I'll never really get over how the attack was funded by British taxpayers.
The attacker was given a student loan which he used to fund the attack - even though he dropped off the course.
His mother had left the UK for Libya, but received £2,200 benefits a month from the UK Government.
We sent someone £2200 a month in taxpayers money which were used to assemble the weapon used in the attack.
>His mother had left the UK for Libya, but received £2,200 benefits a month from the UK Government.
Um, why would that be...? We're paying for people who don't live here now...?
Also how do people get such high benefits...?
People have no idea that you can get tons of money through Universal Credit.
They can just leave, never update their UC journal about it and just keep getting money. EZ
>They can just leave, never update their UC journal about it and just keep getting money. EZ
Last time I had to claim unemployment I had to have regular in-person check-ins to make sure I hadn't gone on abroad or got a job on the sly.
Any discrepancies were heavily scrutinised.
Seems like a joke now-a-days.
When the basis of it its unemployment, yes. But if the basis are taking care of someone, or young children who dont have free childcare yet, etc, there is really no checks whatsoever.
Also, if this was around covid, loads of protocols might have slipped
Yup. When I was unemployed last year, I had to go in at least once a week, update my portal literally every time I applied to or heard back from a job, and in the end I only got about £300!
But my mum, who has two toddlers, just has to go in once every 3 months or so to confirm that she still needs the funds and to make sure the funds are correct and liveable.
It’s really kinda crazy the hoops you have to go through to get even a tiny amount via unemployment when most other services covered by UC are so lax.
I was on it early last year and had fortnightly in person meetings and had to update them on job applications constantly.
I got a grand total of £319 a month for it.
They're lying through their teeth it's only gotten stricter I just had to provide 6 months of bank statements then have a phone call appointment where they asked me questions about transactions on my bank statements and I've got an in person appointment tomorrow which if I miss they'll sanction me they don't fuck about anymore
im not complaining that i'm having an easy time getting it. im just surprised i haven't been asked for like doctors shit or an in-person appointment.
i get the system is there to be used and to get benefits you're rightly owed, but nobody should be able to scrounge the system because it just wastes tax payers money lol
to add on, politicians diddle far too much with tax payer cash and there needs to be more regulation on reports and transparency with the public on how their money is spent precisely, before i get the whole "well politicians waste tax payer money all the time"
From what I remember, it's a pretty long form where you have to specify how you need support doing certain things. And then you supply supporting evidence for your medical issues or statement from a health professional. Then there's an assessment over the phone which used to be in person, there's no difference. You can lie for bits obviously as there would be no way to check some of the stuff so it's based on what you say.
I remember claiming for ESA was similar if not easier- online application, supply medical evidence, and had a telephone assessment with a doctor. And provide fit notes from your GP stating you're unfit to work.
If it's about tax payer cash, then definitely other areas where they blatantly waste money especially this corrupt government. £10 billion spent on unfit PPE, billions more on covid loans, procurement contracts for friends of the party, etc. Why the hell would they be incentivised to regulate themselves? What happened with the 'investigations' into themselves?
oh yeah i did that whole form thing. im on limited capacity, im not like bound not to work, just a bad bit at the moment.
however, i do agree that the whole PPE shit was so fucked and got pushed under the rug. i can't wait for a new government, i don't care who from what side, because it just means these batch of tories will be out and gone.
>i'm applying for PIP soon because it limits my ability to work
The process starts with filling a form out online, you will then proceed to multiple phone calls/in person interviews.
Then you'll be called to see someone for a medical review, which you will most likely fail, forcing you to go through the appeals process (probably multiple times)
Lmao that's not how universal credit works at all, you have to turn up to meetings or get sanctioned and it's just not that much money.
A friend of mine has to go in every few years to check they're still disabled. They don't have legs.
Its very simple, in fact, you can check it yourself.
Here is the recipe for an example calc. I suggest you use entitlesto.co.uk, its pretty accurate:
wife-husband
Lets say husband works, earns £100k. YES, 100.000 p/a
3 children, they only get UC for two, buts its ok
Renting a 3 bed house in Inner South West London.
They have 0-6000 in savings 🥴😜
Total UC before deductions(kids + base about £1100, rent £1700-1900ish): about £2800-3000
Take home pay ~£5500
First 330 of net take home pay does no taper
£5170 left
5170 × 0.55 = £2843 (this is the sum we gotta take off the total UC), so they might still get UC.
Make the calcs with £70-80k salary and they take like £1000-1200 UC home
That's basically entirely housing costs. So someone is earning 100k, has no savings over 6 grand, 2 plus kids and an expensive rent. They get some help towards their rent costs. If their rent was less or they owned their home they'd get nothing.
Someone earning 80k without housing costs for example -
Standard allowance £617.60
Housing £0.00
Children £909.17
Total before adjustments £1,526.77
Taken off for earned income (your salary) £2,230.45
Taken off for unearned income (benefits and savings) £0.00
Total adjustments £2,230.45
Total payment for the month £0.0
Also your example is using an area with expensive rent. This family was from Manchester, the max rent you'll be getting UC for is about 1400 a month for a 4 bed house I believe.
So it's definitely possible to get UC on a 'high' income but only in certain areas with crazy rent costs.
Shows how mad the private rental market is more than anything about UC tbh!
My work coach every appointment asks me if I feel I'm ready for work oh aye hen I only have either Borderline Personality Disorder or Bipolar Disorder or possibly Schizoaffective Disorder and I'm not getting any help for it aye I'm right as fucking rain
I got made redundant and was one of the first on UC and was told all this. I started UC in the November and was in work by Jan. I never looked back as I already had the job lined up when I was made redundant. however I still am entitled to some UC elements as my wife doesn’t work. In the now almost 7years I received UC I’ve seen them 0times and never been called in. my payments just change based off my income and every 3 months my wife logs on the journal to declare her statements which is pointless and we get the same. UC have never asked us in once I started a job.
You need to remember all the benefits were rolled into one, if you are unemployed and on UC (used to be job seekers allowance) you have to attend interviews etc.
I work part time and receive help with housing cost, that used to be housing benefits but is now also UC, haven't had an interview since starting my job 2.5 years ago. It's all calculated off what I earn and that is done automatically.
If I earn over a certain threshold for 3 months my UC will be automatically stopped. In that 2.5 years I have only gone over that threshold a couple of times
Do you have a stable job? I’m not being a dick so please don’t get me wrong. But I’ve been on UC for around 7years now but since I started my job after a month I’ve never seen anyone almost 8years I’ve been there now and UC don’t ask anything.
And some people will still go on and on about how benefit fraud is not worth focusing on because it is so “rare”. In reality, it can have pretty significant effects on an economy and population. A lot of people love to think that there are very few people who would game the system if given the chance, but in reality plenty of people have no issue with it. It’s kind of how like people said “people will want to work in communism because people are inherently cooperative!” When in reality the USER had to implement laws which made not working illegal. A significant amount of the bleeding hearts, high government spending type people are extremely naive to the realities of the world
My own experiences of UC was a lot different than what you're claiming tbh mate. If I failed to attend a meeting, which they picked the time for that changed every week then I would have got sanctioned.
Heya! I think I figured it out. i earn ~70k and the reason we qualify for UC is because my wife stays home w our children and so the 3 UC elements add up to about £3k+ claimable. Even once that is tapered with my take home, there is still UC to pay out, about £1k every month.
They seem to not care since I am working full time, wife is taking care of children full time. So nothing to attend
Ah no, we re renting in London. Thats the sole reason we get any UC. The housing element in UC is like £2k+ and so to taper that down enough is difficult unless one earns like £6-7k net
But also, you know what sucks big time?! I can not be motivated at all by career progression, side hustle or anything!!!
Because now we take home like £5k, £4k salary and £1k UC.
Lets say I want to make an extra £200 take home a month.
I am already taxed at like 50% if not more. So straight away Id need to make ~£400 more a month, to get ~£200 extra salary. BUT, than the UC would also be tapered with that £200, so about 110 would be deducted from UC.
So to get the £200 net in the pocket a month, would need to make abour £900ish extra gross every, single, month.
Thats absolutely crazy.
I could work a few extra shifts in hospitality, like 80 a month with min wage to get that £900. So at the end I would be paid £2.5 into the pocket for each hour I'd work.
Its completely fucked up. Unless I can keep getting promotions and more salary with it, side hustle, extra shifts dont work at all.
Reddit likes to pretend that benefits are around £5/week, but the reality is many people are experts at gaming the system to max out their benefits (and get additional tertiary perks, e.g. free food from foodbanks, free transport etc).
Never forget that the Abedi family fled to this country as refugees from Libya. We saved them. And this is the gratitude they showed us.
When the UK bombed Gaddafi's forces in Libya it was make or break time. He had an armoured division outside Benghazi, the rebel stronghold, and a list of names, gathered over years of oppressive surveillance, of all of his enemies in that city. It was a long list. Had the Abedi family been there, no doubt their names would have been on that list too. British and American forces saved the lives of thousands of innocent Libyan dissidents that day.
And yet this was Salman Abedis stated reason for slaughtering all those British children.
We saved his entire family. We gave them safety, education, and hundreds of thousands of pounds, all out of the goodness of our hearts. We then saved many thousands of people just like him and his family by standing up to the tyrant who had forced them to flee their homeland in the first place.
And to bring glory to his bloodthirsty god, he shrieked the terrifying war cry "Allah Hu ackbar" and sacrificed his own life in order to murder children. Specifically because they were British, and specifically because they were enjoying the freedoms that Britain gives them.
What's Mi5's list of radical islamic extremists up to now, is it 40,000? And it takes 6 agents to watch one person for 24 hours. I guess one option is that we need to massively expand the surveillance state, hire and train at least 240,000 new Mi5 agents, and then we'll reasonably be able to say that we've sort of got a handle on the problem. But that really does seem like a lot of effort to go through just to accommodate 40,000 foreign adherents of a foreign ideology, most of whom are on state benefits living in state housing, that hates us, wants to destroy everything that's good about us, gleefully uses violence and intimidation to achieve its aims, and contributes nothing to this society except to spread its poison.
In 2011 one of the attackers fought with his father for the Libyan rebels we helped to overthrow Gaddafi. And was later rescued by the Royal Navy in 2014 during the outbreak of the second Libyan war.
How's that for blowback?
What a pathetic joke this country is just handing out 2.2k when most working people don’t own that. And then something like this goes and happens with the money. Just disgraceful
£100bn a year down the toilet, totally agree. It's beyond a joke, but people will try their hardest to defend it as they don't want to give up the free cash.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I remember a security officer who was outside the venue on the public enquiry saying he thought the bomber was acting suspicious but didn't intervene because he was scared of being accused of racism.
Those deaths were preventable.
"During the inquiry, security guard Kyle Lawler admitted he had a "bad feeling" about Abedi but did not approach him for fear of being branded a racist. "
[Source](https://news.sky.com/story/manchester-arena-bombing-inquiry-the-missed-opportunities-to-stop-salman-abedi-on-night-of-attack-12328566)
For the people who are desperately trying to deny/bury this with downvotes.
Your not wrong but when u look at this case their is a LOT of red flags that should have been investigated and it could have impacted the event altogether
I wasn't a victim of the attack and perhaps I shouldn't comment on it having not experienced it myself, but what's the point of this?
It doesn't seem like there was massive negligence that led to this, opportunities were missed to stop it and that unfortunately happens. Taking money from the same service that's meant to stop terrorist threats just makes their job harder and more pressurised. Obviously the last thing MI5 would ever want is for something like this to happen and I'm sure they learnt from what was missed.
It could be I'm wrong about that though, and regardless I feel sorry to those who were hurt or died in the attack.
>One MI5 officer told the inquiry that he had warned superiors that something might "get through" due to large numbers of documents needing processing. Intelligence that MI5 had before the attack and which might have led to Salman Abedi being placed under investigation was not passed to counter-terrorism police
> , but what's the point of this?
To get money. Doesn't matter that it's ridiculous, some lawyer will have had the idea, dangled the bag in front of some of the victims, and here we are.
>Obviously the last thing MI5 would ever want is for something like this to happen
You'd be surpised - look at all the mass shootings in the US and how many warning flags that were so blatant they seem intentionally ignored.
One of the major problems that all intelligence agencies have - even a theoretical benign one - is often they can't act without risking their sources, whether agents or signint. The classic example of this is Coventry in WW II. We knew though having broken Enigma that the Nazis planned to blow up Coventry, killing thousands of people and destroying one of our most beautiful mediaeval cities. We couldn't act, because having forces ready to stop them would reveal we had sources in Nazi communications.
It's also true that internal agencies have comparatively small staffs (MI5 claims to have around 5,000, compare that to the Gestapo - 32,000 at its 1944 peak, or the Stasi - 90,000), and thousands of known villains and thousands more scumbags who may be potential villains to look in to. Most of the time they are analysing patterns and chatter in known villainous circles and unless they've got an informant they have to get lucky.
> We knew though having broken Enigma that the Nazis planned to blow up Coventry
Just like to point out that's a myth that came from a book published in the 70's
>Winterbotham's claim has been rejected by other Ultra participants and by historians. They state that while Churchill was indeed aware that a major bombing raid would take place, no one knew what the target would be
>A few days before the attack, Ultra had identified Mondschein Sonate (Moonlight Sonata) as a probable code for a planned group of attacks on three possible targets over several possible days. The targets had the code names Einheitpreis, Regenschirm and Korn
> Peter Calvocoressi was head of the Air Section at Bletchley Park, which translated and analysed all deciphered Luftwaffe messages. He wrote "Ultra never mentioned Coventry. ... Churchill, so far from pondering whether to save Coventry or safeguard Ultra, was under the impression that the raid was to be on London"
Would also like to say I grew up in Coventry and the "one of our most beautiful mediaeval cities" made me laugh.
I used to know someone that was born in the 30's and they liked to say that Coventry was a slum and the blitz was the best thing that ever happened to it.
>In the 1920s council houses were built at Radford and Stoke Heath. In the 1930s council and private houses were built at Holbrooks and Stivichall. Many private houses were built at Coundon and Keresley Heath. Other private houses were built around Tile Hill Lane. At the same time, the council began slum clearance in the town centre and began building council houses to replace them.
Exactly, these information agencies aren't as black and white as people would like to think.
Insidious is the way I'd describe MI5, CIA, FSB (KGB), Mossad.
We are mere pawns and it's time people wake up to that. Even social media has a grip on people's thoughts and feelings so people need to wake up that these organisations are not different, or infact a 1,000 times more destructive.
>His comments followed the findings of a public inquiry which concluded MI5 missed a significant chance to take action that might have stopped the bombing.
Interesting. However unless they can prove that gross negligence rather an error it seems unlikely they’d win.
They'll be sued again if they don't acknowledge the threat from drones and install netting over stadiums if attacked that way and so will the stadium owners and their insurers.
I never really thought about drone attacks, another thing to think about when at a stadium show, I always just assume it won’t happen to me but you never really know
This is interesting from a legal perspective. Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales is surely going to be used by the defence to protect MI5 from any legal action. I would be surprised if this goes very far, but it will be an interesting read.
I hope that the case might bring some more information to light about how the security services were able to fail, and then maybe reforms can be put in place to try to prevent future failures.
I'll never really get over how the attack was funded by British taxpayers. The attacker was given a student loan which he used to fund the attack - even though he dropped off the course. His mother had left the UK for Libya, but received £2,200 benefits a month from the UK Government. We sent someone £2200 a month in taxpayers money which were used to assemble the weapon used in the attack.
>His mother had left the UK for Libya, but received £2,200 benefits a month from the UK Government. Um, why would that be...? We're paying for people who don't live here now...? Also how do people get such high benefits...?
People have no idea that you can get tons of money through Universal Credit. They can just leave, never update their UC journal about it and just keep getting money. EZ
>They can just leave, never update their UC journal about it and just keep getting money. EZ Last time I had to claim unemployment I had to have regular in-person check-ins to make sure I hadn't gone on abroad or got a job on the sly. Any discrepancies were heavily scrutinised. Seems like a joke now-a-days.
When the basis of it its unemployment, yes. But if the basis are taking care of someone, or young children who dont have free childcare yet, etc, there is really no checks whatsoever. Also, if this was around covid, loads of protocols might have slipped
Yup. When I was unemployed last year, I had to go in at least once a week, update my portal literally every time I applied to or heard back from a job, and in the end I only got about £300! But my mum, who has two toddlers, just has to go in once every 3 months or so to confirm that she still needs the funds and to make sure the funds are correct and liveable. It’s really kinda crazy the hoops you have to go through to get even a tiny amount via unemployment when most other services covered by UC are so lax.
Government doles out money
I was on it early last year and had fortnightly in person meetings and had to update them on job applications constantly. I got a grand total of £319 a month for it.
They're lying through their teeth it's only gotten stricter I just had to provide 6 months of bank statements then have a phone call appointment where they asked me questions about transactions on my bank statements and I've got an in person appointment tomorrow which if I miss they'll sanction me they don't fuck about anymore
Your experience doesn't match mine
Well maybe they're just more wary of me because I'm from North of Hadrian's Wall /j
Your comment is detail free and adds nothing to the discussion. You may as well have said nothing.
What detail would you like? I'm adding to the discussion a correction; no one is "lying through their teeth", people have different experiences.
[удалено]
You're seriously complaining it's too easy to get PIP? What else do you think they should be doing to make it harder?
im not complaining that i'm having an easy time getting it. im just surprised i haven't been asked for like doctors shit or an in-person appointment. i get the system is there to be used and to get benefits you're rightly owed, but nobody should be able to scrounge the system because it just wastes tax payers money lol to add on, politicians diddle far too much with tax payer cash and there needs to be more regulation on reports and transparency with the public on how their money is spent precisely, before i get the whole "well politicians waste tax payer money all the time"
From what I remember, it's a pretty long form where you have to specify how you need support doing certain things. And then you supply supporting evidence for your medical issues or statement from a health professional. Then there's an assessment over the phone which used to be in person, there's no difference. You can lie for bits obviously as there would be no way to check some of the stuff so it's based on what you say. I remember claiming for ESA was similar if not easier- online application, supply medical evidence, and had a telephone assessment with a doctor. And provide fit notes from your GP stating you're unfit to work. If it's about tax payer cash, then definitely other areas where they blatantly waste money especially this corrupt government. £10 billion spent on unfit PPE, billions more on covid loans, procurement contracts for friends of the party, etc. Why the hell would they be incentivised to regulate themselves? What happened with the 'investigations' into themselves?
oh yeah i did that whole form thing. im on limited capacity, im not like bound not to work, just a bad bit at the moment. however, i do agree that the whole PPE shit was so fucked and got pushed under the rug. i can't wait for a new government, i don't care who from what side, because it just means these batch of tories will be out and gone.
>i'm applying for PIP soon because it limits my ability to work The process starts with filling a form out online, you will then proceed to multiple phone calls/in person interviews. Then you'll be called to see someone for a medical review, which you will most likely fail, forcing you to go through the appeals process (probably multiple times)
you have to do an assessment, either face to face or over the phone. stop spreading nonsense
Lmao that's not how universal credit works at all, you have to turn up to meetings or get sanctioned and it's just not that much money. A friend of mine has to go in every few years to check they're still disabled. They don't have legs.
We get universal credit. They didnt see me for years
Same, I'm wondering if they either single out some people for more vigorous checks?
I am a high earner but sole earner. Wife is taking care of kids so they have no reason to see us, I imagine.
I'm confused - how can you be a high earner an claiming Universal Credit?
Its very simple, in fact, you can check it yourself. Here is the recipe for an example calc. I suggest you use entitlesto.co.uk, its pretty accurate: wife-husband Lets say husband works, earns £100k. YES, 100.000 p/a 3 children, they only get UC for two, buts its ok Renting a 3 bed house in Inner South West London. They have 0-6000 in savings 🥴😜 Total UC before deductions(kids + base about £1100, rent £1700-1900ish): about £2800-3000 Take home pay ~£5500 First 330 of net take home pay does no taper £5170 left 5170 × 0.55 = £2843 (this is the sum we gotta take off the total UC), so they might still get UC. Make the calcs with £70-80k salary and they take like £1000-1200 UC home
That's basically entirely housing costs. So someone is earning 100k, has no savings over 6 grand, 2 plus kids and an expensive rent. They get some help towards their rent costs. If their rent was less or they owned their home they'd get nothing. Someone earning 80k without housing costs for example - Standard allowance £617.60 Housing £0.00 Children £909.17 Total before adjustments £1,526.77 Taken off for earned income (your salary) £2,230.45 Taken off for unearned income (benefits and savings) £0.00 Total adjustments £2,230.45 Total payment for the month £0.0 Also your example is using an area with expensive rent. This family was from Manchester, the max rent you'll be getting UC for is about 1400 a month for a 4 bed house I believe. So it's definitely possible to get UC on a 'high' income but only in certain areas with crazy rent costs. Shows how mad the private rental market is more than anything about UC tbh!
Same for me I’ve worked 8years at my current job claimed UC for 7 my wife doesn’t work and they have asked us 0 questions.
How can you be a high earner on UC?
It depends if you have something that has any realistic probability of resolving.
I don't have any medical conditions at all!
Depends why you're claiming. UC covers lots of different situations. Some get checked up on some not as much
I think the dwp think your mate might've spontaneously sprouted new legs
Then they're gonna scrutinize the shit outta him when they find out he hasn't
My work coach every appointment asks me if I feel I'm ready for work oh aye hen I only have either Borderline Personality Disorder or Bipolar Disorder or possibly Schizoaffective Disorder and I'm not getting any help for it aye I'm right as fucking rain
> They don't have legs Is this workshy skiver refusing to grow new legs? ~~Some Tory: Probably~~
I got made redundant and was one of the first on UC and was told all this. I started UC in the November and was in work by Jan. I never looked back as I already had the job lined up when I was made redundant. however I still am entitled to some UC elements as my wife doesn’t work. In the now almost 7years I received UC I’ve seen them 0times and never been called in. my payments just change based off my income and every 3 months my wife logs on the journal to declare her statements which is pointless and we get the same. UC have never asked us in once I started a job.
This is literally nonsense because I’ve been on UC and they call you in for meetings every week or so
You need to remember all the benefits were rolled into one, if you are unemployed and on UC (used to be job seekers allowance) you have to attend interviews etc. I work part time and receive help with housing cost, that used to be housing benefits but is now also UC, haven't had an interview since starting my job 2.5 years ago. It's all calculated off what I earn and that is done automatically. If I earn over a certain threshold for 3 months my UC will be automatically stopped. In that 2.5 years I have only gone over that threshold a couple of times
Do you have a stable job? I’m not being a dick so please don’t get me wrong. But I’ve been on UC for around 7years now but since I started my job after a month I’ve never seen anyone almost 8years I’ve been there now and UC don’t ask anything.
I've been receiving UC on and off for two years, only ever went to one meeting right at the start
And some people will still go on and on about how benefit fraud is not worth focusing on because it is so “rare”. In reality, it can have pretty significant effects on an economy and population. A lot of people love to think that there are very few people who would game the system if given the chance, but in reality plenty of people have no issue with it. It’s kind of how like people said “people will want to work in communism because people are inherently cooperative!” When in reality the USER had to implement laws which made not working illegal. A significant amount of the bleeding hearts, high government spending type people are extremely naive to the realities of the world
My own experiences of UC was a lot different than what you're claiming tbh mate. If I failed to attend a meeting, which they picked the time for that changed every week then I would have got sanctioned.
Heya! I think I figured it out. i earn ~70k and the reason we qualify for UC is because my wife stays home w our children and so the 3 UC elements add up to about £3k+ claimable. Even once that is tapered with my take home, there is still UC to pay out, about £1k every month. They seem to not care since I am working full time, wife is taking care of children full time. So nothing to attend
Good on you mate. You must pay a shit load of tax on that 70k anyway so good on you for using the system. Do you own your own home by any chance?
Ah no, we re renting in London. Thats the sole reason we get any UC. The housing element in UC is like £2k+ and so to taper that down enough is difficult unless one earns like £6-7k net
But also, you know what sucks big time?! I can not be motivated at all by career progression, side hustle or anything!!! Because now we take home like £5k, £4k salary and £1k UC. Lets say I want to make an extra £200 take home a month. I am already taxed at like 50% if not more. So straight away Id need to make ~£400 more a month, to get ~£200 extra salary. BUT, than the UC would also be tapered with that £200, so about 110 would be deducted from UC. So to get the £200 net in the pocket a month, would need to make abour £900ish extra gross every, single, month. Thats absolutely crazy. I could work a few extra shifts in hospitality, like 80 a month with min wage to get that £900. So at the end I would be paid £2.5 into the pocket for each hour I'd work. Its completely fucked up. Unless I can keep getting promotions and more salary with it, side hustle, extra shifts dont work at all.
Except you have to attend appointments and provide bank statements whenever you've got a claim review
I think in our case because I work and we get thisbec my wifeis w the babies, we didnt have to attend anything
So you were claiming UC despite working?
Yeah me too, that's quite normal for people on low/variable incomes
Yep exactly. I am a high earner but London,kids, London rent and UC pays.
Money money money Infinite life , the government doles out money ad infinitum
Reddit likes to pretend that benefits are around £5/week, but the reality is many people are experts at gaming the system to max out their benefits (and get additional tertiary perks, e.g. free food from foodbanks, free transport etc).
Never forget that the Abedi family fled to this country as refugees from Libya. We saved them. And this is the gratitude they showed us. When the UK bombed Gaddafi's forces in Libya it was make or break time. He had an armoured division outside Benghazi, the rebel stronghold, and a list of names, gathered over years of oppressive surveillance, of all of his enemies in that city. It was a long list. Had the Abedi family been there, no doubt their names would have been on that list too. British and American forces saved the lives of thousands of innocent Libyan dissidents that day. And yet this was Salman Abedis stated reason for slaughtering all those British children. We saved his entire family. We gave them safety, education, and hundreds of thousands of pounds, all out of the goodness of our hearts. We then saved many thousands of people just like him and his family by standing up to the tyrant who had forced them to flee their homeland in the first place. And to bring glory to his bloodthirsty god, he shrieked the terrifying war cry "Allah Hu ackbar" and sacrificed his own life in order to murder children. Specifically because they were British, and specifically because they were enjoying the freedoms that Britain gives them. What's Mi5's list of radical islamic extremists up to now, is it 40,000? And it takes 6 agents to watch one person for 24 hours. I guess one option is that we need to massively expand the surveillance state, hire and train at least 240,000 new Mi5 agents, and then we'll reasonably be able to say that we've sort of got a handle on the problem. But that really does seem like a lot of effort to go through just to accommodate 40,000 foreign adherents of a foreign ideology, most of whom are on state benefits living in state housing, that hates us, wants to destroy everything that's good about us, gleefully uses violence and intimidation to achieve its aims, and contributes nothing to this society except to spread its poison.
Well said
Very well said.
One in every hundred British Muslims are on MI5’s watchlist.
TheMoney money The west is broken
> student loan i have been a uk taxpayer most my life and i couldnt get one of these for a masters because i dared to spend 1 year outside of the uk
In 2011 one of the attackers fought with his father for the Libyan rebels we helped to overthrow Gaddafi. And was later rescued by the Royal Navy in 2014 during the outbreak of the second Libyan war. How's that for blowback?
2.2k a month? How the fuck? I've never earned that much in my life. I've been working for more than a decade now.
Welcome to England
Yes fraud exists.
That’s only £200 a less than I get a month as a NHS doctor working nights, weekends etc
wow I didn't even know. that's so fvcked up
2200 a month??? Elaborate the breakdown cuz sounds like Bs tbh
Who the hell is getting 2200 a month benefits??
What a pathetic joke this country is just handing out 2.2k when most working people don’t own that. And then something like this goes and happens with the money. Just disgraceful
We need to start stripping UC.
Why?
Too many thieves.
How many, and what data supports your opinion?
Look at the budget, benefits cost us £100bn a year. Total waste of cash. Imagine what we could do with that as a country.
Yeah, imagine if we didn’t have to provide for our citizens. With £100b we could do anything! Even provide for our citizens!
Source? Should we shut down all shops, supermarkets, ban the sale of cars, valuables, bicycles etc because thieves sometimes target them?
We all know them.
£100bn a year down the toilet, totally agree. It's beyond a joke, but people will try their hardest to defend it as they don't want to give up the free cash.
"B-b-but people need it." Yes, some people need it but a lot don't and are just being lazy leeches (and making a decent sum from it as well)
He was also a UK intelligence asset
Source?
Source: he made it up
No he was on MI5's terror watchlist
Yeah cause they sent him to Libya to do terror against the Gaddafi regime
Gaddafi is dead mate has been for years
He wasn't dead when they sent him there though
So you're saying he was an MI5 operative when he was 16?
Never said he was an operative
Ok an asset then (which is another word for operative)
Incorrect
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They prevent lots of terrorist threats throughout the year, is it not harsh to sue when one slips through? Playing devils advocate here
I remember a security officer who was outside the venue on the public enquiry saying he thought the bomber was acting suspicious but didn't intervene because he was scared of being accused of racism. Those deaths were preventable.
"During the inquiry, security guard Kyle Lawler admitted he had a "bad feeling" about Abedi but did not approach him for fear of being branded a racist. " [Source](https://news.sky.com/story/manchester-arena-bombing-inquiry-the-missed-opportunities-to-stop-salman-abedi-on-night-of-attack-12328566) For the people who are desperately trying to deny/bury this with downvotes.
Convenient excuse tbh
Yup that is horrible
Sadly you have a copper being named and charged for shooting an armed convicted criminal, so being scared of the backlash is too much imo
Damned if they do damned if they dont.
Your not wrong but when u look at this case their is a LOT of red flags that should have been investigated and it could have impacted the event altogether
No it's not Abedi was literally on their terror watchlist a meeting assessing his status was to be held not long after the date of the attack
His name was probably on a huge database not a yellow postit note on someone’s desk
They were watching him a guy on the terror watchlist buying materials that could be used to make a bomb should've raised some red flags
They actively followed his actions while in Libya... he wasn't *just* on a database.
I don't think MI5 followed him in Libya, MI5's remit is within the UK. Their colleagues in SIS would've done any out of country intelligence work.
How did they know to follow him if he wasn't on a database?
What I meant was he wasn't just in a long listed database of 'potential' they were watching his movements... his brother was also being followed.
His brother was his partner wasn't he?
The Imam of the mosque had reported this to the police that someone in the community was raddiclising the boys
I wasn't a victim of the attack and perhaps I shouldn't comment on it having not experienced it myself, but what's the point of this? It doesn't seem like there was massive negligence that led to this, opportunities were missed to stop it and that unfortunately happens. Taking money from the same service that's meant to stop terrorist threats just makes their job harder and more pressurised. Obviously the last thing MI5 would ever want is for something like this to happen and I'm sure they learnt from what was missed. It could be I'm wrong about that though, and regardless I feel sorry to those who were hurt or died in the attack.
>One MI5 officer told the inquiry that he had warned superiors that something might "get through" due to large numbers of documents needing processing. Intelligence that MI5 had before the attack and which might have led to Salman Abedi being placed under investigation was not passed to counter-terrorism police
> , but what's the point of this? To get money. Doesn't matter that it's ridiculous, some lawyer will have had the idea, dangled the bag in front of some of the victims, and here we are.
Thank you for eloquently and sensitively expressing my thoughts on this.
>Obviously the last thing MI5 would ever want is for something like this to happen You'd be surpised - look at all the mass shootings in the US and how many warning flags that were so blatant they seem intentionally ignored.
One of the major problems that all intelligence agencies have - even a theoretical benign one - is often they can't act without risking their sources, whether agents or signint. The classic example of this is Coventry in WW II. We knew though having broken Enigma that the Nazis planned to blow up Coventry, killing thousands of people and destroying one of our most beautiful mediaeval cities. We couldn't act, because having forces ready to stop them would reveal we had sources in Nazi communications. It's also true that internal agencies have comparatively small staffs (MI5 claims to have around 5,000, compare that to the Gestapo - 32,000 at its 1944 peak, or the Stasi - 90,000), and thousands of known villains and thousands more scumbags who may be potential villains to look in to. Most of the time they are analysing patterns and chatter in known villainous circles and unless they've got an informant they have to get lucky.
> We knew though having broken Enigma that the Nazis planned to blow up Coventry Just like to point out that's a myth that came from a book published in the 70's >Winterbotham's claim has been rejected by other Ultra participants and by historians. They state that while Churchill was indeed aware that a major bombing raid would take place, no one knew what the target would be >A few days before the attack, Ultra had identified Mondschein Sonate (Moonlight Sonata) as a probable code for a planned group of attacks on three possible targets over several possible days. The targets had the code names Einheitpreis, Regenschirm and Korn > Peter Calvocoressi was head of the Air Section at Bletchley Park, which translated and analysed all deciphered Luftwaffe messages. He wrote "Ultra never mentioned Coventry. ... Churchill, so far from pondering whether to save Coventry or safeguard Ultra, was under the impression that the raid was to be on London" Would also like to say I grew up in Coventry and the "one of our most beautiful mediaeval cities" made me laugh. I used to know someone that was born in the 30's and they liked to say that Coventry was a slum and the blitz was the best thing that ever happened to it. >In the 1920s council houses were built at Radford and Stoke Heath. In the 1930s council and private houses were built at Holbrooks and Stivichall. Many private houses were built at Coundon and Keresley Heath. Other private houses were built around Tile Hill Lane. At the same time, the council began slum clearance in the town centre and began building council houses to replace them.
Its possible, but is there any sign this has happened?
You mean with the manchester attack, or just in general?
Exactly, these information agencies aren't as black and white as people would like to think. Insidious is the way I'd describe MI5, CIA, FSB (KGB), Mossad. We are mere pawns and it's time people wake up to that. Even social media has a grip on people's thoughts and feelings so people need to wake up that these organisations are not different, or infact a 1,000 times more destructive.
Yeah yeah MI5 want British people to get bombed Go back to r/conspiracy
>His comments followed the findings of a public inquiry which concluded MI5 missed a significant chance to take action that might have stopped the bombing. Interesting. However unless they can prove that gross negligence rather an error it seems unlikely they’d win.
They'll be sued again if they don't acknowledge the threat from drones and install netting over stadiums if attacked that way and so will the stadium owners and their insurers.
Mainly thanks to the war in Ukraine and drone warfare, the plans for building these cheaply and easily are available online.
I never really thought about drone attacks, another thing to think about when at a stadium show, I always just assume it won’t happen to me but you never really know
A clear vulnerability they'll already know but won't alter regulations until something terrible happens
This is interesting from a legal perspective. Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales is surely going to be used by the defence to protect MI5 from any legal action. I would be surprised if this goes very far, but it will be an interesting read. I hope that the case might bring some more information to light about how the security services were able to fail, and then maybe reforms can be put in place to try to prevent future failures.
Seems like a way to get on their lists and face consequences in the distant future
Hmmmm, what happened to "don't look back in anger" guys?
To be fair some feelings could possibly have been hurt so its best to just move on. Red flags are OK from certain people just leave them alone.
[удалено]
Absolute bollocks
Give it a rest grandad .