Yes, at least one was - EpsomRed as you say. But Klopptimist isn’t him.
In the final months of TIA it was quite alarming how some long-time posters revealed themselves to be antisemites or holocaust-deniers or flat-earthers or holding some fairly unusual views.
Just to echo @Kopstar’s comments. He definitely isnt @epsomred. I can’t remember right now which name he posted under over at TIA but his writing style is very distinct and completely different to the guy who was banned.
Also, as to character. While I disagree with a lot of what he says. I have no problem in believing @Klopptimist is genuine in his thoughts and a good guy. As @kopstar says much of his comments reflect his own experiences.
I’m not advocating food parcels. Just vouchers that can be spent in any shop / supermarket (on essentials) then no money get’s spent on things kids won’t eat. As for drip feeding bullshit about the feckless workshy, that’s been going on for many decades.
It’s an example and because it doesn’t fit your narrative you get all grumpy about it. Still, ignore the facts of actual events in the real world if you like, why admit that just possibly there are utter fools in the world.
Now that’s a conversation for a different thread. I wish my Grandma was still alive, she’d give you chapter and verse on being stomach achingly poor but NEVER cheating, swindling nor stealing.
It’s a brilliant point actually
My first instincts, when I was a younger more impressionable man, would be that these two females are scrounges.
Now, after years of hard work and experience, I realise the take home point isn’t that they are irresponsible, horrible, narcissistic human beings, but that they are just well targeted victims.
Could they be tougher and resist the urge to spend? Yes. But that’s the point, the constant advertising barrage just wears people down… especially those that have less…
So while you and me may dismiss people like that, just remember, they are victims of a system designed for them to sprnd every single cent they earn…
My family the same but there’s a few I know that are a little bit cheeky shall we say. Basically they know how to play the system a little, in many cases they have to.
Actually, that’s one of the greatest strawmans this forum has seen. You’re filling in conclusions to which I’ve never alluded.
The guys a prick.
Nowhere near as good a bloke as the likes of PTT and the rest…
I don’t think it is fair to tarnish all people on benefits with the same brush. Nor to make assumptions about people’s circumstances.
In Australia, my 9yo son’s best friend was from a family I would consider to be struggling. Single working mother with 3 kids ranging from about 5yo to 15yo. The friend of my son, also 9yo, would spend the entire afternoon until after dark hanging out on the streets without supervision. Mother would be working for long hours so couldn’t always be home for him. One day my son’s friend wasn’t in school due to illness and so my son had to drop off a plastic bag of food supplied by the school to his place (they lived just down the road). My son, being a bit inquisitive, checked the bag and it was packed with at least a weeks worth of fresh meat from the butcher. I don’t know if this is a standardised arrangement in Aus or whether this school has just identified families themselves that need a helping hand but I thought that’s a good idea.
Anyway, my son invited his friend over one day and the son brought over his new Samsung Galaxy and Switch Lite. This was around the time of his birthday but also around the time of government stimulus for those on benefits (March/April 2020). Could you conceivably connect some dots here? Sure. But he might also have received these as a gift from a grandparent. Who knows?
In your story, how do you know who bought the expensive buggies? Sure you could assume but IMO that’s dangerous.
Oh, thought when you said this
it sounded like food parcels. Sorry.
Food vouchers better than parcels. Still prefer people given cash, and therefore Dignity and responsibility.
I think the issue is we all have examples that suit our own narrative. But it’s the overall picture that is important.
I can’t remember the exact numbers, but for example they actual numbers on benefit fraud are tiny, but the perception of benefit fraud is ridiculously high. It’s something like 1% of benefits claimed fraudulently, but people think it’s more like a third.
Why keep referring to them as food parcels?
If as discussed previously the supermarkets deliver them they are just like any other customer surely.
This all goes back to the government being blamed for kids going hungry. If all benefits were paid in voucher form, this would not happen. As for responsibility, the stereotypes are too easy. If you have children you can’t afford to feed (yes there are many reasons why this could be the case) ultimately, how responsible are you?
What I find amusing about right wing views on social support policy (no cash because people cannot be trusted) is that they can so easily coexist with the belief that corporation income tax returns don’t require particularly high levels of audit, because corporations can largely be trusted.
That, despite the fact that most empirical studies of both phenomenon have found that the incidence of abuse for both is actually quite low in most G20 countries - with more variance on the corporate income tax side (Italy, take a bow).
Which then leads to the question of why some people believe that policy should be driven by the imperative to catch or prevent a small minority of abusers in one case, but not the other.
Here we go again
Are they really that thick?
The more stuff I hear the more I’m convinced they sit there doing nothing until something jumps up and bites. Then they move
Any ‘other customer’ would have picked the contents ot their food delivery parcel themselves and would have received substantially more for their £30. I doubt if any of the people receiving the stuff that was featured in the food parcels in the press recently picked that themselves.
My view is simply that done correctly, children need not be hungry. What that has to do with corporation tax I have no idea. I’m not talking about benefit fraud, just the fact that people do choose to spend money on things that are not important whilst their children have empty stomachs.
Comes down to whether or not the focus of any policy is ‘bad actors’, and whether or not all public policy should be focused on minimizing them as the first principle of design. You clearly do for social support.