English rioters may lose gov. benefits

What I've tried to explain in here is that those who have their benefits removed, in an effort to survive, will turn to crime (if they already haven't) and do what they must to have money to purchase food or in some cases, simply stealing/shoplifting in order to have a few meals per day. And if they are on the streets with no place to go, you'll find them in some cases squatting in peoples property, or garages, or barns, etc or just anywhere they can in town...and again the opportunity for crime rises.

Those who commit crimes and are caught will no doubtedly be arrested, tried and if convicted, sentenced to prision terms. All at public expense.

So you can't really win either way. welfare is obviously a more cost effective way then incarceration. Of course for many in here is a knee-jerk reaction of either cutting off their benefits or taking them out into a field, putting a gun to their heads and pulling the trigger; both are poor alternatives to continuing welfare and working with them to find work.

 

Guess that millionaires daughter was rioting, looting and setting fires because she was hungry huh????

 

Probably starving for attention.

 

Oh, well that makes it all right then...carry on.

 

Hey, There will always be exceptions. There will always be people looking to live REALLY well without having to work at all. There will always be dead-beats, I admit that.

But I don't think it's right or cost effective to punish many for the actions of a few. Paying that one girl may be cheaper in the long run than not paying anyone at all, And having those people rioting or stealing on the streets, Only to be jailed, Which would have to be paid for as well.

It's not a black and white, All or nothing issue. It would be wise not to treat it as such.

Thank you for your time.

 

If you want to argue that there is a constant battle between workers and capital
(employers always wanting more and more for less and less, workers wanting better conditions and more money for their work) you'll get no fight from me. But that's not the issue.

The issue is we already spend billions as a society (when all is totaled up) to service the underclass and assuage our guilt because there are poor people in this country (although a profound lack of motivation and effort may well be the reason for this, in many cases). In society, the number of grasshoppers are getting ever larger while the number of ants shrinks decade by decade. This is a serious problem!

These people are inarguably parasites, living off the work and money of others. If they break the law do we still owe them anything? I say no.

 

So, Are you willing to exterminate the grasshoppers? Because as their numbers grow and their sources of income dry up, I submit they will become more aggressive in their efforts to get what they want. Are you willing to kill them, Or if not are you willing to spend more of your time watching them die in the streets around you?

If you are, Then let's just accelerate the process and get to it right now. If not, Then let's start working toward a compromise that benefits everyone.

Thank you for your time.

 

Let me refer you back to my comment about your Hobson's choice. The choice is not between killing off street scum and paying them off to be nice fellows.

 

Numbers grow both ways Rexxon. I noticed in some of the videos, law abiding citizens banding together. They also tend to be ones who vote. Vote for people who will bring about the proper legislation required.

Cost is difficult to determine. This may very well cause more riots, and more destruction. However, there may very well be more riots, and more destruction if they were simply charged and jailed. It only took the shooting of a man, who was pointing a gun at police to trigger this.

As I've stated before, fear is the common denominator, for all situations...and that is exactly why, when someone stated about extortion it rings true, because it is fear based.

Anything done to them will result in money being spent, except with this technique, it holds money from them, meaning saved money, and, may produce the proper fear from them, and, additional fear from their parents regarding getting cut off.

 

So, We don't kill them, And then we don't give them any support.

In my opinion, That will just cause things to grow worse.

As we cut off all support, Those poor, hungry people will still have to live. Some will manage to adapt to eating out of trashcans and sleeping under bridges. Some will find some small employment and accept that they will never have what they had.

But I feel that a majority of these people will either die of starvation and the elements, Or steal to survive. Obviously, Those that are caught stealing to survive will have to be jailed or punished for their crimes, Right?

You know that jailing those people cost money, Right? We at the very least provide inmates with 2 or 3 meals a day, A cot to sleep on, and enough healthcare support to survive, and it all costs money. Thus, we are pretty much paying for these type of people no matter WHICH choice we make. I simply want us to make the choice that every group can agree with.

Please feel free to provide any ideas on options to prevent the rapid rise of crime that will likely occur with the rise in poverty, Or any other opinions.

Thank you for your time.

 

Yeah, it might cause the Entitlement Class to riot, or something....oh, wait...

 

Very true, and certainly there are people who would rather work harder than be poor and starving, I agree there. And yes, Businesses would almost assuredly band together with those that make more money in order to protect themselves from the poor.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is the more close-minded people get to getting ONLY what they want, the more likely we are to be growing into a more violent world. Both the employer and the employee should try to compromise to find practices that both sides can agree to. Neither side should grow to the point where they hold and hoard all of the negotiation power. Right now, I feel that employers have the majority of the negotiation powers, and Employees have very little power to negotiate their pay and benefits.

The amount of violence and bloodshed will only increase as people grow more close-minded to negotiation and compromise. Shouldn't we try to make changes to our policies now to prevent this from happening in the future?

Thank you for your time.

 

If I have to support them anyway, I'd rather it be from prison where they can't do any more damage.

 

And how do you think that could be stopped? Hmmm? Let me give you a clue:

 

UK is virtually unarmed....it's as if they knew this would one day come

Our punk lefties have a few more "externalities" to contend with.

 

Even if it's more expensive in the long term? If so, Then that's cool. That's your choice and I respect it.

Thanks for continuing the conversation.

 

If they continue to steal, loot, burn and do more damage, it may not be more expensive in the long run.

 

That could be true too.
Boy, It would sure help if someone would try and figure a cost analysis of the costs of jailing vs. letting them riot vs. providing a basic level of support, wouldn't it?

 

Providing the basic level of support?

Bleeding heart libs who want to wipe every nose have created these ungrateful morons.

They need to be cut off from the government teat and forced to fend for themselves.

Then maybe they would not be so ungrateful for the help they do get.

 

Lefties believe "austerity measures" are an optional economic model.

 

A couple things to remember:

Not all of those who were arrested will be convicted. So it's not as if some massive number of U.K youth/impoverished will suddenly find themselves "sleeping in a van down by the river". Also, not everyone who has been charged receives benefits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-courtrooms-country

Those who were convicted, have the chance to get their benefits back later. They have to go through counseling, attend programs and such.

 

That's a very extreme approach, along with the protect them from every ill and provide every want and desire approach as well. I advocate neither of these.

If left to fend for themselves, I forsee a number of outcomes:

Those that are not working at all for their handouts, Some will start to work to survive. I'm ok with this, As I feel people should be working anyway.

Of those that cannot find work or refuse to, Some will die of starvation and the elements, Others will eke out a life on the street, Eating out of garbage cans and sleeping under covered porches,bridges,cardboard boxes. They will no doubt try and ask for money from people on the street, Which from what I've seen doesn't sit well with many. Others will get angry and start stealing for their survival. I'm not very fond of these last 2 outcomes, Obviously.

So, Again, Are you willing to kill them? Are you willing to walk the streets and pass what may possibly be a dead body that died of the elements and is resting on the street? Are you willing to pay for the costs of incarcerating the ones that steal to survive for the rest of their lives? Even if the sheer numbers of the poor and hungry keep increasing?

Man, No compromise at all? You realize this lack of compromise is only going to speed up the end. Not necessarily the end of the world, But at least the end of many, Many human lives. That's cold, In my opinion.

Thank you for your time.

 

You think it's all right then? That's a bit of a turn around.

 

Well, first off, I think you and I have different view of what poor is.

However, regarding costs, I will work along the lines that they are already receiving entitlements from the government. So, technically, they are already costing tax money.

So, if they are tossed in jail, the government saves the entitlement costs, but picks up the tab for their incarceration. And, what I get is, a guy who wants to rob, ruin and potentially kill me and my family, is off the streets.

So, this way, the government saves the entitlements, because they won't get it again, even after getting out of jail. And, what I get is, a guy who wants to rob, ruin and potentially kill me and my family, is off the streets, and my tax money to the government is being spent on something other than that guy.

That could be more police, or, more entitlement programmes, or my pot holes getting fixed twice this year instead of once, or decreased tution costs for some.

Now, when the guy gets out, he will have a tougher go of it, to get work, and made tougher by the fact that he can't get entitlements. I'd give it 70/30he will be a criminal element, which, will land him on my dime yet again, and, for a longer period of time.

What this leads me to, is that since I will not give in to extortion, then I will have to pay for his incarceration, and if I have to pay for his incarceration, then I want reforms to the penal system, where prisons are real prisons, and deterrence is achieved through fear of that.

And I get that, by voting in the people who will bring that about.

 

It's not the first time that it's happened and it won't be the last but in the main, it's over.