LIVERBIRD wrote (see)
I've seen several people put their own needs very much before that of their kids. Where my mum lives many of the people round there sort out the fags, booze and weed first and then see what's left to spend on food.....
May of our project workers work in 'Communities First' and 'Flying Start' designated target areas. These schemes may have other names in England but basically those geographical areas which feature high in the various indeces in our case the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation... and there'll be similar for England.
But it's exactly in those areas where people live on fast food, microwavable dinners, high alcohol consumption, high smoking rates etc.
I can see what Seren is saying about putting your kids first but sadly people don't. People blame "poverty" but it's such an arbitrary argument... All these activities or behaviour are hugely expensive. People understand the dangers and do it anyway, so it's a matter of priorities rather than lack of understanding...
But I also know my opinion is out of line with some of our health promotions people. I just have a problem when money is being thrown at problems when the expensive solution doesn't make a blind bit of difference.
My favourite pet hate is people claiming that they can't afford to eat healthily and then they go and spend £15 getting two (large) Big Mac meals and two Happy Meals for tea.
Give ME £15 and I'll make you three different nutritious meals for a family of four for that and I'll give you the change.
Or when people feed their kids a load of crap, the local authority spends a fortune on providing good food in schools just for the parents to pass pie and chips through the school gates.
Another favourite is people who receive disability living allowance for the physical and mental consequences of their alcoholism, just to spend the money on more booze...
the benefits/allowances system generally is quite insane, easy to criticise, but not so easy to solve, i guess.
not a week goes by without someone who works for me asking to be fired so that they can claim benefits without a delay.
I think what goes against the grain is that druggies and smokers are choosing to do something which could kill them, whereas many people out there have illnesses and problems which are NOT THEIR FAULT and which they frequently struggle to get treatment for. Many people see that as an incorrect allocation of resources.
I work for this health board. Nothing surprises me. They spent thousands installing loud speakers outside the main hospital saying that he site is strictly no smoking. Funnily enough, patients and visitors are standing under the loud speakers....smoking! What a stupid bloody scheme.
Nam wrote (see)
May of our project workers work in 'Communities First' and 'Flying Start' designated target areas. These schemes may have other names in England but basically those geographical areas which feature high in the various indeces in our case the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation... and there'll be similar for England.But it's exactly in those areas where people live on fast food, microwavable dinners, high alcohol consumption, high smoking rates etc.I can see what Seren is saying about putting your kids first but sadly people don't. People blame "poverty" but it's such an arbitrary argument... All these activities or behaviour are hugely expensive. People understand the dangers and do it anyway, so it's a matter of priorities rather than lack of understanding...But I also know my opinion is out of line with some of our health promotions people. I just have a problem when money is being thrown at problems when the expensive solution doesn't make a blind bit of difference.
Spot on Nam. I'm trying to get into health promotion research at the moment - my background is in health psychology, and it's surprising how many so called 'initiatives' fail to take into account how people perceive and think about these things. Take smoking for example - people are well aware that it causes lung disease, but choose to do it anyway because they enjoy it - and as far as they're concerned, they're willing to take that risk rather than give up that pleasure. A person will only give up smoking when they see the benefit to them as outweighing the cost, and this applies to pretty much any health-related behaviour.
What many people don't realise is that what consitutes a 'benefit' for one person may not matter remotely for another. A person who gives up smoking because they want to get fitter has to value fitness in some way; if they really don't give a toss about fitness, that's not going to be an incentive.
Aitch, I shouldn't laugh but... Mars bar smoothies?? Bloody hell
Just Run wrote (see)
Having been made redundant in April (i'mnow back in work) i can assure EVERYONE that living on benefits is NOT AN OPTION for anyone who's ever actually worked and earned a wage. If you can survive on jobseekers then bloody good luck to you, you are clearly a better financial wizard than me! It may sound like easy street but they can keep their benefits system and handouts, as i can assure you its no way to live.
Just Run's example is fairly common - benefits are absolutely no support to someone just made redundant. They do not replace a wage short-term. They have to be used as a long term option with a strategy for maximising what you can claim. That strategy does not involve working more or staying healthy
Do you remember that Wife Swap woman Lizzie Bardsley who was on £38000 because she had many children, neither she or partner worked, smoked excessively and the children had severe asthma for which they claimed invalidty or carer's allowance? He claimed depression from a bereavement and they lived well off benefits.
The kids were very poorly from smoking but her benefits were tied to them being ill. There was no incentive to stop. Whilst this may seem like a great plan to reverse that 'incentive scheme' I suspect it's open to abuse and if you wish to stop, that desire has to be a big committment from you not a financial motivation. Remove the financial incentives to keep smoking......... by all means but don't make a more complicated one ! It creates a huge administrative burden and is impossible to police that it has had any effect.
My personal observation of benefit claimants having met many in the course of work is that a great many were using the system to avoid responsibility for working......it didn't prop them up in a tricky time and they often led lives that were irresponsible in other ways whilst society supported them to do so. There are also a smaller group who genuinely needed benfits (invalidity/carer's etc) who would love not to need the benefit but ill health/disability forced them to depend on it. It annoyed me that they got associated with the same attitude as the first group
It may sound like easy street but they can keep their benefits system and handouts, as i can assure you its no way to live.
Sorry to hear that you lost your job JR and I'm pleased that you've now found work.
I was wondering if you have a spouse and children, because some friends of mine have recently found themselves in the same position and he has NO interest in going to work at all, mostly because of what they are "entitled to" on benefits. (And partly because he is a lazy swine who has been flying under the radar at his company doing no work for years anyway) They are doing perfectly fine on their benefits and have booked a holiday with the child tax credits for the end of summer. She is very careful not to earn too much to affect their "entitlements" too.
I'm really glad you found you difficult to live on the money because my understanding of it is that it is SUPPOSED to be difficult, to stop people choosing it as an option. Clearly, you are exactly the sort of person for which the system was invented for. Something went wrong, you needed some benefits in the short term and found work to get out of the cycle. Nobody would ever complain about that, especially as you're now paying back INTO that system which will hopefully help those who next find themselves on harder times.
What is particularly galling is someone saying "we had a wonderful walk in the park this afternoon / played tennis / sat in the garden" when your husband is working 7 days a week paying for it, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because they are not breaking the law.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |