Benefit claimants who break the law could be stripped of up to five times as much state cash per week in fines, the Prime Minister has warned.

Those who fail to pay a fine after they have been convicted of a crime could lose up to £25 per week instead of the present £5 maximum.

A £25 penalty would represent about 37% of the present rate of jobseeker's allowance

With the summer riots still fresh in the nation's memory, the Prime Minister said the plans will show offenders they cannot get away with paying "the bare minimum".

Official figures showed 40% of those appearing in court for rioting across England were claiming a state benefit of some kind, compared to 12% for the general population.

news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16098921

Promises promises itk. How many previous Governments have made these idle threats before?

Brilliant thinking !

give whoever came up with this scheme a medal.

take away money from those who can least afford it (which may, or may not be a reason they rioted in the first place causing tens of millions of pounds in damages) and that'll teach 'em to tow the line.

Alternatively they must just start stealing, shoplifting etc etc to make up the short fall but if they do, come down on them like a ton of bricks and lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Of course it may be cheaper to bang up prisoners in the Ritz with the current over crowding jails draining government finances but as long as they are tough on crime.

Another case of a forward thinking politicians tackling the real problems of society.

Only a loony would think this social engineering stuff won't work.

veritias wrote:
Brilliant thinking !

give whoever came up with this scheme a medal.

take away money from those who can least afford it (which may, or may not be a reason they rioted in the first place causing tens of millions of pounds in damages) and that'll teach 'em to tow the line.

YES - make they take responsibilty at long last !!

Punishments HAVE to be punitive, veritas !

Alternatively they must just start stealing, shoplifting etc etc to make up the short fall but if they do, come down on them like a ton of bricks and lock 'em up and throw away the key.

I told you shooting them was cheaper !

angel wrote:
Promises promises itk. How many previous Governments have made these idle threats before?

We'll see, angel - we'll see.

People said that about the cuts didn't they ?

angel is correct.

It will never happen. It's just a dream.

your claim that 'Punishments HAVE to be punitive' is a joke.

punishments are highly selective.

Nick some money while you are on benefits and get a jail sentence.

Send a bank broke and get a bonus.

Toss a brick through a window in a 'riot' and get a jail sentence.

Toss some missiles on innocent Libyans/Iraqis/Afghanis and kill a wedding party..be rewarded with a diplomatic post.

In The Know wrote:
Benefit claimants who break the law could be stripped of up to five times as much state cash per week in fines, the Prime Minister has warned.

Those who fail to pay a fine after they have been convicted of a crime could lose up to £25 per week instead of the present £5 maximum.

A £25 penalty would represent about 37% of the present rate of jobseeker's allowance

With the summer riots still fresh in the nation's memory, the Prime Minister said the plans will show offenders they cannot get away with paying "the bare minimum".

Official figures showed 40% of those appearing in court for rioting across England were claiming a state benefit of some kind, compared to 12% for the general population.

news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16098921

The welfare system here in the UK has been a joke a long time.It worked in times of full employment,but since the late 60s has been increasingly shown to be out of date,and to encourage 'welfare dependency'.
This was avoided by PMs from Wilson on,fearful of the one seen to be the axe person.

My only concern is it's done right,not for the wrong reasons.I've seen too many people around the world suffering because of sickness or lack of opportunity to not want to remove it from the deserving,but we really do need to wake up to economic reality,and reduce waste.

Innocent Accused wrote:
In The Know wrote:
Benefit claimants who break the law could be stripped of up to five times as much state cash per week in fines, the Prime Minister has warned.

Those who fail to pay a fine after they have been convicted of a crime could lose up to £25 per week instead of the present £5 maximum.

A £25 penalty would represent about 37% of the present rate of jobseeker's allowance

With the summer riots still fresh in the nation's memory, the Prime Minister said the plans will show offenders they cannot get away with paying "the bare minimum".

Official figures showed 40% of those appearing in court for rioting across England were claiming a state benefit of some kind, compared to 12% for the general population.

news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16098921

The welfare system here in the UK has been a joke a long time.It worked in times of full employment,but since the late 60s has been increasingly shown to be out of date,and to encourage 'welfare dependency'.
This was avoided by PMs from Wilson on,fearful of the one seen to be the axe person.

My only concern is it's done right,not for the wrong reasons.I've seen too many people around the world suffering because of sickness or lack of opportunity to not want to remove it from the deserving,but we really do need to wake up to economic reality,and reduce waste.

you are correct in most of what you say IA but I would question the use of words like 'welfare dependency' and all those terms that imply something apart from what has really happened.

You may as well say these people are 'food dependent' or 'housing and electricity dependent' and so on for they certainly are but welfare, which is a s far I can see ,ispretty low in the UK and just enough to provide the basics , if that.

Every PM has ignore a growing problem -that of new technology that is making employment largely redundant for masses of people. That problem is increased by a rampant media-as exemplified by Murdoch, that there are instant solutions to all these things and that people are largely responsible on a personal level for an economy that they have no control over.

My personal view (which few accept)is that all of this is exacerbated by a Puritan 'work ethic' rampant in the UK, exported to the USA and now out of control there that creates this myth that people are getting something for free because the State tosses them a few coins so they an survive.

veritas wrote:
My personal view (which few accept) is that all of this is exacerbated by a Puritan 'work ethic' rampant in the UK, exported to the USA and now out of control there that creates this myth that people are getting something for free because the State tosses them a few coins so they an survive.

a few coins ?

AND free housing ...

AND NO Council Tax ...

While these scroungers are staying in bed (knocking out even more welfare dependent leaches) an ordinary (but working !) family is struggling AFTER they have made a contribution to the UK.

veritas wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:
In The Know wrote:
Benefit claimants who break the law could be stripped of up to five times as much state cash per week in fines, the Prime Minister has warned.

Those who fail to pay a fine after they have been convicted of a crime could lose up to £25 per week instead of the present £5 maximum.

A £25 penalty would represent about 37% of the present rate of jobseeker's allowance

With the summer riots still fresh in the nation's memory, the Prime Minister said the plans will show offenders they cannot get away with paying "the bare minimum".

Official figures showed 40% of those appearing in court for rioting across England were claiming a state benefit of some kind, compared to 12% for the general population.

news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16098921

The welfare system here in the UK has been a joke a long time.It worked in times of full employment,but since the late 60s has been increasingly shown to be out of date,and to encourage 'welfare dependency'.
This was avoided by PMs from Wilson on,fearful of the one seen to be the axe person.

My only concern is it's done right,not for the wrong reasons.I've seen too many people around the world suffering because of sickness or lack of opportunity to not want to remove it from the deserving,but we really do need to wake up to economic reality,and reduce waste.

you are correct in most of what you say IA but I would question the use of words like 'welfare dependency' and all those terms that imply something apart from what has really happened.

You may as well say these people are 'food dependent' or 'housing and electricity dependent' and so on for they certainly are but welfare, which is a s far I can see ,ispretty low in the UK and just enough to provide the basics , if that.

Every PM has ignore a growing problem -that of new technology that is making employment largely redundant for masses of people. That problem is increased by a rampant media-as exemplified by Murdoch, that there are instant solutions to all these things and that people are largely responsible on a personal level for an economy that they have no control over.

My personal view (which few accept)is that all of this is exacerbated by a Puritan 'work ethic' rampant in the UK, exported to the USA and now out of control there that creates this myth that people are getting something for free because the State tosses them a few coins so they an survive.

Veritas the causes will of course vary,but the result is people trapped in a cycle where without welfare payments they could not live...that is my view of what constitutes dependency.
The benefits themselves have caused this,pushing up rents to high levels,and the fact that a basic wage is not enough to live on shows we still have a long way to encourage the type of self reliance necessary if our economy is going to be able to afford it.
Sometimes the medicine is hard to swallow,but swallowed it must be.The only difference is are we a caring type of doctor? Or do we relish seeing the pain in others?

Innocent Accused wrote:
veritas wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:
In The Know wrote:
Benefit claimants who break the law could be stripped of up to five times as much state cash per week in fines, the Prime Minister has warned.

Those who fail to pay a fine after they have been convicted of a crime could lose up to £25 per week instead of the present £5 maximum.

A £25 penalty would represent about 37% of the present rate of jobseeker's allowance

With the summer riots still fresh in the nation's memory, the Prime Minister said the plans will show offenders they cannot get away with paying "the bare minimum".

Official figures showed 40% of those appearing in court for rioting across England were claiming a state benefit of some kind, compared to 12% for the general population.

news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16098921

The welfare system here in the UK has been a joke a long time.It worked in times of full employment,but since the late 60s has been increasingly shown to be out of date,and to encourage 'welfare dependency'.
This was avoided by PMs from Wilson on,fearful of the one seen to be the axe person.

My only concern is it's done right,not for the wrong reasons.I've seen too many people around the world suffering because of sickness or lack of opportunity to not want to remove it from the deserving,but we really do need to wake up to economic reality,and reduce waste.

you are correct in most of what you say IA but I would question the use of words like 'welfare dependency' and all those terms that imply something apart from what has really happened.

You may as well say these people are 'food dependent' or 'housing and electricity dependent' and so on for they certainly are but welfare, which is a s far I can see ,ispretty low in the UK and just enough to provide the basics , if that.

Every PM has ignore a growing problem -that of new technology that is making employment largely redundant for masses of people. That problem is increased by a rampant media-as exemplified by Murdoch, that there are instant solutions to all these things and that people are largely responsible on a personal level for an economy that they have no control over.

My personal view (which few accept)is that all of this is exacerbated by a Puritan 'work ethic' rampant in the UK, exported to the USA and now out of control there that creates this myth that people are getting something for free because the State tosses them a few coins so they an survive.

Veritas the causes will of course vary,but the result is people trapped in a cycle where without welfare payments they could not live...that is my view of what constitutes dependency.
The benefits themselves have caused this,pushing up rents to high levels,and the fact that a basic wage is not enough to live on shows we still have a long way to encourage the type of self reliance necessary if our economy is going to be able to afford it.
Sometimes the medicine is hard to swallow,but swallowed it must be.The only difference is are we a caring type of doctor? Or do we relish seeing the pain in others?

I absolutely agree IA but this omelette is going to be difficult to unscramble without careful planning which I do not believe most politicians (or me) are capable of doing except the most obvious-slash and burn.

You are so right about rent price, housing costs increase etc, mostly artificially inflated but the idea of dramatically taking a huge swathe of money (welfare) that is pumped into society every week- out- can have dire consequences as the USA is experiencing and which will soon become a calamity there.

As for generational 'dependency'- a major tragedy....I have seen time after time, disconnected yoof once given an opportunity ( like a job) will thrive and never wish to go backwards.

My first solution would be a crackdown on corporate tax avoidance evidenced by (but indulged in by thousands of companies) News Corp's dodgy accounting that sees it pay a fraction of tax on profits earned in the UK, USA and Australia.

veritas,agree on the corporate tax,but benefits have to be cut.
it was once said you can't have a welfare state and immigration,they were so right.
ITK is right,but for the wrong reasons.