English rioters may lose gov. benefits

I was actually pretty surprised to see such a strong and decisive proposal come this quickly. I'm impressed, I think they are on the right track... and with 200k supporters signing the petition... it's obvious many others feel the same.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c8970a8c-c688-11e0-bb50-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1V2B85OXa

For some of you this will not be popular, but you have to consider that benefits are not rights, and that the withholding of benefits in this case is conditional, they can be earned back (just like in Florida... where the 4th was abused to screw states and taxpayers).

 

Consequences for actions must be returned to the arrogantly demanding leftie horde.

 

That's a great idea.

Maybe instead of jailing people in this country we should consider cutting off their welfare checks instead.

 

It'll be interesting to see how far this goes. I can't imagine this thing going over without strong opposition.

 

It should, until all damages are paid for.

 

It's a novel idea, accountability and consequences for actions!

 

I couldn't read your link unless registered, but they should do this for sure, but will prolly cause more rioting, looting and arson, but they need to put these animals in there place, come hell or high water.

 

It is also proposed that they are evicted from council housing.

 

They can always work it off if money is short. Plenty of cleaning up for sure.

 

Here is another:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...m/110812/london-rioters-lose-welfare-benefits

Here is the e-petition with nearly 200k signatures:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337

 

Good!!!!!!!!!!! Bunch of spoiled lawless, mindless, useless, feral animal, sub human, idiots!!!!!!!

 

Not a good idea; then you'll have them still on street terrorising citizens and robbing people so then can buy/steal food, etc.

 

So reward the criminals??? Look here folks...liberalism at its finest!!!!

 

I wouldn't necessarily say it's rewarding criminal behavior, It's attempting to keep the level of violence and crime down.

Would it be more cost effective to placate these 'criminals' by providing a basic quality of life? Or would it be more cost effective to leave them on the streets and pay the price of increased violence and crime?

Or would it be more cost effective to just kill all the poor people to avoid the problem entirely?

See the problem? The most cost effective method may not be the most moral. Thus, The balance between morality and cost-effectiveness.

Thank you for your time.

 

Do you really have a clue? I know it will be tough, but try to put aside your partisan attitude and consider what I posted.

 

Hardly surprising a union member would support/defend/excuse extortion.

 

Yes, I have a clue. You are the one who doesn't have a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue. When you were widdle and you stole candy from the store, your mommy must have said...now honey if you're going to do that, don't get caught.

 

I highly doubt that thugs and criminals are looking for "basic quality of life". They are looking for an upgrade, at the expense of the people around them.

This is an example of a Hobson's Choice. Either we let them extort society or we simply let them run wild on the streets. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Being poor is not a crime. Being a criminal is a crime.

If you are a thug and a welfare recipient you should forfeit your right to sponge off of others.

 

Personally, I tend to think of this as a cost containment issue. As the severity of the crime increases, The costs of that crime increase as well.

Should these people be stealing, looting, rioting, etc? No, Of course not. But as they get poorer, They will also get more angry and desperate, And their numbers will grow.

If we jail all of them, Our costs to contain them will grow as well. Eventually, The costs to contain them will be more than what we can pay.

Thus, It comes back to: Do we provide enough to keep them from rioting? Do we Kill them? Do we compromise and try to find a deal everyone can agree with? I'm all for compromise: We provide a basic level of living standards to ANYONE that works a full time job that provides benefits/services to the masses.

Thank you for your time.

 

So when did being poor equal being a criminal?

 

They will NEVER open that floodgate, if progressives can block it or repeal it.

_


_

 

I can see that attempting to rationalize with you is a waste of time and bandwidth.

 

Likewise I'm sure.

 

Of course their looking to upgrade their standard of living. Just as employers are looking for ways to increase their profits by any means necessary, Even it it means changes that hurt their employees. It's the 'Tug-of-War' of life.

I work a full time job in customer service related fields in a call center. It's not an easy job, Despite what some may think. My employer treats the center like a call factory: Get the most calls out of their employees WHILE keeping the quality of calls as high as possible. The result, A very stressful job that grinds you down over the years until there is nothing left.

But hey, You would think a difficult job would pay well and give good benefits, Right? WRONG. The job has poor benefits and while it does pay above minimum wage, It's not enough to where I could maintain my standard of living alone. It's a good thing I have a room-mate.

Oh, and yeah, The employer also likes to maximize their profits by continually making me do more and more work, Without raising my pay or benefits to compensate. They know in a right-to-work state, If I don't agree they can just FIRE me. And could I just go and get another job? Sure, Except ALL businesses run the same way.

Bottom line, It's not like I want to live like a king without working. I'm willing to work a 40 hour work week. And I'm don't need to live like a king. I'd just like to maintain my middle-class standards. But as time passes and jobs are out-sourced, and my power to negotiate my wages and benefits are further eroded, I find myself getting more depressed and angry.

And I'm not even in the street, Poor, Starving, And Destitute yet. If the only choices I had to live was to steal money or food from other people, You bet your butt I would. And as long as businesses continue to push to lower my quality of life, I will do what I have to to raise my quality of life. I'll use all legal methods first, And only use illegal methods as a last resort. But I'll still use illegal methods If I have to.

Sorry if I come across as ranting. Thank you for your time.

 

A good post but totally over the head of most Republicans.