Post by nickd on Aug 15, 2011 0:02:26 GMT 1
Should the rioters lose their benefits? - have your say.
When the banks collapsed, furious people queued civilly, but look at how much that cost us all. More recently, people rebelled in a much more aggressive and violent way; - the Prime Minister calls it a moral breakdown and wants to axe convicted rioter's benefits.
What do you think?
This is highly topical at the moment in the light of the riots which spread throughout parts of the country over the last week or so. Government has pledged to consider new law if over 100,000 people respond to their e petition.
As I understand it well over this number have already responded and demanded that the rioter's should have their benefit axed, they are also proposing measures to have people evicted from their homes.
So what do you think? it seems a pertinent point for discussion.
As a welfare benefit specialist and a human being, I can see why people are angered, but is this really the answer? is it not just more Government point scoring with the media in an attempt to gain popularity at a time when Government isn't having an easy time in terms of its popularity with their cuts and an ailing economy?
As I see it, it's more of the same benefit bashing, it's automatically assuming all the rioters were actually on benefits, is that the case I ask myself? Surely it's up to the Courts to decide the punishment, after all it's always within their powers to fine offenders, which is effectively cutting their money anyway.
Nor can I see how taking away people's money is going to breed better behaviour, it could even promote further crime. One could say that those capable of rioting are in all probability not going
to think twice about further criminal acts to make ends meet.
Wouldn't a better way to be to introduce some degree of conditionality into their benefit entitlement and require offenders to participate in the clear up of the carnage to keep their benefit entitlement?
Is it also not draconian to punish a whole family, just because one member takes to this kind of behaviour, what about innocent children, partners or parents who really didn't have any say in the actions of those involved?
And where do you stop with measures like this, do you say it's okay for a convicted fraudster to carry on getting benefits, or a rapist, but not a rioter. How can you possibly distinguish?
I'm against it, but it would be good to hear your views.
