Unpopular opinions.

[yoda]

Apologies if any of these have been posted already:

Bob Marley is massively overrated. A couple of good songs and that's about it.

Margaret Thatcher doesn't deserve most of the hate directed towards her. However I wasn't around when she was in power.

Alastair Campbell seems to be a top guy.

West Ham United don't deserve most of the flak they get.

Victoria Park is the best ground in the First Division.

[Lisa Cuddy]

but doesn't this seem more like a punishment than a 'job'? out towns and cities look a mess because people in scotland seem to have a total disregard for the environment around them, not because of the unemployed. plus, i imagine the government would, under law, have to pay them by the hour, so it could get to the point where people leave school and decide it's easier to clean streets all their life rather than look for work.

And? You end up with clean streets. What's the problem?

I don't think it's a great idea for the short-term unemployed by any means. It would probably be quite demoralising in fact, but I do think it would deal with a lot of the wasters that consider the welfare system their employers.

I know there are some people that are long-term unemployed who haven't made the choice to become layabouts and desperately want to be earning a living for their families, but they also tend to be the kind of people that won't let their pride get in the way of earning it. It's also the reason that, should it ever happen, that it not become a full-time job and hours should be in accordance with the amount they are paid.

For anyone that complains that those made to work for their dole money, bear in mind that if you're a family man or woman and you find yourself signing on, you also get your rent and the majority of the council tax paid for you. Not many people in full-time jobs, even with a low income, can qualify for that.

[bullywee]

And? You end up with clean streets. What's the problem?

I don't think it's a great idea for the short-term unemployed by any means. It would probably be quite demoralising in fact, but I do think it would deal with a lot of the wasters that consider the welfare system their employers.

I know there are some people that are long-term unemployed who haven't made the choice to become layabouts and desperately want to be earning a living for their families, but they also tend to be the kind of people that won't let their pride get in the way of earning it. It's also the reason that, should it ever happen, that it not become a full-time job and hours should be in accordance with the amount they are paid.

For anyone that complains that those made to work for their dole money, bear in mind that if you're a family man or woman and you find yourself signing on, you also get your rent and the majority of the council tax paid for you. Not many people in full-time jobs, even with a low income, can qualify for that.

but isn't the point of dole money that you've either paid it off through national insurance (may be wrong here) or will pay it off in the future?

[Chris McDonald]

Speaking about the welfare 'reforms' another thing that should be done instead of just sending people to manual labour is that so much of your dole money is in the form of a food voucher.

[Smurph]

but isn't the point of dole money that you've either paid it off through national insurance (may be wrong here) or will pay it off in the future?

Yeah, but the 18-year old wasters ( ) have never had a job, so they haven't been taxed. They may well pay it off in the future, but if they're planning on being unemployed on the long-term and living off benefits they won't for some time.

[Lisa Cuddy]

but isn't the point of dole money that you've either paid it off through national insurance (may be wrong here) or will pay it off in the future?

Like I say, I don't think it's a great system for anyone but the terminally unemployed. I wouldn't advocate it for anyone that's been on the dole for any less than three months - at least. I'm sure we could all think of someone who's been out of work for a while because their particuar industry just doesn't have the jobs available. When you get to around 6 months unemployment, you start to look at more and more people who are out of work because they cannot be arsed doing anything else, although that by no means applies to everyone who has been out of work that long. While it's possible that people can end up paying their money back at some point in the future, there's an awful lot of people that will never manage it in their lives.

There are flaws with it, of course. You'll get people that start a job and stick in it just long enough to say they tried and then give up and sign on. Then, just before the time limit, they'll land themselves another job and be in that long enough so that they don't end up sweeping the streets before they give up again. As long as there is a system, there will be people that know how to screw it, unfortunately.

I sound really anti-welfare now, and I'm really not. I believe that those that need help should get it, and unfortunately that means that there will be some people who are milking the system who will get away with it, but I would love to find ways to minimise it.

[bullywee]

Yeah, but the 18-year old wasters ( ) have never had a job, so they haven't been taxed. They may well pay it off in the future, but if they're planning on being unemployed on the long-term and living off benefits they won't for some time.

this is a flaw in the system, but how can you tell what someone's real intentions are? unless we train a load of donal mcintyre's to perform undercover sting operations.

i obviously agree that something should be done, but i don't believe that sending unemployed people out to do chores is the right answer.

[xbl]

This thread is making me sad. I used to love TITP (I'd still go now, but I'm getting all old), and I still enjoy drinking shots.

[Lisa Cuddy]

This thread is making me sad. I used to love TITP (I'd still go now, but I'm getting all old), and I still enjoy drinking shots.

You can't be any older than when I went to TITP for the first time. If I wasn't pregnant, I'd be trying to get a ticket to go this year and hanging out drinking shots with my uni pals.

[Hedgecutter]

I don't think it's a great idea for the short-term unemployed by any means. It would probably be quite demoralising in fact...

Ask your local council binman if he finds it demoralising, the guy that's bitten the bullet, does the same thing for a living, packs his lunch in a sunblest bag while the neds all call him Bogey.

In a perfect situation, people might actually smell the coffee and look for jobs elsewhere rather than multiplying and bringing kids up in areas with already poor employment prospects. I've never agreed with the 'I was born here, I'll always live here' mentality, myself having lived in the Central Belt for a while and moving back up to the North East for better job prospects. The reason I lived in Brechin in the first place was because my dad left East Kilbride after the Ravenscraig thing and got a job up in Aberdeen (that's a lie actually, he got jobs in Chester and Wales first). We then moved back down to the Central Belt again for a better job and thought job prospects would be better for me and my brothers there than Brechin. I then duely said screw this given the choice and then moved back up north-east again. Had he not done that, I could be a Weegie dole scrounger for all I know.

So that's another unpopular opinion - If there aren't any jobs in your area, get up and move somewhere where there is work if you're able to instead of breeding in one spot and making the place even worse.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Hedgecutter

[xbl]

You can't be any older than when I went to TITP for the first time. If I wasn't pregnant, I'd be trying to get a ticket to go this year and hanging out drinking shots with my uni pals.

Its more because I don't really hang around with the same sort of people who go to those things any more. I'm still low life scum, but most of my friends are marginally less so.

[Lisa Cuddy]

Ask your local council binman if he finds it demoralising, the guy that's bitten the bullet, packs his lunch in a sunblest bag and does the same thing for a living while the neds all call him Bogey.

In a perfect situation, people might actually smell the coffee and look for jobs elsewhere rather than multiplying and bringing kids up in areas with already poor employment prospects. I've never agreed with the 'I was born here, I'll always live here' mentality, myself having lived in the Central Belt for a while and moving back up to the North East for better job prospects. The reason I lived in Brechin in the first place was because my dad left East Kilbride after the Ravenscraig thing and got a job up in Aberdeen (that's a lie actually, he got jobs in Chester and Wales first). We then moved back down to the Central Belt again for a better job and thought job prospects would be better for me and my brothers there than Brechin. I then duely said screw this given the choice and then moved back up north-east again. Had he not done that, I could be a Weegie dole scrounger for all I know.

So that's another unpopular opinion - If there aren't any jobs in your area, get up and move somewhere where there is work instead of breeding in one spot and making the place even worse.

I don't mean cleaning as a career choice. I meant being told that you're going to have to go and do it because you've been unemployed so long. I don't think there's any shame in doing the job of a binman at all, and we'd be a lot worse off without them.

I don't think your opinion is unpopular really, and I agree. I do think though that it's not that simple. I'd move tomorrow if not for a whole heap of reasons why I can't. Someone who is struggling to find work is unlikely to just be able to pack up and travel elsewhere without the cash to do so. You're right though. You sometimes have to be prepared to change some things about yourself and your situation if you want to improve it.

[vikingTON]

I agree, perhaps not with Alcoholism but with Heroin addiction. Anyone in Scotland who takes Heroin for the first time in this day and age knows exactly what sort of life they are heading for, and how addictive it is. I can't understand why any single person, who obviously knows and sees what it does to people can choose to take it for the first time, and i have zero sympathy for them for doing that, which in effect means i have zero sympathy for anything they do in future. I've saw the trouble they cause to families and lives, and it was all brought upon themselves from the moment they decided they were going to ruin their lives.

All sympathies should be spent on the families who have to pick up the pieces and have their lives ruined by these people, theyre the ones that have to suffer the consequences of other peoples actions through no fault of their own while the culprits get benefits thrown at them and all the help in the world to give them the sort of lifestyle that means they never have to give up their habit or make a better life for themselves.

Why do you think the decision to take heroin is an entirely conscious choice? AFAIK most studies point to previous addictions with a switch from gateway to hard drugs, the role of external influences in decision-making, arguably mental health which none of us are even remotely in control of.

How many people do you seriously think leave school one day and shoot up for the first time the next? It's a completely false scenario you're railing against.

Useful degrees such as engineering or science should be free. Completely useless ones like art or media or drama the student should have to pay for.

Who determines 'useful' or 'useless'? What factors should be used to measure this claim?

For example, given the significant economic contribution arts and culture provides the UK, I can't quite work out how you could find a rational basis of doing so.

You'd probably have to rig the system to get the pet degrees through.

And? You end up with clean streets. What's the problem?

I don't think it's a great idea for the short-term unemployed by any means. It would probably be quite demoralising in fact, but I do think it would deal with a lot of the wasters that consider the welfare system their employers.

I know there are some people that are long-term unemployed who haven't made the choice to become layabouts and desperately want to be earning a living for their families, but they also tend to be the kind of people that won't let their pride get in the way of earning it. It's also the reason that, should it ever happen, that it not become a full-time job and hours should be in accordance with the amount they are paid.

The two highlighted parts are generalisations though.

Out of interest, does this apply to people who choose to be a stay-at-home parents, regardless of their family income?

For anyone that complains that those made to work for their dole money, bear in mind that if you're a family man or woman and you find yourself signing on, you also get your rent and the majority of the council tax paid for you. Not many people in full-time jobs, even with a low income, can qualify for that.

Two wrongs fallacy though. That doesn't justify the unemployed labour scheme, that only justifies a correct reshaping of the current welfare system among the employed.

This thread is making me sad. I used to love TITP (I'd still go now, but I'm getting all old), and I still enjoy drinking shots.

I still do both. I really don't get the shots one though, who is at a nightclub and isn't in some way or other, seeking attention? Everyone does, it's hypocrisy.

[Colin M]

who is at a nightclub and isn't in some way or other, seeking attention?

People who like music and dancing?

[Lisa Cuddy]

The two highlighted parts are generalisations though.

Out of interest, does this apply to people who choose to be a stay-at-home parents, regardless of their family income?

Of course they're generalisations. I said as much when I pointed out that this doesn't apply to everyone who has been umemployed in the long-term.

You don't tend to find those that choose to be stay-at-home parents sign on the dole, either.

[H_B]

Out of interest, does this apply to people who choose to be a stay-at-home parents, regardless of their family income?

Surely they wouldn't be relying on the welfare system to fund their lifestyle?

[vikingTON]

You don't tend to find those that choose to be stay-at-home parents sign on the dole, either.

Again with the generalisations.

[vikingTON]

People who like music and dancing?

Dancing in a nightclub is comfortably equal, if not greater, in the attention-seeking stakes than taking shots.

[H_B]

Again with the generalisations.

There was a thread on here a couple of years ago where a female poster tried to pretend that raising a child was an occupation, and that the state (or rather, people like me) should pay for her to do so until the child was 12 or something.

Strangely, several posters thought this was fair enough

[vikingTON]

Surely they wouldn't be relying on the welfare system to fund their lifestyle?

They would be perfectly entitled to some support. I'm pretty sure that during the 'Credit Crunch' there were news reports of yummy mummies (and daddies) 'facing the indignity of the dole' as a small security against their partner's future employment.