted

"Details of a government initiative to give disadvantaged children free computers and internet access"

"Grants will be provided to allow families to buy an "approved home access package" which will include a computer or lap top, basic software and broadband access for one year."

"is intended to help ensure every child has access to a computer and the internet for their school or college work."

"The programme will be rolled out nationally next autumn with every five to 19-year-old in England having internet access by 2011."

"around 35% of families have no internet access."

"20,000 children aged seven to 18, from low income families, will qualify for the pilots."

RTFA you posted. No where does it mention making life easier for the "unemployed". It does however mention "disadvantaged children" from "low income families".

You immediately jump on your perception of benefits claimaints as being the unemployed.

spen666 wrote:

Surely providing these things free in the home for the unemployed is reducing the incentive to work.

And seem more concerned with

spen666 wrote:

yet another thing that working people pay for out of their income is to be provided to those on benefits for free.

You repeatedly ignore everything said by others correcting your perceptions and bleat on about

spen666 wrote:

my original question what is the incentive to work andearn a living if you can get the same luxuries without working.

As if your question actually has any relevance.

You may not have actually said

fast as fupp wrote:

theyre only disadvantaged because their lazy fat-arsed workshy dole bludging parents wont get off their fat arses and get a job

doleites breed more doleites

But its clear where your opinions lie.

spen666 wrote:

The democratic wish of the posters onhere has moved the focus of the debate onto an issue I have no comment on. It has moved away from the point I made.

The point that had no relevance which is why it has moved on

spen666 wrote:

perhaps I have the sense to realise that I have nothing I need or want to add, so do not post for the sake of it.

Better to back down and walk away than admit you are wrong I guess.

spen666

Unlike you NPalm, I quoted the whole article- and not take quotes out of context.

i am perfectly aware that not all out of work are seeking work. I chose to speak specifically about one group referred to in the article and made that very clear.

It is you who seems to think I am lumping the unemployed seeking work in with those who are out of work for other reasons
You quoted me as saying

Surely providing these things free in the home for the unemployed is reducing the incentive to work.

. That is correct and it makes it very clear that I am specifically talking about those seeking work or allegedly seeking work. Those on seickness benefits etc are clearly not covered as they are not working owing to ill health. The question of incentive to work does not apply when someone is unable to work owing to ill health.


As for you equating my views with those of Fast as Frupp- you are 100% wrong and it is offensive for you to accuse me of such views. I have never said or even thought such a thing. However, the fact I have never said or thought such things should not stop you ignoring the facts and accusing me wrongly of such things.

Perhaps you would be slightly more credible on here if you actually answered the issues I raise instead of accusing me of having views that someone else other than me posts and whixch I do not endorse.

Incidentally, the fact that such posts were being made on this thread is exactly why I left the thread alone to person who want to make abusive comments about each other and those not in work. Perhaps you'd be happier if I resorted to personal abuse and started accusing you of holding views you have never expressed

spen666

N4PALM wrote:

From the article you posted

"Details of a government initiative to give disadvantaged children free computers and internet access"

"Grants will be provided to allow families to buy an "approved home access package" which will include a computer or lap top, basic software and broadband access for one year."

"is intended to help ensure every child has access to a computer and the internet for their school or college work."

"The programme will be rolled out nationally next autumn with every five to 19-year-old in England having internet access by 2011."

"around 35% of families have no internet access."

"20,000 children aged seven to 18, from low income families, will qualify for the pilots."

RTFA you posted. No where does it mention making life easier for the "unemployed". It does however mention "disadvantaged children" from "low income families".

You immediately jump on your perception of benefits claimaints as being the unemployed.

Those who are unemployed and have children presumably on your logic are not "low income families". Children whose parents are unemployed are not in anyway "disadvantaged".

Hmmm seems like someone has just shot himself in the foot.

either the Children whose parents are unemployed are in someways "disadvantaged" or part of "low income families" in which case this scheme is aimed at them and hence I am correct in references to unemployed as being part of the intended beneficiaries of this scheme or they are not disadvantaged or part of low income families, in which case this scheme will not apply to such families

N4PALM

The quotes are not out of context whatsoever.

Yes perhaps it was wrong of me to lump you with fast as fupp.

And as for your original question. If that is all you were trying to say then perhaps it was a little naive of you to think that asking that question in the way you did would result in a debate about wether giving unemployed peiople free things is liekly to make them stay unemployed or not. Clearly the way you presented the question would only spark contoroversy.

But from my vantage point it would seem that controversy is exactly what you were aiming for.

N4PALM

Of course children of unemployed people are disadvantaged.

Youre impossible do you know that?

Jeez!

spen666

N4PALM wrote:

The quotes are not out of context whatsoever.

Yes perhaps it was wrong of me to lump you with fast as fupp.

And as for your original question. If that is all you were trying to say then perhaps it was a little naive of you to think that asking that question in the way you did would result in a debate about wether giving unemployed peiople free things is liekly to make them stay unemployed or not. Clearly the way you presented the question would only spark contoroversy.

But from my vantage point it would seem that controversy is exactly what you were aiming for.

Why was it naive- it was the issue I posed and it was on soapbox and that is the forum for debate.

It is exactly the issue I wanted to be debated. Note- that is debated- not throw abuse at people. If people can't debate issues sensibly without abuse, don't blame me for their failings.

The idea of free speech is that it is free and everybody is free to express their views.

I may not agree with your views, but I would defend to my death your right to hold and express those views.

squired

Recently my uncle has been hassling me to go over to his to sort out the computer for his kids, particularly for the 15 year old, as she "needs it for her school work". As I'm very close with her I spoke to her about it myself. Her response is that she uses the computers at school to do her homework, so the computer at home isn't essential. So, do kids actually need a computer at home? I thought the Labour party did a massive drive to make sure schools had enough computers for all the kids?

Big Red S

spen666 wrote:

i am perfectly aware that not all out of work are seeking work. I chose to speak specifically about one group referred to in the article and made that very clear.

That one group [those on the dole but able to work] wasn't referred to in the article at all.

spen666 wrote:

Those who are unemployed and have children presumably on your logic are not "low income families". Children whose parents are unemployed are not in anyway "disadvantaged".

Hmmm seems like someone has just shot himself in the foot.

I don't follow.

squired wrote:

Her response is that she uses the computers at school to do her homework, so the computer at home isn't essential. So, do kids actually need a computer at home?

No more than they need a phone or a football, I suppose.

You forget that education and learning don't consist entirely of what is learnt in school, and aren't solely for the purpose of preparing students to work.

spen666

on the BBC today

Pledge Watch: Laptops for all


By Justin Parkinson
Political reporter, BBC News


Politicians love announcing new initiatives. In this new series we pluck a pledge from the archives. And see what happened next...


Did laptops get as easy to borrow as a library book?
Picture the late 1990s, when internet start-up firms were on their way to becoming bigger than established titans of industry and commerce.

It was a heady time when the power of the "information highway" to liberate the information-starved masses seemed infinite.

Recall the then chancellor Gordon Brown's call for the UK to lead the global "knowledge economy", leaving no man, woman or child behind in the sharing of glorious, electronic wizardry-created wealth.

In this spirit Mr Brown announced a policy now forgotten by most.

In October 1999 he pledged: "We will pioneer a system so people can use computers and software in the new century the way local libraries have loaned books in the last century."

Old stock

The plan was to allow low-income families to lease subsidised laptops - then usually costing at least £1,000 to buy - for about £5 a week from their employers.

Firms were given tax breaks if they provided old computer stock, which had been upgraded, to employees for home use.

But what happened after the announcement?


We cannot let this reinforce social and academic divides and put children in low income families at a further disadvantage

Jim Knight, schools minister

The government scheme, which formed part of the Home Computing Initiative, eventually gained the support of about 60 companies.

However, after seven years the government wound up the tax break behind the scheme, arguing that the lending out of laptops had become less necessary.

A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokesman told the BBC: "It was a Treasury programme aimed at getting Britain online by giving tax-breaks to employers to loan computers to their employees and which was wound up in 2006 - essentially, because lower costs of laptops had helped drive up home ownership."

It may have had 60 companies signed up to it, but it is hard to say that it achieved the goal of allowing people to use laptops and software in the same way they might borrow books from a library.

Latest scheme

The scheme may have died but the sentiment behind it appeared to live on when, at the recent Labour Party conference, Mr Brown, now the prime minister, announced £300m for a Home Access programme to help low-income, computer-less households.

The scheme, due to get under way later this month, promises broadband access to all learners aged five to 19 whose families qualify for the help.

This involves a "free laptop or other computer with relevant software and hardware" bought with a Home Access voucher, as well as technical support.

Announcing a year-long pilot programme in Oldham and Suffolk last week, schools minister Jim Knight said: "Many families are having to tighten their belts in the current economic climate - so it is right that we help those that need the most support.

"We cannot let this reinforce social and academic divides and put children in low-income families at a further disadvantage."

The scheme is due to be expanded to the rest of England by autumn 2009.

The stated aim, as with the 'laptops for all' scheme, is to "bridge the digital divide

BBC Website

squired

Big Red S wrote:

squired wrote:

Her response is that she uses the computers at school to do her homework, so the computer at home isn't essential. So, do kids actually need a computer at home?

No more than they need a phone or a football, I suppose.

You forget that education and learning don't consist entirely of what is learnt in school, and aren't solely for the purpose of preparing students to work.

Nope I've not forgotten that, but if not essential, should the government be doing the scheme? I can bet that any young lads getting the laptops will probably be looking to see if they will run Football Manager 2009. I'd love to think that they will learn on the laptops, but it is unlikely. A few kids might use the opportunity to learn, but those are probably the same kids who would spend their lunchtimes in the computer lab at school anyway.