Free Internet Access for those on Benefit/ Low Income
Comments
-
alfablue wrote: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.
Sorry to offend Alfa but the world is too politicallly correct and sometimes things need to be said.
Yes I am comfortably employed but since leaving university I have had my share of contract work for over 5 years before getting a permanent job..I have had contracts end on my when I thought they would roll on...I have also been out of work several times for up to 6 months at a time...It is not nice but I would rather go get a bar job at minimum wage than sit around scratching my ass hoping that the rest of the country would pay to keep me.
I have no problem with people who are down on their luck and need a little help to tide them over.
I cannot stand the people who think that being on benefits is a life choice and have no ambitions or aspirations to get themselves out of the gutter of life.
I know people down my street who have never had a proper job since leaving school and these people are in their mid 40's. Just think how much money they have been given without putting a penny into the system. There is a fair chance that they will be on their benefits until retiral age and then they will get a pension too!!
Can't we just casually dispose of these people or swap a few of them for a useful immigrant or two. They are no use to society apart from keeping a few grubby Pubs in business.
Even better. Kick them off the benefits system and watch how quickly they get jobs.
There are jobs for everyone if people are prepared to look a bit lower than they want to start with....hence why I am quite prepared to do bar work/cleaning etc to make end meet.
My wife was out of work between university and deciding to go to Teacher training college( about 8 months) and she had to back-pay National insurance contributions for that time once she started working. She never claimed a penny as she wasn't allowed to sign os due to me working in a pub and taking home more than £60 per week whilst living at her parents house17 Stone down to 12.5 now raring to get back on the bike!0 -
Fuzzynavel - you are entitled to your opinion. My partner is a social worker and the issue of social mobility is complex and arguably insoluble. If you think you have the answers, you haven't thought about it enough.
To pass judgement is therefore also misplaced, certainly in general terms. In any large population group is will be possible to identify abuses of a given rule or system. Indeed, for a population group running into the millions it is possible to identify so many people abusing the system and worthy of criticism or condemnation as to lead one to believe that this is a representative sample.
The systems can only be designed for the majority. Indeed, in some instances a system must be designed for the minority if that minority merits it, at the cost of exploitation by people who do not.
After I'd finished my degree.... that's as far as you need to go before you distinguish yourself from the majority of people, even in 2008. Without that degree, how would you have done the contract work as a prelude to full time employment? I'm sure you worked hard for your degree. But you were able to do one. Did you pay for all of your living expenses for the entire time? All of them? Were you given sufficient foundation and suport at home and did you go to a good enough school to get yourself there in the first place? Evidently you did. Yet you seem happy to stamp on any notion that someone who otherwise would not be able to be provided with some assistance towards that goal.
How churlish of you.
Why? In case someone doesn't make best use of it.
Well, what about all those middle class kids who had the opportunity yet didn't take it? Are you as contemptuous about them? No.
Like I said, you haven't thought it through.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:Fuzzynavel - you are entitled to your opinion. My partner is a social worker and the issue of social mobility is complex and arguably insoluble. If you think you have the answers, you haven't thought about it enough.
After I'd finished my degree.... that's as far as you need to go before you distinguish yourself from the majority of people, even in 2008. Without that degree, how would you have done the contract work as a prelude to full time employment? I'm sure you worked hard for your degree. But you were able to do one. Did you pay for all of your living expenses for the entire time? All of them? Were you given sufficient foundation and suport at home and did you go to a good enough school to get yourself there in the first place? Evidently you did. Yet you seem happy to stamp on any notion that someone who otherwise would not be able to be provided with some assistance towards that goal.
How churlish of you.
Why? In case someone doesn't make best use of it.
Well, what about all those middle class kids who had the opportunity yet didn't take it? Are you as contemptuous about them? No.
Like I said, you haven't thought it through.
Always Tyred...
I'll let you into my situation. I am from a normal middle class family who lived in a house they couldn't really afford during the downturn/recession in the 90's....that recession virtually destroyed us but we survived but it took years to recover. I went to a normal council run high school in south London and worked to get decent grades as I had an idea what I wanted to do. I got A-Levels and left home to study.
Although my parents took home reasonable wages they were too high to qualify for a grant during uni...but not enough to be able to give me money every month. I had to get student loan after student loan to be able to afford to stay there (pay rent, bills, travel, subsistence etc and the odd pint). I also worked between 20 and 40 hour weeks in bars whilst studying to tide me over from week to week.
I was by no means socially advantaged but I saw the opportunity to get the degree that my parents wanted me to have and I slogged damn hard for 4 years to get it.
I will be paying these loans off for many years to come and I hope that my sacrifice has been worth it.
Out of going to uni I got the degree, I (eventually) got a job I enjoy, I got a wife and now I have a beautiful 8 month old daughter...I still have the loans, as does my wife but we are slowly and surely paying them off. As a result of going to uni we both learned to control our money so we only spend what we can afford and the rest goes in savings or to paying old debts. We are better off than either set of parents was at our age all because we had the balls to take a risk and go to uni with no external funding apart from the loans.
What most people don't realise is that almost anyone can get to Uni if they are prepared to work hard at school to get the grades. They may be socially disadvantaged but there are plenty of others in the same boat when you get onto the campus.
Even going in later life is not a problem as there are access courses to help people get back into the way of studying before going for it properly.
Social standing has nothing to do with going to uni if you are prepared to work.
This is where I get back to the doleites.......a lot of them just want to have their cake and eat it.....There are too many people abusing the system that is supposed to help people.
I don't want to get worthy causes off the dole queue....just that chancers that milk the system dry.
I am sure after a little experience your partner can spot a chancer a mile away but it is another thing proving it....It must be a frustrating job sometimes.17 Stone down to 12.5 now raring to get back on the bike!0 -
You are not taking anything in.
Yes, my partner can spot a chancer a mile off. Trust me, social workers have better things to worry about than benefit fraud. Child abuse, drug abuse, etc...., spousal abuse, you name it - a few quid here and there really doesn't matter. I don't think you understand too much about social work.
But you've made the classic mistake of thinking that because you worked hard, everyone can work hard and everyone could do it if you could do it. Not true. Very substantially not true. For starters, you had the support and foundation of a middle class family who thought going to uni was a good idea. How about having no support and being told that going to university was a bad idea from a young age, being surrounded by a peer group telling you the same. did your parents help you with homework? Did you have educacted parents able to help you with homework? To what age?
So, back to my real point - sure, there are people who abuse the system. There are people who do not. You've benefitted - you took a degree. If you had to pay for it, your debt would be an order of magnitude higher. I used to work in HE funding and I know how much the people who teach at universities really cost.
So, your fully economically costed £100k degree doesn't count as sponging because you took out loans for living expenses and worked part time. Think about the people who started your course and didn't finish - hold that thought.
Now, take people on benefits. A percentage will deserve those benefits - as you did when you were unemployed. A percentage will not.
How are you going to explain it to the people who deserve it that because of the people who do not, the deserving people get nothing?
Or would you simply redesign the system so it didn't happen? Well, plenty have tried and failed. Is the system benefitting more people deservingly than it is benefitting people undeservingly? I don't know, but I'd say that it is. Every initiative that achieves this is "profitable" in the sense that it acts as future "benefit prevention". People seem to understand the concept with regards to health, even though no matter how much advice is put out, people still - for example - smoke and still die. This is no different in basic concept.
Okay, now back to the people who started but did not finish degree courses - none of which, might I remind you - we paid for in full. Why are those people not scroungers? They each wasted £50k of taxpayers money! Where is your vitriol? Where is your contempt?
And you, or me; have you paid back in taxes what you took out in order to (a) do your Alevels and (b) do your degree? I bet you haven't, even a fraction. Not talking about your loans mate, I'm talking about the actual cost of teaching you. Scrounger. That all cost vastly more than the pathetic dribbles of financial support that people on benefits get. How many years' worth of benefits would it take to pay for your degree? I'd guess that its running towards a decade. Not so clear cut who is the scrounger now is it? Your benefits gave you something very valuable - a privalege. Theirs simply maintain the status quo and they have to get ahead of their own volition. Not so clear cut is it?
Its a complex issue and I'm trying to put it to you that you haven't thought it through in any depth, or with any real perception.0 -
As a lecturer I know how some of those I teach take this education for granted - the costs are huge to the tax payer, and with getting on for 50% of youngsters going into HE it amounts to a tidy sum that we pay to provide this privilege. I don't begrudge them the chance or the money (and of course I am a beneficiary of both the education for myself, and the salary I now get), and neither do I begrudge the money for those on benefits (the welfare state is the best innovation of the 20th century), but it is very telling that the notion of the true cost to society of fuzzynavel and other's education is not even considered. And the short term sacrifice that students may make to get a degree is amply rewarded in the workplace, it is a win-win situation.
This skewed perspective is similar to the differential treatment benefit fraud gets versus tax evasion, in the public consciousness. But I guess everyone (no, not everyone, just the envious and the hateful) needs scapegoats for their own unhappiness.0 -
Ok Always tyred and Alfa blue.....maybe I didn't think of the behind the scenes cost of my education but you can hardly call me a scrounger. No I did not pay any significant tax for 4 years but I am putting more money back into the system now than I would have been able to without the degree. Over my working life I am sure that the difference in my wages with and without the degree will more than compensate the government for any costs they incurred. The government aren't stupid.....they know they will get a higher paid workforce out of people going to university. In turn they will get foreign students coming here to study on the reputation of the education who pay hard cash to study.
I believe it is all about eligibility. I was eligible to go to university due to getting the grades needed. I didn't play the system in any way to get there and I got my prize at the end.
As far as I can see in the benefits system you just have to say the right things at the right time to the right people and you will MAKE yourself eligible to receive long term state handouts even if there is nothing wrong with you.
I guess I am more pissed at the system for letting these people get away with benefit fraud as It costs taxpayers more to keep the system going if people are sponging.
Admittedly some of the people on benefits don't want to be there but they are due to circumstance....These are NOT the people that I have issues with.17 Stone down to 12.5 now raring to get back on the bike!0 -
No one likes true "scroungers" but I know that it is an unavoidable consequence of providing an adequate safety net for the truly needy (and it is not such a generous safety net as some would think). It is a question of balance, the tougher we make it to get benefits the more genuinely needy people we will also hurt. The system is a fairly blunt instrument, a sharper one will cost yet more money.0
-
I don't think you are a scrounger either, any more than I am.
But its about compatible philosophies - you can have a society where very little is given out to people who don't deserve it, but inevitably very little is given out to anyone.
Imagine you were in the states. Small government, low taxes. What would have happened after the 1990's recession? Where would the college fund have come from? You wouldn't have been able to go to university. Now where would you be? But at least you wouldn't have many scroungers to complain about.
You can't have it both ways.
That's not to say that its no longer worth tweaking the system.
Back to the original question - do you think the benefits to the intended targets (children) of internet access and computers is worth the risk that an unintended target (parents, older siblings, etc)?
This forum is often extremely critical of having all cyclists treated aggressively because of attitudes caused by some cyclists. This thread is no different - the immediate assumption, insidiously orchestrated by the guy who started the thread, was to assume that, basically, people on benefits are scroungers. I just wanted to challenge the assertion and re-cast the sentiment along the lines of "are all those children scroungers" or "out of those 10 million people on benefits, how many of them are scroungers, and how do you break the news to the millions who aren't that they are going to fall between the cracks becuase you don't like scroungers?" They are really tempting assumptions but carry quite extensive implications.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:I don't think you are a scrounger either, any more than I am.
But its about compatible philosophies - you can have a society where very little is given out to people who don't deserve it, but inevitably very little is given out to anyone.
Imagine you were in the states. Small government, low taxes. What would have happened after the 1990's recession? Where would the college fund have come from? You wouldn't have been able to go to university. Now where would you be? But at least you wouldn't have many scroungers to complain about.
You can't have it both ways.
That's not to say that its no longer worth tweaking the system.
Back to the original question - do you think the benefits to the intended targets (children) of internet access and computers is worth the risk that an unintended target (parents, older siblings, etc)?
This forum is often extremely critical of having all cyclists treated aggressively because of attitudes caused by some cyclists. This thread is no different - the immediate assumption, insidiously orchestrated by the guy who started the thread, was to assume that, basically, people on benefits are scroungers. I just wanted to challenge the assertion and re-cast the sentiment along the lines of "are all those children scroungers" or "out of those 10 million people on benefits, how many of them are scroungers, and how do you break the news to the millions who aren't that they are going to fall between the cracks becuase you don't like scroungers?" They are really tempting assumptions but carry quite extensive implications.
I'm not sure that was the question I asked.Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
-
Because the problem isn't that the kids need a PC on which to do their homework, it's that they need a PC on which to become confident and capable in using a computer.
Yes, changing the teaching of IT so that it actually teaches IT would have a far greater change, but that's just not going to happen. And you can't teach the use of computers unless the students have a computer with which to learn.0 -
Big Red S wrote:Because the problem isn't that the kids need a PC on which to do their homework, it's that they need a PC on which to become confident and capable in using a computer.
They could have a PC in the library. There's lots of things that I've had to become confident and capable with, but haven't been able to take home, and I've done just fine.0 -
spen666 wrote:Always Tyred wrote:I don't think you are a scrounger either, any more than I am.
But its about compatible philosophies - you can have a society where very little is given out to people who don't deserve it, but inevitably very little is given out to anyone.
Imagine you were in the states. Small government, low taxes. What would have happened after the 1990's recession? Where would the college fund have come from? You wouldn't have been able to go to university. Now where would you be? But at least you wouldn't have many scroungers to complain about.
You can't have it both ways.
That's not to say that its no longer worth tweaking the system.
Back to the original question - do you think the benefits to the intended targets (children) of internet access and computers is worth the risk that an unintended target (parents, older siblings, etc)?
This forum is often extremely critical of having all cyclists treated aggressively because of attitudes caused by some cyclists. This thread is no different - the immediate assumption, insidiously orchestrated by the guy who started the thread, was to assume that, basically, people on benefits are scroungers. I just wanted to challenge the assertion and re-cast the sentiment along the lines of "are all those children scroungers" or "out of those 10 million people on benefits, how many of them are scroungers, and how do you break the news to the millions who aren't that they are going to fall between the cracks becuase you don't like scroungers?" They are really tempting assumptions but carry quite extensive implications.
I'm not sure that was the question I asked.
I thought you had disclaimed your interest in this thread?
It is the direct consequence of your post - an article relating to provision of educational aids to disadvantaged children - to which you are opposed because people who don't deservie it will take advantage of it.
Either (a) you knowingly posed this question, in which case I disagree with your right wing sentiments or (b) you unknowingly posed the question in which case you are slightly stupider than I originally thought.
Or both.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Big Red S wrote:Because the problem isn't that the kids need a PC on which to do their homework, it's that they need a PC on which to become confident and capable in using a computer.
They could have a PC in the library. There's lots of things that I've had to become confident and capable with, but haven't been able to take home, and I've done just fine.
But presumably you _wanted_ to become confident and capable with them. Few people want to learn how to use a computer - indeed the piss-poor IT teaching makes most students think they already do - so it's got to be somewhere they're going to already be, not somewhere they have to commute to.
And, more than that, they need one which is *theirs* so they can install different applications to find out differences and preferences, so they can tailor it to the way they want to use it, and they need one without the restrictions on it that stop them breaking it.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Big Red S wrote:Because the problem isn't that the kids need a PC on which to do their homework, it's that they need a PC on which to become confident and capable in using a computer.
They could have a PC in the library. There's lots of things that I've had to become confident and capable with, but haven't been able to take home, and I've done just fine.
A lot of libraries have half hour maximum time limits. A lot of libraries shut at 5 and don't open at weekends. A lot of neighbourhoods don't have libraries. A lot of kids would get their heads kicked in if they were seen exiting a library. Squares. You want me to go on?
Libraries are small - how many computers would be required? Who is going to pay for them?
Of course, the schools could provide access, but then someone has to pay for the teachers to staff them after hours to let the poor kids do their homework. How much would that cost?
Can I pose another question - (someone may already have done this) - if the article was "grants to enable children to buy school books" would you object that loads of scrounging toerags who didn't deserve it would read those books?
Bloody dolies reading Shakespeare when they don't deserve to! I had to work hard to be able to afford my copy of the complete works.
I don't see the difference.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:A lot of libraries have half hour maximum time limits. A lot of libraries shut at 5 and don't open at weekends. A lot of neighbourhoods don't have libraries.....You want me to go on?
Libraries are small - how many computers would be required? Who is going to pay for them?
Of course, the schools could provide access, but then someone has to pay for the teachers to staff them after hours to let the poor kids do their homework. How much would that cost?redddraggon wrote:Why does the internet need to be provided at home? I can't see why they can't give schools/libraries/specially set up facilities a higher budget for public access IT......0 -
redddraggon wrote:Always Tyred wrote:A lot of libraries have half hour maximum time limits. A lot of libraries shut at 5 and don't open at weekends. A lot of neighbourhoods don't have libraries.....You want me to go on?
Libraries are small - how many computers would be required? Who is going to pay for them?
Of course, the schools could provide access, but then someone has to pay for the teachers to staff them after hours to let the poor kids do their homework. How much would that cost?redddraggon wrote:Why does the internet need to be provided at home? I can't see why they can't give schools/libraries/specially set up facilities a higher budget for public access IT......
Yes, but what is going to cost more, a £300 computer and dial up, or hiring an extra librarian for £20k + NIC's + overheads, AND buying a computer for them to supervise?
What exactly are you objecting to here? Seems like cutting off nose to spite face to me - spend 10 times as much to stop the lazy buggers downloading things they shouldn't.
I refer back to my analogy of preventative medicine.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:[
Can I pose another question - (someone may already have done this) - if the article was "grants to enable children to buy school books" would you object that loads of scrounging toerags who didn't deserve it would read those books?
Bloody dolies reading Shakespeare when they don't deserve to! I had to work hard to be able to afford my copy of the complete works.
I don't see the difference.
The reason that nobody would complain about books is that controls can be placed upon them to make sure that the correct products are bought. Books are necessities and not luxuries...Everyone needs to know how to read to get by in life.
The reason that the computers/internet is contentious is that there are multiple uses for a computer with internet access. While the child is at school who is to say that lonely dad at home isn't going to beat one out over the computer whilst looking at certain sites. He is not the one that the computer is being provided for so why should he get the benefit?
Nobody is denying that kids will need internet access at some point for research but as mentioned before this is what libraries and school computer labs are for.17 Stone down to 12.5 now raring to get back on the bike!0 -
It's becoming increasingly true that everyone needs some degree of computer literacy to get by in life, too.fuzzynavel wrote:Always Tyred wrote:[
Can I pose another question - (someone may already have done this) - if the article was "grants to enable children to buy school books" would you object that loads of scrounging toerags who didn't deserve it would read those books?
Bloody dolies reading Shakespeare when they don't deserve to! I had to work hard to be able to afford my copy of the complete works.
I don't see the difference.
The reason that nobody would complain about books is that controls can be placed upon them to make sure that the correct products are bought. Books are necessities and not luxuries...Everyone needs to know how to read to get by in life.
Why shouldn't he if nobody is losing out because of it?The reason that the computers/internet is contentious is that there are multiple uses for a computer with internet access. While the child is at school who is to say that lonely dad at home isn't going to beat one out over the computer whilst looking at certain sites. He is not the one that the computer is being provided for so why should he get the benefit?
And, as mentioned since, they are not adequate.Nobody is denying that kids will need internet access at some point for research but as mentioned before this is what libraries and school computer labs are for.0 -
They could indeed make do with one in the library, while the rich kids have one at home, the library users will inevitably be at a disadvantage (unless the library is next door and open at 10.00pm whilst you are still working on your homework).redddraggon wrote:Big Red S wrote:Because the problem isn't that the kids need a PC on which to do their homework, it's that they need a PC on which to become confident and capable in using a computer.
They could have a PC in the library. There's lots of things that I've had to become confident and capable with, but haven't been able to take home, and I've done just fine.
The objective is to reduce the IT underclass that has developed, so that there is opportunity for all regardless of their wealth or their parentage, with a view of making the future better than it is now.0 -
When I was at school I had a pc at home. It was a great help. I could word process my homework and assignments. It was a great advantage. It would have been even cooler to have had internet back then instead of a dusty old encyclopedia. I also used the computers at school but I found it much better to work at home. At school I couldnt relax and egt stuff done because it was either lunch time, where I needed to eat and socialise with friends or it was after hours and then you only get about an hour or so cos the teachers all want to go home. ~Kids could sue school pcs's at lunch. But peer pressure means they wont. Also its good for the kids to be out in the playground making friends and developing social skills.
When I moved out of home and went to college I didnt have a computer at my flat. I was at a considerable disadvantage. I basically had to buy one.
To say that having a pc and netaccess at home isnt an advantage is ludicrous! Library access and computers at school will not make up for the quality evening and weekend time the kids could be spending learning.
And not just learning. More and more people are conducting social activities online. The internet has been a fantastic revolution in allowing people to communicate with each other easily. Children need interaction with their peers in order to grow and become well rounded individuals. When all their friends are on bebo and they cant be, they lose out. Never underestimate the effect friends have on a childs growth.0 -
the bludgers would only use their free pc's for crime and other nefarious purposes- i kid you not!'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0
-
fast as fupp wrote:the bludgers would only use their free pc's for crime and other nefarious purposes- i kid you not!
Visit any local cemetary and you'll see epitaphs to past generations of Bludgers. Given how the family has deteriorated, might be best to give free dial up to the Smiths instead.0 -
I got by alright without internet access as a kid. I went to the library in town after school when I needed to look something up.0
-
when were you a kid? Are you saying there wasn't internet then? Once upon a time there weren't books, either, but we generally consider them to be advantageous.Amos wrote:I got by alright without internet access as a kid. I went to the library in town after school when I needed to look something up.
If there was internet access, but you were in a minority of those who could not have it at home, would you consider it a level playing field with your peers?0 -
Amos wrote:I got by alright without internet access as a kid. I went to the library in town after school when I needed to look something up.
But, presumably, you didn't find yourself fresh out of school, looking for employment, and everyone demanding that you know how to use a computer.0 -
The internet was around when I was at school, but I didnt get it till a couple of years later when I had left and enrolled at college.
When I left school I didn't know what I wanted to do, so after spending a year picking peppers I enrolled on a computer course at the local college.0
