Tulip1

And very nice

And Heros, Celebrations and Roses. They are just so good. I always have a tub of each in the house over Christmas and often have to replenish them when they’ve gone to quickly.

I don’t. I recently had a blood test at my local hospital and had to wear one then which I have no problem doing.

I answered it. All people/situations should be focused on and that includes the single parent of a 15 year old that works less than a third of the hours a full time worker does when they could work far more. It also includes the person with a disability that cannot work anymore and as such should not be penalised. If there is a clear case of why someone cannot work more hours then it would be very wrong to penalise them. Those that can document it isn’t possible to do anymore have nothing to worry about. That is fairness.

Many are doing up to 16 hours a week even if their circumstances would make working 20 hours possible. It’s this cut off that I think is causing the issue. I know a few people in retail management who have such people working for them. They will never work even 10 minutes over the maximum they can work without it affecting their benefits. When there’s desperate staff shortages and overtime to be had many workers jump at the chance. The ones we are discussing never do even though they could. I have no doubt some are doing all the hours they can like you say but you must also know there are many that are not doing as much as they could. I am sure no one is suggesting the single parent of a one year old should be out the house working for 10 hours a day but the parent of a 10 year old at school all day is likely to have the ability to do more. If they have then they should.

I think many changes/situations need to be explored but this post is focusing on those that can work up to 16 hours a week without their benefits being affected. Let’s look at the single parent situation. Many do take advantage of the deal and work say 15 hours a week. Whether that’s two full days or 3 hours five days a week it makes no difference. While they are doing that they have sorted out childcare. If they can sort that out for 3 hours, why can’t they sort it out for more hours. I get they may need to be at the school gates if they chose not to use after school clubs but they can still work say 9.30 to 3pm. What the government is saying is they will be encouraged to work more hours and may have some benefits deducted if they chose not to. Why is that so terrible. They can work and do work and are therefore able to work a little more. Should those that can be allowed to say I can’t be arsed and everyone’s ok with that. Benefits are for those in need. I don’t want to work more hours even though I am capable of doing so isn’t someone in need. I have no issues at all with those in need getting financial help, that’s exactly how it should be.

Single parents are just as capable of working as parents that have a partner. Parents have issues with childcare/before and after school clubs etc regardless as to whether there’s one or two of them. I am sure there are bigger fish to fry but that doesn’t mean people should get a free ride. If you are capable and able to work, you should. Sure if you can financially support yourself you can chose to sit at home everyday but if not you should do everything you can to earn money. Millions of parents work and manage childcare issues and those with lower income get almost all childcare paid for. I know lots of people that work full time, school hours etc. If they can all manage it why is it different just because you have the ‘single’ label. My kids are long since all grown up now but I spent many years as a single parent and I’ve always worked. It wasn’t easy but it wasn’t impossible. I was able to work Monday to Friday so that’s what I did. As I said, I understand there are some that are unable to work such as those with a disability as you have mentioned and those people should be protected but all that are capable of working should.

From what I have read it seems those who work less than 16 hours a week and get universal credit will be encouraged to work more hours and face having some benefits cut if they don’t. While I appreciate some can’t, I’m sure many could. I see nothing wrong with trying to get people to work more hours when they are capable of doing so.

I assume the 120,000 you mention that are working and claiming benefits are committing benefit fraud. Do you think they shouldn't be chasing them. Should they allow people to steal from the public purse?

Your bank will be able to provide you with statements going back that far.

It was incredible, just perfect.

‘Yes on social media the latest date seems to be 22/11/16’ That’s good to know, it’s certainly moving along now.

Dependant child is under 23 and you have to evidence their dependency. It would really only cover someone in full time education I think as in any other situation they can earn money or access benefits so not dependent.

The Queen has died. What an incredible lady. May she rest in peace

Then there’s little point in going for the 143 as they would be over 90 before they get to the front of the queue. With average life expectancy being what it is, it’s unlikely they will ever get the visa and if by chance they make it to over 90 then they may well fail the medical. The aged visas give a bridging visa to enable them to stay onshore while in the queue. They won’t get to the front of that queue either but they’d be with you. That option comes with many pitfalls though. They will never have any access to help. Your family would need to financially support them for ever which includes medical costs. With two elderly parents those costs could be eye watering. I wish you luck in whatever you chose to do.