Obese Family “Too Fat To Work”, Demands More Benefits

[Liger_zero9999]

It’s not our fault we can’t work. We deserve more

ummm. YES it is your fault, and no you dont deserve more!

 

[Napalmbrain]

To be fair though, the article isn't exactly neutral.

For a start, it lumps the family in together. They're racking up benefits, because each one of them is having one of the benefits, rather than a few having multiple. It's four people, all adults, claiming four benefits. Not exactly news worthy for a 4:4 ratio. The fact that they had to say "“Jobseeker’s Allowance” (unemployment benefit)" kinda makes me wonder about the intended audience for this article, with the need to use brackets.

Besides, chances are that the family members that can work, are probably from the underclass, regardless of the current economy. They're likely to be unqualified, undesirable (in terms of age or experience) and have simply fallen through the gaps in the system. Not to mention that nowadays, with so much unemployment, we cannot be seriously saying "get a job, lazy", when there are people being laid off left, right and centre. If they couldn't get a job (for whatever reason - the Jobcentre isn't exactly easy going on people not actively looking for work (and lets face it, I don't truely think that living on £120 a fortnight and having nothing to really contribute to the world is an ideal way of living, and I don't think those people in that situation would disagree with me), and they must have been searching for a job and provide evidence for it, or else they wouldn't still be claiming).

As for time to lose weight, I think it's also a case of whether they have the facilities to do so. Walking works only certain muscles, and those usually aren't the ones around the midrift. They're the legs and lungs. And that's not talking about the two members of the family that are at least temporarily disabled.

While I see many reasons for them behaving in the way they do, I also see why they're flawed in their reasoning. Everybody has to take responsibility for their own lives. Sometimes it isn't a case of having enough cash. But then the combined benefits are misleading in this regard as well, claiming £22,500 per year for the family, rather than an individual. Between four of them, it is £5625 per year. Per month it is £468.75 each. Per week it is £108 each. Not exactly livin' it up. Considering the national average salary is (in 2008 at least) £23,700. So they're 4 adults living on a budget just below the national average for one person.

You're missing my point. I'm not annoyed because they can't get a job at the moment- hell, loads of us can't a job right now. It's because they haven't got a job in 11 years.

 

[captainff]

But then the combined benefits are misleading in this regard as well, claiming £22,500 per year for the family, rather than an individual. Between four of them, it is £5625 per year. Per month it is £468.75 each. Per week it is £108 each. Not exactly livin' it up. Considering the national average salary is (in 2008 at least) £23,700. So they're 4 adults living on a budget just below the national average for one person.

A small correction to your maths if I may? It doesn't make a huge difference but .. .. .. .. ..

If they are getting, as reported, £22,500 per year that would equate to roughly £30k annual salary because of the tax and NI that a working person would have deducted from their earnings. So the equivalent amounts for a working person would be gross of £7500 per year each or £144 per week.




Back to the specific family .. .. .. as I linked earlier they were one of the few families evicted from their house for antisocial behaviour. Your suggestion of them being "undesirable" is likely therefore to be accurate. If that's the case then, knowing that this could take the conversation to a whole new heated level, why should they receive the level of benefit payout that they do?

 

[Squall7]

You're missing my point. I'm not annoyed because they can't get a job at the moment- hell, loads of us can't a job right now. It's because they haven't got a job in 11 years.

While it does seem a bit excessive, it's easily explainable. Personally, I think this is the problem in a society which tries to cram (many) people into (few) jobs (often unsuccessfully and unjustly) instead of creating jobs for people.

Give this family an internet connection, some training, and a computer and they'll be capable of doing work from home. But how many jobs that can be done from home, simply aren't?

 

[DBloke]

Just noticed the pics not in the op

Besides, chances are that the family members that can work, are probably from the underclass, regardless of the current economy. They're likely to be unqualified, undesirable (in terms of age or experience) and have simply fallen through the gaps in the system. Not to mention that nowadays, with so much unemployment, we cannot be seriously saying "get a job, lazy", when there are people being laid off left, right and centre. If they couldn't get a job (for whatever reason - the Jobcentre isn't exactly easy going on people not actively looking for work (and lets face it, I don't truely think that living on £120 a fortnight and having nothing to really contribute to the world is an ideal way of living, and I don't think those people in that situation would disagree with me), and they must have been searching for a job and provide evidence for it, or else they wouldn't still be claiming).

11 years tho
Its a very long time
Im what you would call unqualified as well and ive had jobs
The JSA is ment for people that are looking for work (I know im on it) and they like to ask "What have you done to look for work?"
Desk jobs are for people like that
As are jobs on chat up lines

As for time to lose weight, I think it's also a case of whether they have the facilities to do so. Walking works only certain muscles, and those usually aren't the ones around the midrift. They're the legs and lungs. And that's not talking about the two members of the family that are at least temporarily disabled.

You can loose weight by getting of your arse at least once a day

 

[Squall7]

A small correction to your maths if I may? It doesn't make a huge difference but .. .. .. .. ..

If they are getting, as reported, £22,500 per year that would equate to roughly £30k annual salary because of the tax and NI that a working person would have deducted from their earnings. So the equivalent amounts for a working person would be gross of £7500 per year each or £144 per week.

Fair enough. Still not exactly rolling in it.

Back to the specific family .. .. .. as I linked earlier they were one of the few families evicted from their house for antisocial behaviour. Your suggestion of them being "undesirable" is likely therefore to be accurate. If that's the case then, knowing that this could take the conversation to a whole new heated level, why should they receive the level of benefit payout that they do?

While I understand the slight antisocial behaviour is a problem that should be dealt with, and strictly speaking they should have given the keys back, I do feel that a few bouts of playing music too loud and too late is a not exactly worthy of being evicted. Now if it were causing fights, smashing windows, damaging public property etc... I could understand it. Heck there are a fair few people out there that do all that and still don't get evicted. And really, can we expect for them to refuse to hand over keys unless alternative accomodation was provided for.

It's actually quite difficult these days for the homeless to get back into a house. For most jobs you need a bank account. For bank accounts you need a permanent address. Not to mention all the legality with help and homelessness. This is speaking from personal experience here. It ain't anything to joke about and it certainly is no punishment.

11 years tho
Its a very long time

After re-reading the article, I noticed it only said living off benefits for 11 years. He could have been on JSA a lot less time than that. In fact, that 11 years may have been with disability benefit or something. Very tricky that article.

Im what you would call unqualified as well and ive had jobs

You're also young. They neglect to say which person has the JSA. Is it the father or the daughter?

The JSA is ment for people that are looking for work (I know im on it) and they like to ask "What have you done to look for work?"
Desk jobs are for people like that
As are jobs on chat up lines

Indeed. Been there myself. Have known many people that have been in the position (some still are). I also know how meticulous and the smallest sign that you're not searching enough and they cut your money in a shot.

You can loose weight by getting of your arse at least once a day

Technically, they must do to go to the fridge or freezer. The problem is, is that it's not just physical. It's also psychological. And to be honest, I don't think the general public's reaction to this is helping.

 

[Battousai]

i should become fat and say im too Fat to work

Im Too Ugly to Work! would that work?

 

[ROB64]

Fair enough. Still not exactly rolling in it.

They shouldn't even have any of "it" as they've been living off the government for 11 years and as such, obviously aren't searching for work.

 

[Squall7]

They shouldn't even have any of "it" as they've been living off the government for 11 years and as such, obviously aren't searching for work.

Yes because those that have benefits for 11 years don't deserve any money (and subsequently any food, home or survival)./sarcasm

In an interview with Closer Magazine this week, Philip Chawner, 53, a former truck driver, claimed that his diabetes was causing him to fall asleep behind the wheel. His wife, Audrey, 57, volunteered at a disabled children's clinic but her epilepsy prevents her from leaving home.

Geez, if it is the father on JSA, no wonder he's currently unemployed. Most jobs tend to require that the employee stay awake... Also, if the epilepsy is so bad that she cannot leave the house, is it any wonder that she's on benefits (and rightly so).
Source:http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Fitness/Story?id=7122717&page=1

The family claim to spend £50 a week on food and consume 3,000 calories each a day. The recommended maximum intake is 2,000 for women and 2,500 for men.

£50 a week on food? Ain't exactly a lot for 4 adults. Would say that they should search around for the best deals on fruit and veg though.
Source:http://www.neatorama.com/2009/03/19/family-too-fat-to-work-gets-22000-a-year/

 

[Napalmbrain]

While it does seem a bit excessive, it's easily explainable. Personally, I think this is the problem in a society which tries to cram (many) people into (few) jobs (often unsuccessfully and unjustly) instead of creating jobs for people.

Give this family an internet connection, some training, and a computer and they'll be capable of doing work from home. But how many jobs that can be done from home, simply aren't?

It's not society's fault, it's their fault. They're the ones who haven't bothered to find a job after all this time. Yes, they could work from home, but it's their responsibility to find such a job, not our's.

Yes because those that have benefits for 11 years don't deserve any money (and subsequently any food, home or survival)./sarcasm

You could call it an incentive for them to do something about their problem.

 

[ROB64]

Yes because those that have benefits for 11 years don't deserve any money (and subsequently any food, home or survival)./sarcasm

If they're not disabled and/or are able to work, but choose to stay at home and not do anything about it, then no, they don't.

 

[Squall7]

If they're not disabled and/or are able to work,

The point is, that at least one of them is, another is on incapacity benefit (which is kinda like disability benefit, but temporary) and another is in education.

It's not society's fault, it's their fault. They're the ones who haven't bothered to find a job after all this time. Yes, they could work from home, but it's their responsibility to find such a job, not our's.

That's a bad way of looking at things. It's also a bad way for society to behave. If there are less jobs than people, you cannot blame the people who are left out for being without a job. Everyone should be able to contribute to a society in a way they see fit. Heck, if more people were doing what they enjoyed because those jobs were created for them, we'd be a happier society in general (and more productive because of it).

You could call it an incentive for them to do something about their problem.

Work or die? Doesn't seem very fair to me. I'm sure there are plenty of ways they would like to work, but just because there isn't a space for them in the jobs market, doesn't mean they should face homelessness.

Samantha receives £84 in Jobseekers’ Allowance each fortnight

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...es-83-stone-family-claim-simply-fat-work.html

eldest daughter Samantha (21)

Source: OP.

Either Samantha has been claiming JSA since she was 10 or JSA wasn't the benefit that they've been on for 11 years. Somehow I don't think it's the former.

As for the Asthma and Epilepsy being cause by obesity:
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/epilepsycauses.htm
http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/Mosby_factsheets/asthma.html#3

Never did hear of those things being cause by obesity. Especially obesity on its own...

 

[Napalmbrain]

That's a bad way of looking at things. It's also a bad way for society to behave. If there are less jobs than people, you cannot blame the people who are left out for being without a job. Everyone should be able to contribute to a society in a way they see fit. Heck, if more people were doing what they enjoyed because those jobs were created for them, we'd be a happier society in general (and more productive because of it).

As awesome as it would be for everyone to have any job they like, the real world doesn't work that way. How do you propose we get all these jobs created for everyone?

Work or die? Doesn't seem very fair to me. I'm sure there are plenty of ways they would like to work, but just because there isn't a space for them in the jobs market, doesn't mean they should face homelessness.

To put it bluntly- they had their chance. People shouldn't rely on the government to hold their hands forever, otherwise they'll have no incentive to look after themselves.

 

[captainff]

That's a bad way of looking at things. It's also a bad way for society to behave. If there are less jobs than people, you cannot blame the people who are left out for being without a job. Everyone should be able to contribute to a society in a way they see fit. Heck, if more people were doing what they enjoyed because those jobs were created for them, we'd be a happier society in general (and more productive because of it).

I know that we disagree fundamentally on this point from our previous outings on other threads.

I'm reminded of a time a few years ago when there were 750 people in Crawley, West Sussex, claiming Unemployment Benefit (for that's what it was called then) while the jobcenter had 1000 vacancies advertised in the area. I appreciate that the job market isn't quite the same right now .. .. ..


I think that you can blame people without a job. Sorry, because that applies to you either now or in the past. It isn't the employers' fault that an individual doesn't have the necessary skills or personality to perform a job, it is the fault of the individual. Creating jobs for the sake of it, a trick employed by every Labour Government, doesn't work. They need to be paid for somehow. If there are more people in 'created' jobs than 'real' jobs (yes, I know, you have my permission to rip that comment to shreds ) then the tax burden on those who work in necessary employment becomes overbearing. Artificially creating employment doesn't work in the mid to long term.

 

[ROB64]

^You can't say that not having a job is entirely the fault of the employee. There have been a lot of mass layoffs recently due to lack of funding to pay the employees, (granted, they might have more money if execs didn't award themselves million dollar bonuses, but that's another issue...) but this family wasn't a recent layoff, as they've been receiving money for quite a long time. And if they were searching for a job it might not be as bad, but these people have no desire to earn their own money and are contempt living off the taxpayers' money.