"It could always happen, but it wont"
Famous last words of the foolish!
Never say never, mate. Crap happens to everyone and charity begins at home!
Good night, its been a pleasure.
edit on 14-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by jhn7537
"It could always happen, but it wont"
Famous last words of the foolish!
Never say never, mate. Crap happens to everyone and charity begins at home!
Good night, its been a pleasure.edit on 14-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)





Originally posted by hollwd
reply to post by Wonderer2012
OH COME ON.. you have got to be kidding.. YOU DO NOT think that will work do you . ALL they DO NOW is go buy something they can for who ever wants to trade it for what ever they NEED.. no one can MAKE anyone do what they do not want to .. or force them to do what they DO WANT THEM TO...
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
www.telegraph.co.uk...
Troubled families living on benefits will be legally barred from spending welfare money on alcohol and tobacco, under plans being drawn up in Whitehall.
Iain Duncan Smith has asked his officials to see if so-called ‘problem’ families should receive their welfare payments on smart cards, rather than in cash.
The cards would only be able to pay for “priority” items such as food, housing, clothing, education and health care.
The Work and Pensions secretary wants to stop parents who are alcoholics or who are on drugs from using welfare payments to fuel their addictions.
At the moment, the law does not stipulate how benefits are spent. So the law would have to be changed to make these changes.
On the one hand, I think there is some merit to stopping alcoholics spending their benefits on alcohol when children might be involved and are not being fed properly for example.
I've heard many stories of benefits being spent on drugs and other things whilst the kids are left to fend for themselves.
In that context, introducing smart cards that can only be spent on food,clothing etc sounds like a good idea.
At the same time, this would be one step for the government in taking away people's right to decide how they spend their money. Once one step is taken, even if that first step has good meaning, how many more steps are taken before they are running and changing other laws to follow suit etc.
What do people think?