Asia-Pacific

Check out this week's top Asia-Pacific news on the Asia Pacific Headline page.
  

Follow RoF

For all the breaking news, follow RoF on Twitter and Facebook

         
   
  

My Profile

Check all your messages, update your blog, change your account details,  find friends and much more on the My Profile section.
  

Regional Firms

Thinking of moving out of the City? Regional Inside Info gives you the lowdown on firms in Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and Leeds.
  

Main Discussion

Rate it
0
Report as offensive
SumoKing
Posted - 21 April 2017 09:28
WHAT THE ACTUAL FCUK!

how is the state saying "you can only have money for your kid if you've been raped and you tick this box and we keep it on file and reserve the right to send Serco round to take a swab" anything other than the most sinister bean counter fcuking solution to a problem that doesn't exist and is really just a bit of "oooh, look how tough we are on poors with lots of kids"

Either you pull the benefit or you pay the benefit you don't make go down the fcuking "declare you were raped so you child can eat" route
Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 09:34
Report as offensive
Well done Clergs

That seems to be right

Alison Thewliss ought to be a bit more open to criticism on this then as should sturgeon
Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 09:35
Report as offensive
You spoiled it a bit with that 09:32 post...
Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 09:43
Report as offensive
I think that's fine isn't it?

Go talk to Victim Supprt or Rape Crisis with the form, they sign it for you, you give it to you benefit officer, you get your benefit no further questions asked
Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 09:44
Report as offensive
I can't actually read the image properly btw but from what I can make out of the blurry words my last post seems to be the process
SumoKing
Posted - 21 April 2017 09:49
Report as offensive
are you seriously defending a process where someone has to prove to the Government that they were raped before they can have child benefit? The benefit that is supposed to lift children out of poverty which is now only available to some children, rather than, you know, tory voting old people in the sunny south of england who get their winter fuel subsidy no matter how rich the are

you're seriously fcuking defending this just because you don't like the SNP?

are you, and I am being serious here, are you actually fcuking insane?
Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 09:56
Report as offensive
See clergs post at 09:30 on the reality of it being an anti-rape provision

The claimant doesn't have to prove anything to the government. What they have to do (in common with 100% of applications for benefit) is they need to comply with the benefit rules which invariably requires filling out a form and jumping through the hoops prescribed by law set out on the form. This is no different.
Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 10:11
Report as offensive
The benefit is only available if they are not living with the rapist so yes the procedure would be that you would have to confirm that - it's the rules
SumoKing
Posted - 21 April 2017 10:24
Report as offensive
Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 09:56 Report as offensive Report Offensive

The claimant doesn't have to prove anything to the government. What they have to do (in common with 100% of applications for benefit) is they need to comply with the benefit rules which invariably requires filling out a form and jumping through the hoops prescribed by law set out on the form. This is no different.
___________________________________________________________

that is commonly referred to as "proving". If you have to do X, Y and Z to convince someone that you are a victim of a crime then it's generally called proving it. And you do have to prove it to the government because the government is the one telling you to do X,Y and Z or your kiddie wig don't get fed.

and people wonder why the tories are called the nasty party, who the fcuk could even dream this up

Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 10:32
Report as offensive
And quote or your kiddiwig don't get fed and quote

It is an anti-rape provision so normally no benefit would be available for the third child ja zer rules I know

Btw this is about benefit so zer rules are not that if your application for this benefit is not successful your kid shall not eat wicked evil Tory sanctioned money
Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 10:44
Report as offensive
NICs was manifestly unfair and penalising earners as I say unfairly

There may be a case to review benefit provision but I agree with your initial comment that best to look at the whole thing and not focus on this one anti rape provision on child benefit alone
Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 10:47
Report as offensive
As regards the NIC thing you had to consider the full context of the conditions in which self employed people earn, most importantly the level of flexibility it affords employers to not concern themselves about contractor welfare and what this all means in terms of how those people should be taxed and what message that sends out in terms of incentives and penalties
Gloucester
Posted - 21 April 2017 11:02
Report as offensive
Is a two child policy even morally or economically sound?

If we don't have immigration and we don't have childbirth at a replacement rate, how will we solve the demographic issues?

This should be rolled back and so should the child benefit tax charge.

Children are great, and costs mostly fall on the parents. But there's a social good in their being well provided for, so social incentives for feeding and giving childcare to children are also important.
Brad's big radioactive donger
Posted - 21 April 2017 11:12
Report as offensive
The SNP would rather that victims of raped are penalised for their victimhood.
Brad's big radioactive donger
Posted - 21 April 2017 11:21
Report as offensive
The campaign was very coherent. They don't object to the cap on child benefit, they object to the exemption to that cap for rape victims.
Ukiyo-e
Posted - 21 April 2017 11:37
Report as offensive
Ruth Davidson is doing a good job of holding Sturgeon to account and routinely pwns her in Holyrood. So the nats seem to be going for her personally on this one point even though, apparently, the SNP as Davidson has said, have the powers to overrule the requirement. It's the same SNP smoke and mirrors bullshit they put up when the wouldn't use their tax raising powers. They now their fanbase aren't generally deep thinkers so they fling kittens at others to hide the fact they are doing nothing with the powers they have.

Quite distasteful to be trying to personally tar Davidson over this. Blatant smear campaign.

Weally Been
Posted - 21 April 2017 11:47
Report as offensive
From the way the BBC reported it on their ten o'clock news last night it seems they've fallen hook line and sinker for whatever the line the SNP gives them...
Osama
Posted - 21 April 2017 11:49
Report as offensive
sounds statistically neglible to me unless there's a rapey births epidemic i missed
Brad's big radioactive donger
Posted - 21 April 2017 11:50
Report as offensive
There was nothing in the BBC report suggesting the SNP want the cap removed. They only want the so-called "rape clause" removed.

What have the SNP got against victims of rape?
Brad's big radioactive donger
Posted - 21 April 2017 12:41
Report as offensive
Looking back at Hansard the SNP didn't even participate in the debate on this act. They truly are despicable opportunists making politics out of victims of rape they' never bothered to argue for in the first place.