fed and housed??!

Work would keep him fed and housed (like the rest of the people in the world - this isn't some weird, new invention). Just sounds really desperate not to work and he's had a tantrum over the fact when the 'adults' have tried to get him to eat his vegetables.

I think people are very streetwise on this site

If someone is asking for money and giving you a sob story, you can cave in and give them money or not. Personally, i don't fall for it. Just burnt his legs--- obviously just doing it for show

can somebody explain the point of a protest outside a job centre on a fucking saturday? haha what a bunch of reards.

It was meant to say 'retards' and was merely a typo, so keep your knee in check. Still a clueless decision to march on a closed job centre. Utterly futile.

I meant 'retards'. It was a typo due to a dodgy keyboard. And why was the first attempt of posting this reply censored?

i'm being censored indymedia = censorship

why bother with two follow up comments to correct your own typo...i think there's only one retard on this thread matey - clearly its you!

also 'anon' no one truly one cares what you think.
you have failed as an adult, that is clear from analysis of your words, of the style in which you present your ideas. you perhaps jacked in your last 'proper job' through stress and more than likely live off someone else, or the state.
anyway, i digress...
if you want your daily mail views to be considered, then you only have to redirect your browser to their website, which you probably do regularly to troll there too!

and returning to the subject:
it is perhaps not common knowledge but is close to being a fact, that nearly 80 percent of those that challenge atos's so called 'fit for work' rulings win their appeals. i do not know if this statistic is only for the area where i am, probably is, but the info was given to me by a comrade who works for the citizens advice. she advised me to tell people to appeal and so far the two people i have told this to have appealed and won their appeals., without which, they would be faced with emotional and mental ruin (ie. those suffering under the weight and unchecked draconia of the mental health system).

all the best to those fighting for their benefits

To avoid any chance of this problem happening.

Wouldn't it be best if everyone was on benefits and no one worked?

Presumably, since the state will no longer exist once the revolution happens - then there will be no job centers or benefit offices.

So - this would never happen under Anarchy - which is why it is better.

If you want money... go to work or start a business and work through that.
If you don't want money... then don't. Stay in bed. Watch TV. Go for walk.

Taxpayers shouldn't bankroll people who don't like work. Anyone who thinks setting fire to self is preferable to working is insane. At no point is setting fire to self sane. Political reasons?! Sorry I ain't bank rolling someone's political whims. If they wanna buy petrol to burn they can use their own money

> If you had actually read through my post properly it would have been obvious that I was being ironic in reference to Jackie's previous post. Are you really so stupid that you couldn't detect that? Or did you just skim through without paying attention?
Well, someone else replied to it indicating they agreed with the statement, yet you don't seem to be moaning about them responding to your point.

So now you are saying it is ironic? Thats just a short word for made-up-bullshit. Hence, my reply that it was bullshit. Yet you seem to have issue with that?

> Jackie suggests that the fact someone self-immolates in front of a Jobcentre in desperation is irrelevant and that his act is dismissed as being due to mental health issues.

Yes - agreed. I think you will seriously struggle to argue that setting fire to yourself is a behaviour of someone without mental health issues. At no point is setting fire to oneself normal.

> Jackie also seems to suggest that because people who work self-harm too, there is no causal link between this man's situation (having his sickness benefits taken away) and his act or that he's an extreme case because he's mentally ill and not functional enough to work,

Theres another option. Hes trying it on. Plenty of people do that when there is free money concerned.

> Of course that's the point entirely, he's ill and genuinely in need of support
Is he too ill to work though? If he can walk around, buy petrol and set fire to himself etc, then he is able to 'do tasks'. Thats pretty much the definition of work.

I used to work with a guy who could put 7.5 hours in and he was literally on a motorised chair with very limited movement. Yet, he could do plenty of tasks with no problem with working.

> and, in extremis, he resorts to setting himself on fire as an act of protest.

How convenient. I would argue that he shouldn't have set fire to himself as an act of protest. And, if he does decide to set fire to himself - thats his own business and no one elses.

> Clearly he has the wherewithal to know the agency that are taking away his lifeline and placing him in such dire straights.

Yes, which clearly means he is capable of taking actions and doing stuff. Which is the ability to complete tasks. Which is the definition of work.

> Without that sort of pressure he never would've self-immolated.

If that easy option for a 'lifeline' didn't exist in the first place, he would work for a living. The 'lifeline' existing has put the idea in his brain that he can use himself as a hostage to extort free money out of people because he has been so wrapped in cotton wool for so long he has forgotten that work is an option available to him.

> Clearly it wasn't simply the random act of an insane person, but that's what people like Jackie want to believe as they want to avert their eyes from the desperation people are facing.

It was an act of someone who is not really trying to do self harm (just the legs?!) but trying to bully people into giving him free money so he doesn't have to work. Its a con game, like a kid who screams and shouts and smashes their head against a wall when the parents say that he has to eat his vegetables. Just trying it on. Ignore it, and he will work. Cave in and the guy will take every penny you have.

> Hmmm, so the criterion for whether someone deserves sympathy or not is based on whether the support they need would come from the state or from their own funds. That's an interesting approach to ethics.

Obviously i think he is trying to pull the wool over people eyes - so me paying him money wouldn't be on. You think differently - so you deal with the cash issue if you want to.

> What would be a better system, pray tell?

I think a system where people are assessed if they are fit to work or not would be a good idea. And if they are, then they should not get sickness benefits.

> All the bile you spout really exposes is that you're a heartless wretch. I hope you find a time machine that can take you back to the dark ages, because that's where your thinking belongs. Better still go to the US and join up with the Tea Party.

I shudder to think how long you would last walking around certain streets where people gave you sob stories about how they need cash off you.