Daily Mail

Iain Duncan Smith was right - you CAN live on £53 a week!
"I can survive on ONE POUND A DAY" says cash-strapped teacher


:lol:
Picked fruit from trees and bushes TRY THAT IN WINTER
Collected £117 in loose change found on the streets WHERE THE FECK DOES SHE LIVE?!
Made the most of free buffets at public events and celebrations I HATE SCROUNGERS
Scrounged leftovers from grocery stores and restaurants I HATE SCROUNGERS
I was thinking this.

Not getting enough benefits to feed yourself and your family? Why not try begging!?
 
That article is the Mail's daily office WUM. Pretty funny though. £117 on the street made it too obvious it was a wind-up though.

Eh?

It's actually quite possible. Like 32p a day for a year. I know someone who got into the habit of picking up spare change when they were having financial difficulty, and they picked up a few quid a month.

More disturbingly, what makes you think it'd be a WUM? What would be the point of it? You're such a bizarre and unfathomable poster.
 
Eh?

It's actually quite possible. Like 32p a day for a year. I know someone who got into the habit of picking up spare change when they were having financial difficulty, and they picked up a few quid a month.

More disturbingly, what makes you think it'd be a WUM? What would be the point of it? You're such a bizarre and unfathomable poster.

Fair enough - I think £117 a year is pushing it, but I suppose if you put in the effort, then you might manage it.

It's clearly a WUM - they've just had a big story about benefits culture and now they've come up with some unfathomably ridiculous woman who can live on £1 a day. It's like a Daily Mash article.
 
It's clearly a WUM - they've just had a big story about benefits culture and now they've come up with some unfathomably ridiculous woman who can live on £1 a day. It's like a Daily Mash article.

But why?

And the £1 a day challenge is quite popular, albeit normally students and hippies who do it. I mean, it's possible she did it. It's also possible it's a WUM. I just can't fathom why the Mail would do that. What are they aiming to achieve?
 
But why?

And the £1 a day challenge is quite popular, albeit normally students and hippies who do it. I mean, it's possible she did it. It's also possible it's a WUM. I just can't fathom why the Mail would do that. What are they aiming to achieve?

I'm pretty sure the Mail take the mickey out their own readers half the time. The entire thing just reads like a parody to me.

That said, it might not be. Who cares? If you want to think it's deadly serious, I'm sure they'll be pleased for the hit.
 
I'm pretty sure the Mail take the mickey out their own readers half the time. The entire thing just reads like a parody to me.

That said, it might not be. Who cares?

I'm genuinely confused by whether you're serious or you're one massive WUM. Either way talking to you seems to be a massive waste of time. I give up.
 
Iain Duncan Smith's £53 a week diary

MONDAY:
Fortify myself for the week ahead with a half-bottle of the ’05 Pinot Gris Rotenberg.
Cost £62, but if I’d been on the dole for a while I’d have had the £9 spare from the week before. Stick candle in empty bottle and spend rest of day sitting in my bedsit thinking about Samantha Cameron.

Tuesday: Neighbours offer me building site work for undeclared cash. Contact benefits agency to report them and tell neighbours they’re bringing this country to its knees. Use empty Rotenberg bottle to fend them off and barricade myself in my bathroom.

Wednesday: Woke up to see a big dog on pavement. Remained indoors.

Thursday: Get into furious argument with chap at local antique dealers, ‘Cash Converters’, who insists they don’t deal in 19th Century watercolourists. Finally get £10 for the frame. Money stolen by children waiting for me outside.

Friday: Electricity stops working. Investigation shows I have some kind of meter that appears to be empty. Assume this is an annual thing and well outside the scope of my £53 budget. Keep warm by eating a pack of animal nuggets left by previous occupants. May have sobbed a little bit.

Saturday: Neighbours apologise for calling me a ‘jumped-up ballbag’ and offer to pay for an 18-hour holiday to Jamaica if I would ‘run a little errand’ for them. Big Society in action.

Sunday: Final day. Secretly borrow a fiver from old woman who lives downstairs. Use it to buy delicious three course lunch at House of Commons restaurant. That evening the lovely people from ATOS take me to Savoy Grill for dinner.

Should have just done this every day. Would have been a piece of piss.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/iain-duncan-smiths-53-a-week-diary-2013040264369
 
The Daily Mail said:
SATURDAY ESSAY: The Great Welfare Myth and how the chattering classes are peddling a poisonous myth - that the poor cannot survive without the soul-deadening embrace of welfarism

Leading left-wing thinker BRENDAN O'NEILL says the welfare system subjugates the poor, ensnaring them in a trap of dependency, and crushing their horizons.

They're in full-on piss-taking mode now, aren't they.
 
the soul-deadening embrace of welfarism

Yes. Instead, these scroungers should find soul-deadening, dead-end, shit-pay jobs.
 
It's not the Mail but did anyone see this in the sun?

Did benefits culture turn Mick Philpott into killer?
Debate dividing the nation
Published: 18 hrs ago
69

THIS week’s political hot potato has been benefits.
On Monday, a series of welfare cuts began with the pruning of housing benefit – with Work And Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith insisting he could live on £53 a week if he had to.
Yesterday, the PM backed George Osborne for linking the case of child killer Mick Philpott to Britain’s welfare system – despite Labour’s outrage. The father of 17 was pocketing £68,000 a year from benefits and earnings from his wife and mistress through their children.

Jailed ... Mairead and Mick Philpott were found guilty of six counts of manslaughter
Here, two leading voices debate whether benefits were to blame for turning Philpott into a monster and what implications the welfare row is having on British politics.
YES says Trevor Kavanagh, Sun columnist
LABOUR’S screams of protest over child killer Mick Philpott betray the truth about a party which has made as much of a living out of welfare as Philpott himself.

'Welfare party is over' ... Trevor Kavanagh
Gordon Brown used taxpayers’ billions to buy Labour votes in a political scam as complex as the “slice and dice” loans fraud that brought the world to the brink of economic meltdown.
When he’d finished, people earning as much as £60,000-plus could claim handouts from money stolen from their own taxes.
Welfare spending doubled.
Across Britain, unshaven, unwashed people such as Philpott lived in shellsuits, lined their walls with plasma TVs, parked untaxed Range Rovers in their drives and spawned children subsidised by you and me at £13 each a week.
The judge who sentenced this contemptible coward explicitly linked the tragic deaths of his six children to his greedy pursuit of an ever-higher income stream from the state.
Yet the Labour Left effectively accused her — and anyone who agreed with her verdict — of “demonising” the poor.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And it should worry Marxist-born, union-subsidised Labour leader Ed Miliband that most people believe the judge was right. His party has ditched the post-war Attlee Labour dream of a welfare safety net to help the truly poor, and hijacked it as a weapon to bludgeon the wealth and job creators.
Before “Brown’s bubble” burst, people believed we could afford to throw billions at scroungers who stayed in bed breeding while everyone else went to work. Hard times bring hard truths.
And hard-working Sun readers have lost sympathy with the millions who blame depression, back pain or alcohol and drug addiction to live off our taxes.
Is this a grotesque exaggeration, as The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee would claim?
Or can we see the evidence from the 880,000 who have quit incapacity benefit rather than take a medical?
These scroungers are having a laugh at our expense. The devil makes work for idle hands. People such as Philpott waste away their days with booze and drugs, beating their wives and going dogging.
BBC stooge David Bennett gambled away a legacy and was then allowed falsely to tell Radio 4’s Today programme he lived on £53 a week.
The simple truth, as Labour Treasury minister Liam Byrne admits, is that Britain is broke. We must borrow every penny we dish out in welfare. The welfare party is over.
NO says Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist
BE outraged by Mick Philpott, but reserve some of your anger for George Osborne.
Don’t let a desperate politician use this evil man to disguise what the Government’s £21billion benefit cuts are doing to genuinely needy people, in our name.

'Philpott milked the system' ... Polly Toynbee
Philpott is a child-killing, wife-beating monster who milked the system.
We need to protect benefits against cheats and thieves. But freak cases tell us nothing about what is now happening.
Let’s get the facts straight. Official figures show fraud amounts to only 70p for every £100 paid out. Child tax credits mostly go to families in work, whose pay is too low to make ends meet.
Most of those needing a top-up are in work.
Osborne says he is on the side of the “strivers not the skivers”, but he doesn’t admit he’s also cutting credits for working families.
Five people are chasing every vacancy, in some areas 20. And 1.3million jobless young people can’t get their foot on the ladder into work. Skivers? How dare Osborne blame the unemployed for his no-growth economic policy?
The test of social security is how it treats the sick and disabled. Decent people would be shocked to know a third are now being ruthlessly cut off benefits.
“Work capability” tests are now so severe that last year more than 1,700 people died within weeks of being declared “fit for work”, official figures show.
Take Martine White, from Burnley, Lancs. She’s a partially blind and deaf thalidomide victim awaiting spinal surgery. She uses a wheelchair and stairlift but has lost her £110-a-week benefits, and been declared ready for work training.
Soon another third of disabled people lose their disability living allowance.
Attention focuses on Philpott but these unseen sufferers show the truth of what’s really happening to our benefit system.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ick-Philpott-into-a-killer.html#ixzz2PiC8r6uh

The bloke is so biased it beggers belief

'People such as Philpott waste away their days with booze and drugs, beating their wives and going dogging'


Is he actually just wumming?
 
Wow...a whole £13 a week...such riches.

The first bit reads like a Partridge rant, without the laughs.
 
They are going to extremes and using this case to fight their claims. This is not right.

But at the end of the day, there are a lot of scroungers in the UK and Ireland and they are my least favourite people. So I am not too sure which side to take.
 
With regards to the debate on welfare, I would like people like Toynbee to come up with some kind of alternative.

This is £180bn we're talking about here. It is an astronomic sum of money, and whilst everyone accepts that the neediest in society should be subsidised, there comes a point where you have to do something about it.

It is clear as well that the current welfare system is not fit for purpose. Almost 900,000 people decided that they wouldn't have a medical exam to see whether they qualify for the new scheme. Does this mean that we had 900,000 people claiming benefits before, who are aware that any proper test would out them as being actually completely healthy?
 
Al, as pointed out previously, that 'latest figure' (900,000) dates from 2008. It's not the first time the Government has stretched the truth recently.
 
But I am sure it is still a large figure. I cannot think of any reason why genuine people would not go for the medical.
 
Because it's been well-publicised that French firm ATOS, which decides who is & who isn't eligible for these benefits, receives £1000 per 'negative' decision (ie for discluding people from the benefit). Granted, there are many idlers who want to avoid the test but there are also those who are justifiably cynical about this 'loaded dice'.
 
Even if that was the case you would still go. By not going at all you are 100% getting nothing.

Surely you can appeal etc... If it is turned down?
 
Al, as pointed out previously, that 'latest figure' (900,000) dates from 2008. It's not the first time the Government has stretched the truth recently.

The date is not particularly relevant here, it's the general refusal to go and renew.

Out of interest, is there any information about ATOS getting £1,000 every time they manage to get someone off benefits? I've not seen that publicised.
 
There's a halfway point to be met really. I'm sure it's a nightmare for people having to judge people using these tests due to all the inevitable red tape and guidelines which if broken can result in said person loosing their job. There's no doubt that there needs to be some action taken on people claiming what they do not need, I know a number of people, having come from a family where the majority have been on benefits of some type in their lives, who have got round the system easily and are not entitled to what they are getting. There needs to be a serious reform of the guidelines and a healthy dose of allowance for 'testers' to apply their own opinion.

People who should get it sometimes don't and people who shouldn't do. It's just down to ineptness.
 
Each government muddies the waters when it comes to unemployment figures & such like; I've the feeling that this is the case in this particular instance (especially as the 900k stat issues from 5 years ago...). Even Kavanagh, in the article above, states that it's 'only' 880,000.
 
The date is not particularly relevant here, it's the general refusal to go and renew.

Out of interest, is there any information about ATOS getting £1,000 every time they manage to get someone off benefits? I've not seen that publicised.

* I bet that figure includes people who went back into work, passed away etc etc. Political parties being underhand about such things is hardly new...

* ATOS receives over £100m per year from the Government; the company has a 94% failure-rate when it comes to Disability claims, which somehow complements Government policy of cutting the Welfare bill - how on earth can you give them the benefit of the doubt?
 
This is £180bn we're talking about here. It is an astronomic sum of money, and whilst everyone accepts that the neediest in society should be subsidised, there comes a point where you have to do something about it.

Standard tory deceit, based on sullying the word 'welfare' and then convincing people it's out of control.

welfare-spending-2011-2012.jpg


A majority of the welfare bill goes on universal benefits for the elderly, and there's been no hint of suggestion from the Right of attacking them. The next biggest single factor is housing benefit, which all bypasses the recipients of welfare and goes straight into the pockets of landlords, much of it subsidising the lifestyles of the true do-nothing scroungers in our society. And when you factor in the proportion of in-work benefits, the amount of the welfare bill that actually goes into the pockets of the workless is tiny.

And no, Alastair, there does not come a point at which 'something must be done'. The country as a whole is very rich, thank you very much, and could afford to spend much, much more on welfare. We just happen to have spent four decades codifying greed as our national religion at the expense of empathy and fair-mindedness, and so a fairer distribution of that immense wealth is now considered an obscene suggestion.

But at the end of the day, there are a lot of scroungers in the UK and Ireland and they are my least favourite people. So I am not too sure which side to take.

How many is 'a lot', exactly? And why are they your least favourite people? If you consider it in terms of damage done to society they rank way, way behind criminals, millionaire tax avoiders, tabloid journalists, conservative party members, Chelsea players and many other groups. What is it that inspires that particular animus?
 
Millionaire tax avoiders have still at some stage paid more tax and contributed more to society than scroungers ever will.

They are my least favourite people because they are worthless and of no use to anybody. If they all got wiped out they would not only not be missed but would be of benefit to society. Also they are responsible for a lot of crime and anti social behaviour.

I despise people who refuse to look for work and live off the state.
 
Millionaire tax avoiders have still at some stage paid more tax and contributed more to society than scroungers ever will.

They are my least favourite people because they are worthless and of no use to anybody. If they all got wiped out they would not only not be missed but would be of benefit to society. Also they are responsible for a lot of crime and anti social behaviour.

I despise people who refuse to look for work and live off the state.

No white text?
 
Standard tory deceit, based on sullying the word 'welfare' and then convincing people it's out of control.

welfare-spending-2011-2012.jpg


A majority of the welfare bill goes on universal benefits for the elderly, and there's been no hint of suggestion from the Right of attacking them. The next biggest single factor is housing benefit, which all bypasses the recipients of welfare and goes straight into the pockets of landlords, much of it subsidising the lifestyles of the true do-nothing scroungers in our society. And when you factor in the proportion of in-work benefits, the amount of the welfare bill that actually goes into the pockets of the workless is tiny.

And no, Alastair, there does not come a point at which 'something must be done'. The country as a whole is very rich, thank you very much, and could afford to spend much, much more on welfare. We just happen to have spent four decades codifying greed as our national religion at the expense of empathy and fair-mindedness, and so a fairer distribution of that immense wealth is now considered an obscene suggestion.

In fact, there has been quite a lot of talk about whether we should be removing bus passes away from the elderly if they're wealthy or whether we should give winter fuel allowance to the more well off ones. The reality with old people is that if they've paid tax all their lives, one can argue that they deserve a few breaks in their retirement and that the money is justified.

In terms of your ridiculous suggestion that we could spend more on welfare, as far as I'm concerned it actually isn't fair-mindedness to give people who don't work a huge amount of money to live on because the only way you're going to be able to afford that is if you tax working people even more highly, which is not fair.

People like you don't seem to be able to work out that not everyone who is wealthy is a tax-avoiding criminal. The vast majority of wealthy people in this country pay their tax and have fairly earned their money from having a good job and saving appropriately. What is wrong with this? Do you want to go down the Hollande route in France where he tried to get the richest to pay 75%?

Ideally, we'd cut about £40bn off welfare, and then hand £20bn of it back to the very neediest like the poor elderly and the disabled. But for you to suggest it's just greed that stops this country paying more than £180bn out in welfare every year is beyond ludicrous.
 
It doesn't really matter to me how many there are. It doesn't overly bother me how much it saves or doesn't save. I live in a town where there are countless scroungers.

They are my least favourite members of society so anything that in some way inconveniences them is good for me.