Open Letter To Mr Iain Duncan Smith and Ms Esther McVey,

[Andy Wainwright]

Dear Mr Iain Duncan Smith and Ms Esther McVey,
I'm writing on behalf of myself and several friends, all professionally
qualified, disabled and out of work.

People like me aren't asking for the world. We would very much like to
work, but doing so requires a few conditions are met.
We'll need a job that gives up to three months leave without notice a
year. Sometimes we need days off for hospital, sometimes we're just not
fit to come in. Many jobs are safety critical- would anyone like to put
their lives in the hands of someone suicidal through manic depression?
Whilst we don't ask for full pay during those periods, we need an income
for rent, mortgage food, bills and so forth. In fact, those suffering
illness really don't need the stress- if someone is hospitalised as a
result, that's �1000 a week of taxpayers' money.
Sometimes the job won't work out, so we'd like the guarantee that we'll
get all the benefits back that we had when unemployed straight away.
Attempting to get back into work should not mean jeopardising what
little income we have!
Lastly, is it wrong to want a position that either utilises our
professional skills or offers a realistic career path?
Calling those in our situation scroungers, malingerers or lazy is not
only unfair but ignorant. In these tough economic times, those whose
medical condition results in unreliability through no fault of our own
are going to be the first laid off. Please show us that you are above
fighting those struggling with hard work against those struggle for lack
of any work.

[AlanG]

You'll be lucky if he doesn't threaten to rip your balls off

[Andy Wainwright]

I'm interested in what the Tories on here have to say about this. They
want to get people off sick, this is the only way they're going to do
it. It's a case of whether they actually want to cut the welfare bill or
just rant about the unemployed...

[AlanG]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:22:38 +0100, Andy Wainwright

Only by the sick dying as quickly as possible

> this is the only way they're going to do
>it. It's a case of whether they actually want to cut the welfare bill or
>just rant about the unemployed...

Rant.
They can't find any witches and the Jews and Black people are off
limits now.

Though they all seem to hate children

[Bill]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:44:46 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:

>Rant.
>They can't find any witches and the Jews and Black people are off
>limits now.

Well they do keep trying with Romanians.

[Mel Rowing]

On 30 Apr, 18:22, Andy Wainwright

<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> I'm interested in what the Tories on here have to say about this. They
> want to get people off sick, this is the only way they're going to do
> it. It's a case of whether they actually want to cut the welfare bill or
> just rant about the unemployed...

A far quicker way would be to pull out the rug from under your feet.

You can afford to rent a house, drive a car, smoke, do drugs, what are
you complaining about?

There are people far more incapacitated than you in all sorts of
different ways. They make the best of things and get by.

[Andy Wainwright]

This is the trouble with the tabloid mentality. Not only judgemental but
unwilling to look at facts, allowing your prejudice to rule. You should
lose it, so should the Tories.

I've had some really enjoyable jobs which I've had to quit through ill
health.

You think you know me, in fact more than my doctor? and can criticise me
on the grounds that I try to be honest. That sucks.

Yes, I can work. But that doesn't mean there are suitable jobs
available. So I run a non profit-making business for a bit of a
challenge- might not make a lot of money, but keeps a good few people
busy, myself included. Plenty of people are paid lots more than me by
the state to do bugger all of any use to anyone.

As I mentioned in another post on this thread, how come you're more
concerned with slagging me and others in my situation off than actually
wanting to help get me into paid work? Your ranting and judging isn't
going to get me *or* you anywhere. It won't save you tax, it won't pay
my wages. Alternatively you could listen and learn instead.

[White Spirit]

On 30/04/13 21:23, Andy Wainwright wrote:

> Yes, I can work. But that doesn't mean there are suitable jobs
> available.

What would you describe as a suitable job?

[Andy Wainwright]

Something reasonably fulfilling and profitable (I'm only looking at a
net income of more than the dole here) , which will give me the time off
when I'm not up for work (less than 1/4 of the time).

Please feel free to post suitable vacancies, I'll follow up and send you
the results :)

[AC]

Sorry, but people in this country don't give a fuck.

You are supposed to rot and die, and if you do dare to fight on and
live, then you must do so in the gutter where scum like you belong with
every one else who don't come up to their perfect standards. In fact
most of them resent that fact that you are also a drain on the NHS, and
probably should have died from what ever you suffer from, had it not
been for the evil socialist NHS.

Look, from their POV, if you weren't such a drain, they might get to pay
a little less tax. There could be an extra holiday in it for them.

Of course such bad luck would never happen to them. And if it did, all
of them are well off enough to pay for their own care. Anything else
would of course be pure hypocrisy.

--
AC

[AC]

What happened to single mothers being evil and hated?

--
AC

[AC]

Your really are a nasty vile cunt. It makes no difference to you in any
way what or how much the disabled get, so why do you even have an
opinion on it? Because slagging off the disabled makes you feel better?
Knowing that you do better than a disabled person because you are so
special and work? Is that it? You actually envy the disabled?

Some sort of bullshit fairness? If you save tax buy making the lives of
other people shit, how can they make it fair in return, or be fair? Will
you be disabled on their behalf?

People like you are perverted and sick.

If being disabled is so good, chop one of your legs off, you employed
able-bodied tax paying hero.

--
AC

[DVH]

Fulfilling jobs that allow three months off without notice are rare.
Even women taking maternity leave usually give their employers months to
find a replacement.

If you're at the top of your career, you can do it: barristers,
world-famous architects and top chefs manage it. Very few others do.

At the other end of the scale, you'd have to be thinking of a job for
which others are trained to take your place at the drop of a hat.
Perhaps somebody on a simple and repetitive production line, a warehouse
job or street sweeping.

I suggest choosing a difficult creative skill and practising it for many
years until you make enough to tide you over the three months. Something
like high-end furniture making, writing for TV or coding for the
financial industry.

Otherwise, it's possible your demand cannot be met...

[Mel Rowing]

On 1 May, 03:17, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:

> Mel Rowing wrote:

> > There are people far more incapacitated than you in all sorts of
> > different ways. They make the best of things and get by.
>
> Your really are a nasty vile cunt. It makes no difference to you in any
> way what or how much the disabled get, so why do you even have an
> opinion on it?

He's not disabled. You read some of his stuff. He is literate,
articulate and shows signs of intelligence. What then is standing in
his way? There are people in this society who have a lot less going
for them than he has and make a far better job of it.

If he is to set himself up on here like a coconut on a shy, he can't
complain too much if folk take pot shots at him and describe his world
as they see it. His problem has nothing to do with disability. It's a
straight lifestyle choice.

It does make a difference to me and everyone else what he gets. That
which is wasted on him is not available for anyone or everything else.

We are supposed to be in a discussion group

[AlanG]

they are being kept in reserve

[Andy Wainwright]

I'll agree with some of this. In the late 1990s you could actually walk
out of a job and into another, which suited people who had problems
holding down a job long term due to health issues. Most in my position,
including myself did indeed work paid jobs.

However, when jobs are scarce, the less reliable members of staff are
axed first.

There's been about six weeks this year where I was in no fit state to be
in a work environment. I'm quite happy to work when I can.

Reliability is the word. A slow but dependable machine is of use to
business, a more advanced system that fails frequently is not.

One possible solution would to provide tax incentives to businesses for
operating job sharing schemes- effectively taking on two disabled people
for the price of one abled employee.

In my case, it suits me to stay on the sick and work for nothing- not
much cash but at least I achieve something.

[abelard]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:06:05 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Dear Mr Iain Duncan Smith and Ms Esther McVey,
>I'm writing on behalf of myself and several friends, all professionally
>qualified, disabled and out of work.
>
>People like me aren't asking for the world.

you are asking for handouts from other people's efforts/pockets

> We would very much like to
>work, but doing so requires a few conditions are met.
>We'll need a job that gives up to three months leave without notice a
>year. Sometimes we need days off for hospital, sometimes we're just not
>fit to come in.

if there are more efficient people available to do a job...why
employ/pay you?
who, in their right mind, will employ someone unreliable, when
they can get better?

>Many jobs are safety critical- would anyone like to put
>their lives in the hands of someone suicidal through manic depression?
>Whilst we don't ask for full pay during those periods, we need an income
>for rent, mortgage food, bills and so forth. In fact, those suffering
>illness really don't need the stress- if someone is hospitalised as a
>result, that's �1000 a week of taxpayers' money.

every time i've 'lost' a 'worker' who was being a nuisance...
the overall productivity rises....

an increasing %age of the population is not able to earn
as much as the dole...society will have to adjust to that reality.
the puritan ethic is obsolescent...and therefore nonsense in modern
'western' societies...

getting a 'job' is a competitive process in modern society...you are
obviously sufficiently intelligent to 'win' that competition...if
you were determined....
but everybody is not...

there is no point you whining...and no point you trying to justify
being on the dole...
and also no point those 'working' complaining about paying your dole..

the only question for the 'workers' is how much dole to pay you...
(eg to keep out of the way!)
your question is how much you'll accept in charity money...

and ids is working overtime to solve this problem and to clear
up the mess left by fascist 'new' labour

you're living in a time of great transition(interesting times)...
don't waste to much time regretting it and in squealing....
be part of the adjustment!

>Sometimes the job won't work out, so we'd like the guarantee that we'll
>get all the benefits back that we had when unemployed straight away.
>Attempting to get back into work should not mean jeopardising what
>little income we have!

no-one owes you dole...it is charity...
accept it gratefully and stop complaining...

>Lastly, is it wrong to want a position that either utilises our
>professional skills or offers a realistic career path?

wanting does not confer 'rights'...you are employed by those
who perceive profit in employing you...
not by your perceptions of self-worth...

>Calling those in our situation scroungers, malingerers or lazy is not
>only unfair but ignorant

you are paid for working...work is doing something others want
done...
not for doing what you want to do...

>. In these tough economic times, those whose
>medical condition results in unreliability through no fault of our own
>are going to be the first laid off. Please show us that you are above
>fighting those struggling with hard work against those struggle for lack
>of any work.

you are not paid for your motives....you are paid for your actions...

or lack of actions in the case of the dole...

[abelard]

that's why the taxpayers produce 10s of billions to pay your dole

>You are supposed to rot and die, and if you do dare to fight on and
>live, then you must do so in the gutter where scum like you belong with
>every one else who don't come up to their perfect standards. In fact
>most of them resent that fact that you are also a drain on the NHS, and
>probably should have died from what ever you suffer from, had it not
>been for the evil socialist NHS.
>
>Look, from their POV, if you weren't such a drain, they might get to pay
>a little less tax. There could be an extra holiday in it for them.
>
>Of course such bad luck would never happen to them. And if it did, all
>of them are well off enough to pay for their own care. Anything else
>would of course be pure hypocrisy.

please stop with the whining and begging letters

[Cynic]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:07:31 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>> What would you describe as a suitable job?

>Something reasonably fulfilling and profitable (I'm only looking at a
>net income of more than the dole here) , which will give me the time off
>when I'm not up for work (less than 1/4 of the time).

>Please feel free to post suitable vacancies, I'll follow up and send you
>the results :)

With those requirements it will need to be something that you do as a
self-employed person, and which will not suffer from all the time you
need to take off.

Your written English is perfectly acceptable, so the most suitable job
that I can think of would be a freelance writer or author.

These days it costs absolutely nothing to self-publish on places like
the Kindle bookstore, and you can set whatever price you think you
would be able to get for your book/article/short story.

With literally millions of potential customers and a free marketing
platform, any writer who is good enough to become even moderately
popular amongst a niche readership will make a very impressive amount
of money.

Try starting by writing about something you know extremely well, and
which you think might be of some interest to others. Get someone you
know to read through the result and give you their honest impression
and suggestions for improvement.

There are however several other possibilities - have you investigated
the possibility of offering a freelance transcription service? Many
people/companies/institutions need to get written transcripts of
meetings and interviews that were audio recorded, and the last time I
had to make use of a transcription service, it was *far* from cheap.
So whilst it might not be all that fulfilling from the work POV, it
could be fulfilling from the income POV.

--
Cynic

[IanAl]

Stop spoiling the fun with a sensible answer.

[Andy Wainwright]

Can't really disagree with that. All I'm talking about is the high
number of relatively bright souls who find it hard to get paid work and
why that's the case.

A citizen's income would certainly help- it's too much hassle to sign
off and sign on again under the present rules. A lot would be happy to
take up some job in a supermarket or similar for a few months whilst
they are well, maybe take a month off whilst they weren't and then get
another job. Thing is, all the pissing about between paid work and dole
is likely to leave the typical person in debt. I'm quite happy to work
for no more than my dole, but working at a loss takes the piss,
especially if the job is pretty boring to boot.

CI could be offered to start with to the disabled. For instance, keep
all your benefits and half what you earn. Everyone's a winner- claimant
is better off, public purse gets some of the dole back.

Another area I'd consider is an overmanning tax rebate for firms
employing disabled, convicts and other hard to employ types, maybe
including some form of free insurance. A job share pool to me offers a
practical possibility for employing staff who may be unreliable- would
need state subsidy of some form, but at the same time could reduce
welfare and improve self esteem, skills and future employability.

As for the welfare reform, it might be painful but I'll happily accept
something needs to be done. However, it costs a lot more to keep someone
in a loony bin or prison than it does on the dole, which is where people
unable to work will end up if they have no income.

[Andy Wainwright]

I've actually had some success as a freelance writer- have written
national, regional and local front page newspaper headline articles. I
like writing about politics, although it's an area where talent such as
balance and insight is inversely proportional to career opportunities :(

Money wise, there's a few quid to be made in writing for technical
publications such as computer mags- I've been paid in the past �150 for
200 words, which isn't bad.

I'm director of a company which manages freelance media creators, a lot
in the same boat as me. We've only been going a year, and expect the
break even point to come in a few years time, in the meantime we run it
so the accounts show no drawings and thus not affect benefit
entitlement, all the cash made going back into the business itself,
particularly staff training. We actually do a lot of work, and with a
bit of luck will this provide an income to not only myself but quite a
few others.

[Big Les Wade]

Andy Wainwright <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> posted

>I've actually had some success as a freelance writer- have written
>national, regional and local front page newspaper headline articles. I
>like writing about politics, although it's an area where talent such as
>balance and insight is inversely proportional to career opportunities

Ah, a fantasist. National newspaper headline articles indeed.

--
Les

[AlanG]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:01:37 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
>I'll agree with some of this. In the late 1990s you could actually walk
>out of a job and into another, which suited people who had problems
>holding down a job long term due to health issues. Most in my position,
>including myself did indeed work paid jobs.

That is only correct for the South of England. Northern england was a
wasteland for anyone with a health problem who could not move south
due to either family or financial problems. The lucky ones were those
who managed part time work or who had a skill enabling them to work
for themselves.

>
>However, when jobs are scarce, the less reliable members of staff are
>axed first.

Seen it. Started happening at a greater rate once the disabilty
discrimination act came in 1996 replacing the old Disabled persons
employment act of 1944 which was mostly repealed. Funny how even state
apparatchiks believe to be disabled you have to be 'registered
disabled' when the requirement for registartion vanished in 1996.

>
>There's been about six weeks this year where I was in no fit state to be
>in a work environment. I'm quite happy to work when I can.
>
>Reliability is the word. A slow but dependable machine is of use to
>business, a more advanced system that fails frequently is not.
>
>One possible solution would to provide tax incentives to businesses for
>operating job sharing schemes- effectively taking on two disabled people
>for the price of one abled employee.

Or they could reintroduce the 1944 act which required employees with a
certain size workforce or over to employ a proportion of disabled
people or face sanctions.

[AlanG]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:05:48 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

>that's why the taxpayers produce 10s of billions to pay your dole
>

How many billions does your farm subsidy cost us taxpayers?

Just how much does the EU pay you out of my taxes to keep your two
chickens and pig?

[AlanG]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 13:59:23 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:06:05 +0100, Andy Wainwright
><andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Dear Mr Iain Duncan Smith and Ms Esther McVey,
>>I'm writing on behalf of myself and several friends, all professionally
>>qualified, disabled and out of work.
>>
>>People like me aren't asking for the world.
>
>you are asking for handouts from other people's efforts/pockets
>

Just like you

[abelard]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:22:01 +0100, Andy Wainwright

i see little problem with any of that...

however, this looks to me about what ids is aiming for...
imv the attacks on him are between misguided and dishonest

[abelard]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:36:15 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:


>I've actually had some success as a freelance writer- have written
>national, regional and local front page newspaper headline articles. I
>like writing about politics, although it's an area where talent such as
>balance and insight is inversely proportional to career opportunities :(

why not articles on the dole...always good to write about
things you know well...
some of your items here are a bit general and waffly(i'm not
criticising)...you could put in more details/numbers...
and problems with the present system..
and get digging on the changes being sought...

almost all those in the fossil media are just professional whiners...
rather than analysing the real world details...

[Andy Wainwright]

It's not an attack on IDS or McVey- in fact they have showed some
evidence that they acknowledge the challenges that they and the country
faces. I'm aware that welfare is unsustainable in it's current form, and
that I'm going to lose out personally as a result in terms of state
benefit- but I accept a degree of that as fair.

Where I feel the Government needs to be reminded is that there are
people who'd like to be in work who at the moment can't be, and it's
these people that attention needs to be focused on rather than a futile
attempt to force those who don't want to work to change.

I'd call it lobbying a point as opposed to criticism.

[Andy Wainwright]

Amateurs are often placed in sporting titles, small lower division clubs
occasionally beat Premiership sides in knockouts. Same is true in
newspapers. In smaller titles, about half the content is provided by
enthusiastic bedroom hacks and part-timers or interns. There's often a
good relationship between pro and amateur journalists, many of the
better writers talk with interested people who've contacted them,
sometimes through letter, e-mail and forums such as this. Most who
contribute in such ways rarely ask for credit.

I have two cupboards full of what I've had in print (credited) in the
last five years, mostly letters and occasional other articles. There's a
similar amount in uncredited collaberations.

[JNugent]

On 30/04/2013 18:06, Andy Wainwright wrote:

> Dear Mr Iain Duncan Smith and Ms Esther McVey,
> I'm writing on behalf of myself and several friends, all professionally
> qualified, disabled and out of work.

What professional qualifications and entitlements do you hold?

> People like me aren't asking for the world. We would very much like to

> work, but doing so requires a few conditions are met.

You've got that the wrong way round.

It's being given other peoples' money which has the conditions on it.

[JNugent]

On 30/04/2013 22:07, Andy Wainwright wrote:

> On 30/04/2013 21:44, White Spirit wrote:
>> On 30/04/13 21:23, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I can work. But that doesn't mean there are suitable jobs
>>> available.
>
>> What would you describe as a suitable job?
>
> Something reasonably fulfilling and profitable (I'm only looking at a
> net income of more than the dole here) , which will give me the time off
> when I'm not up for work (less than 1/4 of the time).

You clearly need to be self-employed and preferably in a partnership
with other people who can and are prepared to cover your absences.

No worthwhile employed position can be operated on that "I'll come in
and do it if I feel like, and if I don't, I won't" basis.

What reliance could an employer place on you?

[Andy Wainwright]

On 02/05/2013 09:08, JNugent wrote:
> On 30/04/2013 18:06, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr Iain Duncan Smith and Ms Esther McVey,
>> I'm writing on behalf of myself and several friends, all professionally
>> qualified, disabled and out of work.
>
> What professional qualifications and entitlements do you hold?

Several IT diplomas. As I said, I've been well paid when in work, it's
just a question of finding a niche with the required flexibility. It
will come.

>
>> People like me aren't asking for the world. We would very much like to
>> work, but doing so requires a few conditions are met.
>
> You've got that the wrong way round.
>
> It's being given other peoples' money which has the conditions on it.

I'm not asking for more handouts. In fact I'll accept less.

The issue is *why* people like me have spent a lot of time out of work.
Practicality, not morality.

I find it generally more profitable to stay on the sick and work for
free. I'll do a paid job if it's reasonably fulfilling and doesn't leave
me worse off in the pocket. But I'm not going to want to do something
that's going to leave me out of pocket or bores me rigid. Maybe one or
the other, but not both.

I can understand you wanting the likes of me to pay my way, and you
wanting to pay less tax. If so, *listen* instead of judging.

[Handsome Jack]

Andy Wainwright <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> posted

>The issue is *why* people like me have spent a lot of time out of work.
>Practicality, not morality.

That's a very easy one. It's because there are not enough jobs to go
around, and given a choice an employer will always pick a fit and
healthy employee who can attend reliably, over a disabled one who needs
lots of time off.

--
Jack

[JNugent]

On 02/05/2013 14:40, Andy Wainwright wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 09:08, JNugent wrote:
>> On 30/04/2013 18:06, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Mr Iain Duncan Smith and Ms Esther McVey,
>>> I'm writing on behalf of myself and several friends, all professionally
>>> qualified, disabled and out of work.
>>
>> What professional qualifications and entitlements do you hold?
>
> Several IT diplomas. As I said, I've been well paid when in work, it's
> just a question of finding a niche with the required flexibility. It
> will come.

"IT diplomas" are not professional qualifications.

They might be vocational qualifications.

>
>>> People like me aren't asking for the world. We would very much like to
>>> work, but doing so requires a few conditions are met.
>
>> You've got that the wrong way round.
>
>> It's being given other peoples' money which has the conditions on it.
>
> I'm not asking for more handouts. In fact I'll accept less.

It's still being given money out of the pockets of others which has the
conditions attached.

The recipient does not make the conditions, for reasons which are, as
Sir Basil would have put it, bleedin' obvious.

> The issue is *why* people like me have spent a lot of time out of work.
> Practicality, not morality.
>
> I find it generally more profitable to stay on the sick and work for
> free.

That should not be an option. In fact, it is unlikely to *be* an option.

If you were to declare it officially, you'd almost certainly find that
"your" money ceased to flow.

> I'll do a paid job if it's reasonably fulfilling and doesn't leave
> me worse off in the pocket. But I'm not going to want to do something
> that's going to leave me out of pocket or bores me rigid. Maybe one or
> the other, but not both.

Others have commented on that. I am unlikely to improve on what they
said about it.

> I can understand you wanting the likes of me to pay my way, and you
> wanting to pay less tax. If so, *listen* instead of judging.

I wouldn't pay less tax if "the likes of you" paid their way, as you
doubly put it. It would just be spent on something else.

But there are, as you say you can understand, principles at issue here.

[Nobody Likes A Tory]

He ran away when challenged, he doesn't do confrontation or the truth
when it concerns him, the socialist scumbag

NLAT

[Andy Wainwright]

Yes.
And this dicussion demonstrate the reason why a lot of intelligent
people don't or won't vote Tory.

Many I know are unemployed and would happily work within their ability
on condition there was something in it for them, even if that something
was mere work experience in a genuine sense.

The mentality I'm complaining about is how someone with a state
recognised disability and state recognised diplomas gets shat on for
trying to help you lot out by trying to make a job for themselves and
others.
And you encourage it.
Now I think the rulers of many oil-rich states are complete cunts, you
still pay them petrol.
So what do you pay the most idol doley?
You pay the bloke not to piss you off. After all, you've still got loads
more money than them. First and foremost it's in your interest that day
to day civic responsibilities, like not beating up, robbing or killing
someone are adheared to and the well behaved finacially rewarded. It's
rule of law.
That costs money. You can chose that or your jewelery and electrical
equipment.

[Andy Wainwright]

Most would accept that we need to pay some form of tax. Other people
live in this country, it's their country too- they are "owners" of this
country- - so those short of a living income need a guaranteed way of
subsisting legally. Or those people and importantly politics rising out
of that situation will get unhappy and crime and other forms of disorder
rockets.

[Andy Wainwright]

Reality. Good behaviour in public is a *commodity* and society must be
prepared to pay for it, whether through state or private sector charity
/ voluntary sector.
People with nothing to lose have nothing to lose by rebelling en masse
and disturbing public order. It's the price of civilisation- we pay a
person to be civilised and thus put a value on civil behabiour.