Mel B - Brown Urges U.K. Officials to End Poverty

Shutup, Mel. Benefits are not supposed to be comfortable. They are a safety net to prevent people from starving. Nothing more.

If your friends want a better life, then they should get off their idle arses and earn it.

If anything, the amount of benefits families are entitled to is too high, and as a result, many people in reciept of these benefits are better off without a job.

No one can really know what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes. What concerns me here in Canada, I'm sure it's the same in other places, is when I see what is called "welfare families". Generations of the same family living on welfare and not striving or not being able to break the cycle.

Kernunnos wrote:

Shutup, Mel. Benefits are not supposed to be comfortable. They are a safety net to prevent people from starving. Nothing more.
If your friends want a better life, then they should get off their idle arses and earn it.
If anything, the amount of benefits families are entitled to is too high, and as a result, many people in reciept of these benefits are better off without a job.

Goverment would be better chanelling more of the benefit money into retraining these people, giving them the skills employers are crying out for. The jobs are there if you look hard enough, refusal shouldn't be an option.
We're fast becoming a country of finace and media......and look where that has got us!.

Some people can live well on benefits from tomorrow single mums will be forced to go back to work or lose benefits new laws mean that lone parents will be denied income support then their child turns ten and from next october the benefits will stop on their youngest childs seventh birthday
so now they have to look for work but in the mean time they can get jobseekers but their be a three-strike system now each time they dont look for work or miss appointments or interviews they lose money from their benefits but some of these people are in a rut or maybe some dont want to work but they have to now.

plus what a cheek mel's got she is rich and getting payed to do the show.

amy wrote:

plus what a cheek mel's got she is rich and getting payed to do the show.

True! If she handed over all her money it would probably keep an estate full of chavs for years.

they need to be taught life skills like how to shoplift and steal wheels off cars.

she belongs in a tower block with 6 multi-coloured kids and a series of "uncles".

This is called the 'Bono' syndrome. Very rich people telling trying to care about poor people and urging other people to give poor people more money while keeping your own millions locked up as tight as a gnat's arse.

Mr Giblets wrote:

she belongs in a tower block with 6 multi-coloured kids and a series of "uncles".

What's wrong with having multi-coloured kids you racist?!

sally wrote:

<quoted text>
What's wrong with having multi-coloured kids you racist?!

I was told white men look down on them
while back them i was in a pub there was lots of blacks there this man of 60 starts to shout i hate mixed race they should stick to there own and thats from a black man he also called white people trash..

sally wrote:

<quoted text>
What's wrong with having multi-coloured kids you racist?!

nothing, it's the multi-dads I object to. Council trash families with dozens of "uncles" result in more trash growing up.

Tutty wrote:

This is called the 'Bono' syndrome. Very rich people telling trying to care about poor people and urging other people to give poor people more money while keeping your own millions locked up as tight as a gnat's arse.

also known as the "Sting-DuchessofYork-Geld of" syndrome.

"If you do not give people a way out, educate them, provide them with somewhere to live, and a community centre for them to visit and be stimulated, then how can you expect them to have the urge to get up and do anything with their lives?" says Mel.
Well, there are jobcentres and benefits. I come from a very poor background, but my house was clean, mice-free and nobody suggested anything should be done to help me, let alone provide a community centre. Indeed, I was expected to look after myself and look out for others. We are about 21st in the world for education, so that is not the problem. Now it is up to us to motivate them too, or no blame can be attached to them? Some people simply cannot cope with modern living in this society. They have children without even considering how they will pay for them. That is the challenge facing most societies.

Amy's situation is telling too. There are good single parents and bad ones. Anyone might be widowed, but the article refers to ‘unemployed Elaine Henry’. In principle, all fathers who are alive and have the means should be made to pay adequate support for the child to be brought up at home. This is hard to enforce apparently. Why is this important point not mentioned in the article? The fathers should be shamed if they refuse to support their children. The family’s wants appear to be their fault. We cannot assume it is not the father's nor Elaine’s fault that the fathers do not pay adequate maintenance. Not enough info.

EdSed wrote:

"If you do not give people a way out, educate them, provide them with somewhere to live, and a community centre for them to visit and be stimulated, then how can you expect them to have the urge to get up and do anything with their lives?" says Mel.
Well, there are jobcentres and benefits. I come from a very poor background, but my house was clean, mice-free and nobody suggested anything should be done to help me, let alone provide a community centre. Indeed, I was expected to look after myself and look out for others. We are about 21st in the world for education, so that is not the problem. Now it is up to us to motivate them too, or no blame can be attached to them? Some people simply cannot cope with modern living in this society. They have children without even considering how they will pay for them. That is the challenge facing most societies.
Amy's situation is telling too. There are good single parents and bad ones. Anyone might be widowed, but the article refers to ‘unemployed Elaine Henry’. In principle, all fathers who are alive and have the means should be made to pay adequate support for the child to be brought up at home. This is hard to enforce apparently. Why is this important point not mentioned in the article? The fathers should be shamed if they refuse to support their children. The family’s wants appear to be their fault. We cannot assume it is not the father's nor Elaine’s fault that the fathers do not pay adequate maintenance. Not enough info.

myself ok but i can see where you coming from i come from a poor family but my mum made sure house was clean and the kids ok she is a good mum but them days there was no support now familys got it easy in the 1960's there was no support like you get today.