Benefits Britain come and get it

It is easy to get annoyed at some things, so this is what happens when I watch a TV program about people claiming welfare benefits who admit there is no incentive or desire to work because they get enough money from benefits.  The program on Channel 5 which is freely available on catch up TV is called "Benefits Britain" and each program follows the lives of benefits claimants who seem to enjoy the monies they receive through UK benefits but not contribute the same to the UK tax system as they take out of it except for paying VAT on goods they have to purchase. . 

 I saw a woman who was a refugee from Iran complain she did not have enough money to buy clothes and she wanted a bigger house, because in Iran her house had six bedrooms and servants, she never had to think about the cost of anything. Her husband who would smoke a packet of cigarettes every day in Iran would have to make one packet last four days.  They are too ill to work in the UK and are lost in the memories of what life used to be like, before she had a death warrant put on her.  Of course the one thing she did not say was she'd preferred being poor to being dead.  For this once rich family the benefits system they are claiming from is not generous enough.  Another woman living in Poland had her husband send money to her while he worked in the UK, he claimed child benefit for his son and this was sent to Poland.  She only sees her husband three or four times a year.  This is a family which is divided but is financially supported by a different country because the UK is in the EU.  Lastly was the case of a Romanian man who works in the UK and claims benefits because he has a wife and family in Romania.  The benefits he gets for his children in the form of Child Benefits and Child Tax Credits goes to rebuild his home in Romania.  The program showed this man return to Romania and help to supervise the improvements.  He boasts that in the next two or three years he expects to get about £50-£60k in benefits.  This is a phenomenal amount of money and is more than most people can earn. This is also very much the reason why there is an underlying and almost racist anger which is building up in the UK against the EU member states and membership of the EU.

Although facts and figures about what is put in by other non UK tax payers in to the tax system indicate more is contributed in than is taken out. This is not what such TV programs show.  They don't investigate the financial side and explain this, but they do sensationalise and therefore contribute to the anger indigenous UK inhabitants feel.  Therefore come a date in 2017 we may actually see the possibility of the UK people deciding or not whether to sever ties to the EU something many business people are unhappy to consider.

As for people taking advantage of the benefits system, this program shows there is something wrong with the entire system. There should be supporting authorities which train and help people into work, education for adults should be free, they need to be given self-esteem, help and shown they can be useful members of society.  Given all the possible opportunity they could have and then if they fail to take this chance they should be penalised.  The benefits system is wrong but so is every other societal system which which allows it to perpetuate.

Rebecca Minnock and child abduction

In the last week mother Rebecca Minnock has been plastered all over the news. All because she decided to run away with her three year old son Ethan.  She flagrantly went against a court order which had decided Ethan's father should have custody.  But in her own little mind Rebecca thought by running off with Ethan she would get publicity and the right to have her son back living with her.

This hardly makes sense to any normal thinking individual.  For the first thing which went through my mind was why on earth would the courts decide this little boy is better off with his father (Roger Williams) than his mother.  For in a way it is unusual, it was not shared custody as they had previously gotten, it was sole custody.  What the public is not privy to are the details of why the court heard in the father's favour. Gradually small snippets of information appear in the press, they are crumbs which lead to explain why the court made the decision they did. There is not much substance to them in any form at all but we are told Rebecca Minnock would not allow Ehan's father to see him. She made up stories, again what the allegations are we don't know however, we do know one social worker reported her as not "emotionally safe," what is meant by this is not elaborated. It does sound as though this woman has mental health issues. Certainly if she can not reason a small boy needs a father as much as a mother so should have shared custody then she has lost the plot. Further to this before giving herself up she then gives an interview to a right wing tabloid kiss-and-tell paper.  Of course they must of been jumping for joy in getting the interview, but it does her no good.  She had run from the police and from a family court order.  Yes there is no doubt she loves her child, but there are certainly question marks over why the authorities had decided she was not suitable to have shared custody of her own son.

The Rebecca's mother was jailed for obstructing the police search and so was a friend. When looking at the above picture you can see a very happy Roger and Ethan however when watching the tabloid video of Ethan with his mother and she has him sat on her knee asking him to kiss her which he does repeatedly it is like little Ethan is following cue as asked by mum.  Not because he wants to kiss her of his free will.  Thankfully Rebecca is now seen in an even worse light with the authorities, the abduction of her son has been nothing more than a big publicity stunt and I can't help think it has gone wrong for her or caused more suspicions than she anticipated.  Unfortunately her actions may incite other parents to be copy cats, but in their cases they may not get as much air time and even if their causes were legitimate the water and public sympathy has already been muddied.

Thomas Cook make profit from childrens death

These beautiful two children died whilst on a holiday in Corfu. A holiday which was arranged through the company Thomas Cook.  In an incident that happened 8 years ago - October 2006.  The Shepherd family were on holiday taking a half term break when the chalet they were in was flooded by carbon monoxide fumes.  It was odd the day before the children (6 and 7 years old) were complaining of not feeling well, and the next evening they died. Their parents also suffered from monoxide poisoning but were rushed to hospital and managed to pull through. The hotel they stayed at was not owned by Thomas Cook just subcontracted to Thomas Cook, it was the Louis Corcyra Beach Hotel. The holiday had cost Mr and Mrs Shepherd £2000 and the lives of their children. Thomas Cook had not taken any liability for the condition of this chalet, but they of course don't mind taking the profit from selling the holiday.

A gas engineer examined the boiler to the chalet and described the boiler as being "bodged and botched" a safety valve which would automatically kick in if fumes were leaking had been purposefully short circuited, because of this it would not automatically cut off.  There was no flue connection to the outside, so effectively these toxic fumes had no where to escape other than through a wall adjacent to the children's bedroom.  They were gassed to death. It took these 8 years for Mr and Mrs Shepherd to bring this case to the Wakefield Coroner's Court the children's mother Sharon Wood also attended the court hearing.

Thomas Cook in turn sued the owners of the hotel for this event.  They were awarded damages of one million pounds.  They did not divulge to the Shepherds of the legal action they took neither did they offer any form of compensation to the Shepherds.  In effect Thomas Cook appear to have gained £3.5 million from the death of two little children and thought they had got away from any liability. To add more despicable behaviour they will be giving a bonus of nearly £11 million to Harriett Green the previous Chief Executive of the company during this tragedy.  Green refused to see the parents of these children and sees herself as having a completely clear conscience.  Funny how it used to be that the buck stopped at the top, in reality the buck has nothing to do with anyone at the top. They just carry on business as usual, or not in this case. But still drawing their immensely large earnings, which Green did even though she had a period of gardening leave. Green should be up for manslaughter charges it is about time the buck and responsibility did stop at the top. This is one person who puts a value on life that is her own and no one else. If they are children she has not comment and just does her best not to be exposed to any kind of publicity.

The inquest 

I hereby vow, I will never go on a Thomas Cook holiday in my life for what can only be deemed as profiting from the deaths of young children. If I can personally ensure that any other potential Thomas Cook customer does not go with Thomas Cook because of their actions over this news article I will.

Danny Alexander and the people of Inverness

Danny Alexander has been a pretty fortunate man, he is a member of a minority political party which is unlikely to return to political power again for the next 70 years. I say 70 years because it was 70 years prior to now when they were last in power.  He has had the backing from the people of Inverness, but his power in parliament has been disproportionate to his actual authority.  At the next election the people of Inverness will decide whether he continues in power. Quite frankly it would be terrifying if looking at the Liberal Democrats record to think he can return.  This is a man who should never be allowed back into politics again and should be booted out for good. In effect the Liberal Dems have supported a nearly completely Tory government to power and to let them stay in power.

People of Inverness a vote for Danny Alexander is a vote for David Cameron, you might be liberal minded but you have to ask yourself are you actually Tory minded.  Were I living in Inverness I would support the party which most represents me, and it is far away from London's seat of government.  I'd vote SNP, don't be a tory by proxy be your own person and wave good bye to Danny Alexander.

Virgin Trains now monopolise all rail into Scotland

I once went on a Virgin train to Scotland, they have the West coast line. It was a flashy new train and at first I thought it was good but as the journey progressed I realised some pretty awful shortfalls existed. I never travelled on another Virgin train again, instead ensuring I took the East Coast line.  What I didn't like was the lack of luggage space, the lack of seating room there was no refreshments trolly, the very inferior upholstery of the seat, hermetically sealed train doors and cramped, cramped conditions. It felt like the European version of what getting on a train is like in India.  Virgin trains were designed not for passenger comfort, they have been designed for making money for Virgin. However in future I will have no choice, as there will be no other method of travelling to Scotland than being sat on uncomfortable and ultimately unsafe Virgin train. For all the old rolling stock which is presently quite spacious will be scrapped for new chicken farm rolling stock to ferry passengers from one destination to another at a price. 

This is ludicrous! Virgin have a monopoly on travel to Scotland by rail and it should not be allowed, there has got to be something absolutely fundamentally wrong with this. It has got to be illegal, why has it been allowed to continue? Why has this not been looked at? Is this Tory government nothing but a corrupt group of toffy nosed rich lads scratching each others backs and any other itch they find needs revealing? For the way I see it they have failed the people they represent on many fronts. They have allowed what has got to be an illegal monopoly to take place.

Something should be done about this!!!

Iain Duncan Smith and his porkie pies

Today Iain Duncan was invited to the Sunday Politics show and quizzed by Andrew Neil on the Universal Credits new benefits system. Now if you were to take this interview and listen just to what IDS was saying you would of thought the UC idea was all his own, he Implemented it and with the help of some outside experts he brought it all was fine and dandy. However, the reality is there is a lot more history to this than what he is saying. The words which came out of IDS' mouth were as close to telling porky pies and you can get. It is as if IDS has got Korsakov's syndrome and doesn't know the true facts of what has happened before. He even makes it sound as if the reset for UC was all of his idea and he was the one behind it because he decided the Big Bang of UC was not going to work as it was the old traditional way.  Why is it the Secretary of State for the Department of Social Security can say these things and think the world is naive and believe everything he says.  For it is just a matter of a few clicks on the internet and there you can find the true reasons about what happened. The turning point and reset can all be put down to a rather embarrassing grilling at a Public Accounts Committee meeting, and the many other meetings since have all brought to the surface a lot of disturbing facts about the costs of UC, the maladministration and the poor management headed by IDS himself.

Points of interest

The write off, of IT costs at the start it was £37 million now it has risen to £697 million.
The current claimant figure of 40,000 when it should of been one million by 2014.
The fact only simple claims (single claimants) can be done automatically.
Claimants get paid on a monthly basis with the emphasis of payments direct to claimant.
The frightening prospect of UC being rolled out to families shortly.
Mainstay allegation that UC would ensure people in work are better off - not true.
Grievous doubts held by the Major Project Authority over the entire UC program.
UC now becoming a tool to help government reduce the Welfare Benefits bill.
The DWP now have £2 billion reduction in costs since 2010 - at what other costs?
JSA claimants now have a 7 day waiting period than a 3 day waiting period till entitlement begins.
IDS believes the Welfare Benefits bill has been reduced by £6 billion over the parliament - not true.
The OBR yearly Welfare Benefits projects since this government has been lower than the actual spend.
Those of working age and in work claim more in benefits than those out of work.
A factor in the fall of unemployment is the increased use of sanctions (also reducing the benefit bill).
Welfare benefits are subsidising those workers on low wages or minimum pay.
Single people are expected to live in a shared accommodation until the age of 35.

The march onwards of doomed UC continues, as the DWP have released dates for new tranches of Job Centre Plus where claims can be made. The death-trap to this is related to the dates. They are after the general election, effectively whatever government is in power will either stick with them or have to make a radical decision in a short period of time. In the meantime we see IDS yet again being interviewed on the Andrew Marr show (15.02.15.) during which it can be witnessed IDS gives away his "tells" each time he states something he doesn't believe in. Or simply, to put it pretty bluntly a lie. He has sharp intakes of breath and frogs in his throat. When I see him talk it is a person who is divorced from reality, a person who does not have any connection at all with poverty, someone who has in many respects had a charmed life. A complete hypocrite.  He stated UC had saved 600 million, he of course was not asked any difficult questions because Andrew Marr is a pussy of an interviewer who should seek a job writing children's stories rather than hard core political interrogation, he is not up to the job. But the BBC is too polite to give Andy the boot, possibly on account of a sympathy vote which is unspoken but tacitly recognisable.

Only if we are lucky will the Tory speed march to economic doom will be allowed to continue. If there was a god it would be time to pray, but there isn't, it's better to spend your efforts on lottery tickets. Things will continue to get worse in the UK and there is not a single political party with enough forward out of the box thinking able to take us out of it.  As for IDS, just maybe in a few months he will not be on the front bench, mind I'm sure he would do well keeping one of the shadow or back benches warm. Getting all twisted up inside as his record on UC is examined in greater detail or as the changes destroy more lives. This may seem pessimistic, but watch this space.

Change, death and taxes - guess what can be avoided

I was of the mind these three things were immutable to life, unless you happened to be a gold fish. In which case as doing yet another circuit of your pretty bowl it would all be all seem new again no matter what time of day, due to the existence of an exceedingly short term memory. It was the not very honourable head up his own arse Georgie porgie Osborne who made a budget speech saying he intended to clamp down on tax avoidance schemes.  As though startled I recall looking up thinking to myself well that sounded interesting, considering most of his rich friends are probably running those schemes. Or perhaps it was a measure which was going to bring in millions of tax revenues from the likes of Google, Apple, Starbucks or Amazon.  Well whatever it was the home front news on tax income from these very wealthy companies is about as informative as the amount of tax they pay.  Not much at all.  In fact the creation of the General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) may be of benefit to the many tax dodgers there are because it defines in such narrow ways what is an unacceptable avoidance in paying fare tax.  It's wonderful. Every fat cat company with a few bob in its pocket can now ensure they are rightfully dodging the bullet of tax.  Tax which pays the welfare bill, tax which should be funding schools, paying for the NHS or building better efficient infrastructure stays again in the swelling pockets of the wealthy.

In a similar vein Barak Obama has now decided to get real tough with the multinational corporations who are registered in Luxemburge or anywhere else. He is saying they will be liable for 14% tax on profits made in the US.  Again at first sound this comes across and a good idea, whether it will work in reality is another thing. I'm sure those companies will have multiple smoke and mirror strategies to hide away the profit they make. The wonderful phrase "creative accounting" pops in mind. Something mere mortals of the taxpaying world do not know anything about. The news reported the US could have an additional income of $238 billion if Obama's strategy works. 

In the meantime the UK with it's offshore crown dependencies has still is unable to lock the safe door and grab back what belongs to the people.  This is infuriating, nearly British Islands hold billions in money of which a proportion should of been put back in our very own coiffures. You could say there is an engendered arrogance the rich and multinationals now have. For money can be transferred around the world at the touch of a button and if you have enough of it it doesn't matter where you live most of the year as long as you own a passport to a country where they turn a blind eye and genuflect at your feet.

Death can not be avoided, change is inevitable but taxes the rich and ultra rich can now safely say are a thing of the past and not applicable to them.