So, if you are unemployed and "on benefits" you should not be able to own anything that would assist you in getting a job? No car means a genuine struggle to attend interviews, sometimes an impossibility, I know because it's happened to me in the past.

I agree that those unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed should not receive more in benefits than if they were working. That may be the message Camoron and his cronies are spouting but reality is very different. The problems lie in the poor wages paid by many employers, so poor that the taxpayer has to top them up with housing benefit and tax credits. However much we penalise the non-working poor, that does nothing to encourage better wages for the working poor: they will still need taxpayer support. That is the real tragedy in paying benefits: why should employers be able to get away with paying their employees so poorly that they need state handouts to top up their wages, or housing benefits to be able to keep a roof over their heads?

The non-working, benefit recipients are a small percentage of the benefit bill (the largest portion goes on pensions) and those abusing the system are an even smaller percentage of that. The demonising of the non-working poor is scandalous and is purely driven by typical tory ideology.

Now is not the time to crack down on benefits, that should be saved for when we are near full employment (should we ever get there again), only then will there be no excuse to "sit at home with the curtains drawn"

He'd previously 'fessed up to only one family member but from his latest post, it appears there may be something approaching a systemic abuse in the greater family Paradise

You know I was once accused of being a benefits cheat, two idiots locally complained that I had Sky TV, a car, decent clothes, I came back from shopping with full bags, out on a weekend, beer and rugby, all while laying in bed all day.

You know they were right I did have all those things, and I did lay in bed all day. I worked nights...

Judging people who you don't know is fraught with all sorts of dangers.

Really I can't find anything anywhere to back this up care to share you evidence?
Or was you being silly..............Oh wait I should have looked at who posted it first.

oh bless, you think that little slogan actually means something. you feel dead proud when each time you wheel it out. just who is my team? now, tread carefully.

Unfortunately, in the real world, access to your own transport is both desirable and in some cases absolutely necessary for job seeking, from experience I know very well that the first time you sign on at a Job Centre your declaration to actively seek work while on JSA is to seek work within a ten mile radius, which, when you don't find any, is quickly uprated to twenty, often thirty mile radius, thirty miles being considered to be a not too far radius in which an employee would commute each day.

There have even been press reports of job seekers being encouraged to apply for jobs 100 miles away, from memory one woman in Manchester was told to apply for a job on Teeside in the full expectation that she would travel to and from that job each working day.

Taking the extremes away though, even a ten mile radius is tricky on public transport, hence the need for your own means of delivery to an interview.

And as for clothing - believe it or not, that is one of the things that JSA is for, every idiot and his dog know that if you turn up for an interview looking like a tramp in old disheveled clothes then you aren't going to get the job, unless its for a position as a tramp, there are very cheap outlets for half decent suits, shirts etc these days and the JSA is intended to provide for this - you can't go to interviews wearing your kids school uniform.

The idea of a benefits system is to help people back into work, not keep them barely alive but unclothed and unsuitable for re-employment, that attitude is self defeating.

Well going by the way you assume anyone against the current government is a card carrying member of the labour party then I'd say you were a UKIP'er.

Which benefits do these 9 people receive?
Do you know of any more or is it just these 9 that warrant a nationwide real terms cut for millions of people both in and out of work?

Without treading carefully I can confidently state that I haven't the slightest interest in which political party you support, but thanks for continuing to promote the issue of football supporter politics - you just don't get it do you ?

I agree re low wages not sure what the solution is - minimum wages at £10 an hour? then you really would have serious levels of unemployment.

My point about increases is simple - as most people who work are seeing zero wage inflation by increasing benefits you are actually increasing the attractiveness of not working and increasing the burden on those that work to support those that don't.

If the minimum wage increases by 1% then benefits should not increase by 5%