OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i see what youve done there. Very clever (well not really) just a simple yes no question is the benefit system fair and working.

It'll be easier to stop an iceberg than it would getting my clan to take up a new hobby.

I'm sure it will bring a warm glow to the heart of those in fuel poverty this winter, knowing that it'll all be worth it for the betterment of society as a whole.

You're right. It wasn't very clever of you to whinge and whine about being "sorry to have an opinion". Nobody has said you can't have an opinion.

Thus you appear to be whinging that anyone else has an opinion too – or more specifically, that anyone else can have an opinion about your opinion.

Well tough. If you don't like it, don't post your opinions on a public forum, because once you do that, other people are allowed to voice their opinions on yours, in exactly the same way that you are allowed to express your opinions on other people's opinions.

In your opinion, that is.

So after all that pi55 and wind you still couldnt bring yourself to answer the question.

I'll answer your question for you by giving you my opinion on the subject.

No, it is not right that someone on benefits should be earning more than someone who is working full-time but the solution is not to cut the benefits of those who cannot work full-time. Those on benefits should be given enough support to enable them to live adequately, those working full-time should be able to earn enough to live comfortably, as a minimum.

Now I have a question for you: Are you from Wakefield by any chance?

I'd hate to upset you by offering an opinion on your opinion.

But since you insist, I shall repeat things that you presumably missed earlier.

If companies such as Tesco need a job doing, they can afford to pay someone to do it. They can afford to employ someone. This would be a boost to the economy. Indeed, companies such as Tesco actually promised to create lots of jobs so that all the people who are being thrown out of work for no fault of their own would have new ones to go to.

Having people stack shelves for a few weeks, at the taxpayers' expense, is not fulfilling that promise - especially when there is no chance of a job at the end of it, but a new person on the same deal.

If someone is made redundant, through no fault of their own, why do you appear to think that they should give Tesco free labour that you and I subsidise? Do you assume that, having been made redundant, they suddenly become workshy and need this 'experience'?

The economy will not grow because Tesco - or any firm - is able to take advantage of free labour.

It will grow with the creation of real jobs.

So if a job needs doing, then a job should be made available. And if a company cannot - seriously - afford a full and decent wage for the job, then possibly there needs to be a rethink on in-work benefits making sure that the person who takes up the job can actually live. Just as there needs to be serious thought given to the issues of seasonal and short-term contract work.

And what Coddy said.

And to answer yours no i dont live in Wakefield, and I fail to see why my opinion of this situation is effected from where i live, this is not endemic of one particular area but is happening up and down the entire length and bredth of the country just a point from your post, not 1 person on benefits EARNS their money and thats my point, i am not suggesting they arent given help but, they should EARN their money, get them repairing roads with council gangs, even give them a scraper and clean the chewing gum off the streets, get them doing anything but for the community for the public that provides their living, if they dont like it, THEN they can wave bye bye to free money. or do what others do and get a job.