The Estate

[02]

If the support worker manages to help one or two alcoholics get on the straight and narrow, then she's doing a very valuable job. I was surprised that she visits these men in their homes on her own. Is that normal? It seems like a very vulnerable position for a young woman to be in.

I'm all for giving these people as much support as possible. I can't understand however, why they qualify for DLA rather than just the basic unemployment benefit. Surely this just gives them cash to buy alcohol, thereby perpetuating the problem(?) Is there no better way this money can be used to benefit these people, without giving them cash?

Support work is good, but she would need to be trying to engage the problem drinkers with specialist treatment to detox etc... to really help them, it seemed most of her time was spent transporting them and dealing with paperwork. I would presume that they have a lone worker policy in place which she would have to ring in to the office before and after visits and have a procedure in place if she felt at risk.

Totally agree on your second paragraph (I posted a similar point at the same time), perhaps they should be given food stamps in the same way I think child benefit should not be cash but vouchers only usable for providing the children with clothes, food etc...

[Minder]

I don't know why people are getting so het up about the money given to people with drink problems from an economic point of view as they spend it all on booze which a lot goes directly back to the government in taxes and local on and off trade businesses. I would be more concerned from a health perspective in terms of having more income they are able to consume more alcohol and cause more harm to themselves (and potentially others).

You then have to look at the cost to the NHS of dealing with alcoholic related illnesses. The DLA would be better channelled into ways of helping these people, be it support workers or treatment. The support workers would probably need a bit of a "carrot and stick" approach as I have no doubt that girl in the Estate is doing her best but there seems to be no incentive for those chaps to get off the drink. I also think there is an element of them having to do it themselves and all the support workers in the world isn't going to make a difference if they don't want to quit.

[02]

You then have to look at the cost to the NHS of dealing with alcoholic related illnesses. The DLA would be better channelled into ways of helping these people, be it support workers or treatment. The support workers would probably need a bit of a "carrot and stick" approach as I have no doubt that girl in the Estate is doing her best but there seems to be no incentive for those chaps to get off the drink. I also think there is an element of them having to do it themselves and all the support workers in the world isn't going to make a difference if they don't want to quit.

Definitely, can't fault what you say, support is good as long as it is not monetary.

[Maguire01]

did ya see that **** that started the band, i the wan that cant get a job for 10 years useless b**tard no intention of work make ya sick take the son to the bru ta get another slice o my tax any workin man that was selfemployed and has went outta work would get f**k all but these hoors that have never done anything get the fukin works they have all the big tvs cars and the works his wife earned 150 a week the c***ts need gased

and breathe

[02]

did ya see that **** that started the band, i the wan that cant get a job for 10 years useless b**tard no intention of work make ya sick take the son to the bru ta get another slice o my tax any workin man that was selfemployed and has went outta work would get f**k all but these hoors that have never done anything get the fukin works they have all the big tvs cars and the works his wife earned 150 a week the c***ts need gased

and breathe

He was like a drill sergeant/agony aunt this week, I suppose in his own way he is helping to create a bit of community spirit. The first non-depressing storyline of the whole series this week when a single mother went back to college and managed to get accepted onto a social work degree at the University of Ulster...well done her!

[illdecide]

Guys i was told today that my name had been brought up in this thread so for the 1st time i just read through it there...I for one am not looking any sympathy from anyone on here and for a man who worked un interupted for 22 years i was always always the guys who said "if a fellas not working after a year then he doesn't want work" but that all came when i was working away with no worries. How things change...i was made redundant last Feb and have still not had any joy on the job front (didn't start applying for jobs until June as i was on crutches for 3 months) from June till now I've applied for approx 80 vacancies and have had 2 interviews which were unsuccessful, i recently started to apply for jobs in the lower paid sector and I'm still not getting any joy...WTF like. I served an apprenticeship in Engineering as well and can't even get back into that.

Don't even start me on Government handouts...i got £67.50 a week on the bru for 26 weeks and was then told (nicely) to f**k off, i haven't had a payment from Sept 1st because my wife works part time. Yes we get credits but it doesn't even cover my mortgage let alone heat, food and car etc...now hoe the feck all these people from that programme get the money they say is beyond me...

Now there were a few comments about i should go out and remove graffiti and clean the streets...well pay me for it and I'll be the 1st man with a brush in my hand...or maybe i should do it for free as i don't get the bru and then try and pay a baby minder for my 2 kids. I'd shovel shite if i got the money for doing so...so please don't tar me with the same brush as them edjits on that show...

[haranguerer]

Ironically, your last sentence is a lot more of a generalisation - lumping all the people on the estate together - than anything on this thread. Any posts I've seen have been in response to circumstances/actions of specific individuals and those in similar circumstances, or with a similar (lack of) propensity for work, not the estate, or any social class, as a whole.

[NAG1]

Spare me the liberal BS on this please.

These drunks are a drain on our society and instead of letting them get on with their 'life choices' what do we do, give them a free flat and give them a wee buddy who calls round to the see them every week wee chat and pat on the back oh yeah and collects money to pay their fines. What else oh yeah drives them to the job centre so they can sign up for DLA.

Is there something wrong with this picture? Most people on here working their asses off to earn a living for their family and what do we end up paying for? These drunks to have somewhere to live, to have drinking money and to have a support worker to tell them to calm down when they are going off the rails a bit.

You may think I am being very harsh but I am sick sore and tired of watching people like this take the hand out of me and my colleagues, with this sense of entitlement that we some how will pay for them to do what they like for the rest of their lives.

Please some one tell me where I am wrong?

What f**king planet do you live on? Do you honestly think people just wake up one morning and decide they're going to drink for the rest of their lives?

As someone who has seen the devestating effects alcoholism has on a person and their family I am more than happy to see these people get all the support they can. You branding it as a drain on society is pathetic.

I was looking at simply from a the point of view of the girls role in this documentary. Which I see as vague at best.

I am sorry that you have been touched by alcoholism in your life and I am not playing down its devastating nature. My issue is simply that we as in society are paying for this support/ social worker to do what and we are giving the alcoholics money to do what? At the end of the day are we helping them by giving them cash in their hand no!

Is it a drain on precious resources in this society yes. Would I rather see my money spent on schooling, NHS, community development, work schemes you name it, yes.

Highlights half the problem in the world when we just become so accepting of this type of behaviour. Dont get me wrong there should be properly funded treatment for these people, with clearly thought out work programmes for them and if they dont adhere to this then time to rethink their needs/ benefits.

[screenmachine]

Perhaps we weren't mentioning the correct benefits scheme - DLA, ESA, etc.  I don't pretend to be an expert on the situation but any point I was trying to make earlier in the thread was as simple as this:

Mr A worked for ten years, paying his taxes, national insurance, etc.  Mr A has recently become unemployed but is actively seeking another job.  Mr A now receives benefits, JSA I presume, to the tune of about £60-70 per week.  If Mr A has a family this may be increased, I'm not sure.  Let's pretend he has no family and it stays at the above total.

Moving on to Mr B.  Mr B perhaps worked a while ago but hasn't worked for lets say ten years.  Mr B is an alcoholic, and lets pretend he has no children so we can make the comparison with Mr A.  Mr B gets perhaps 3-4 times (a rough estimate) the amount of money Mr A gets and may also get his rent paid, heating allowance, etc. 

Yes Mr B is an alcoholic and yes alcoholism is a disease, but how does this qualify Mr B any more than Mr A to receive a substantial amount more in his benefits package each week.  Surely Mr A who has contributed for X number of years to the system through tax and national insurance contributions deserves to be treated better than someone who has contributed nothing or very little?  How does this extra money help him to beat his alcoholism?  Surely it encourages it by giving him access to more money than usual to buy more alcohol and therefore makes his problems worse. 

If alcoholics got the same benefits package as your average Joe Bloggs there would be a lot less registered alcoholics due to the fact that there would be no financial benefits to being an alcoholic.  You do not defeat a disease by giving people who suffer from it access to the very thing that causes it.  Give them the same amount of benefits and access to people or programs that can help them.

[haranguerer]

Just saw this weeks show last night - I see the one whos for Uni isnt from there, but was placed in emeregncy housing there when came back from canada. Your boy noel has the life of an 8 year old gang leader - rounding up the lads to build bonfires and practice drumming. No wonder the 12th bonfires are so big with such a shower of useless f**kers available to organise them.

Pmsl at kelly ann as usual - 'Kelly ann is feelign the effects of a night out with her mum' - cut to kelly ann badly hungover and trying to hide a load of lovebites.

[tbrick18]

Perhaps we weren't mentioning the correct benefits scheme - DLA, ESA, etc.  I don't pretend to be an expert on the situation but any point I was trying to make earlier in the thread was as simple as this:

Mr A worked for ten years, paying his taxes, national insurance, etc.  Mr A has recently become unemployed but is actively seeking another job.  Mr A now receives benefits, JSA I presume, to the tune of about £60-70 per week.  If Mr A has a family this may be increased, I'm not sure.  Let's pretend he has no family and it stays at the above total.

Moving on to Mr B.  Mr B perhaps worked a while ago but hasn't worked for lets say ten years.  Mr B is an alcoholic, and lets pretend he has no children so we can make the comparison with Mr A.  Mr B gets perhaps 3-4 times (a rough estimate) the amount of money Mr A gets and may also get his rent paid, heating allowance, etc. 

Yes Mr B is an alcoholic and yes alcoholism is a disease, but how does this qualify Mr B any more than Mr A to receive a substantial amount more in his benefits package each week.  Surely Mr A who has contributed for X number of years to the system through tax and national insurance contributions deserves to be treated better than someone who has contributed nothing or very little?  How does this extra money help him to beat his alcoholism?  Surely it encourages it by giving him access to more money than usual to buy more alcohol and therefore makes his problems worse. 

If alcoholics got the same benefits package as your average Joe Bloggs there would be a lot less registered alcoholics due to the fact that there would be no financial benefits to being an alcoholic.  You do not defeat a disease by giving people who suffer from it access to the very thing that causes it.  Give them the same amount of benefits and access to people or programs that can help them.

I see where you're coming from but that's a bit of a generalisation. If you ever talk to a recovering alcoholic you'll find they say they were born an alcoholic. It has nothing to do with the availability or the cost of alcohol. It's a disease that they can no more control than say you could control diabeties. No-one knows they have the disease until it's too late and by that stage the damage may well be done, in that they could have lost their job or family or both. There is no evidence that reducing the money available to an alcoholic will result in less alcoholism, in fact I would go the other way and suggest it may lead to higher crime rates as they could turn to crime to fund the drink. I'm no expert on it, but I do know that cutting off money would have little or no effect.

[Grunter]

the estate remix

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y2BnEtOLUQ&feature=share

starts of slow but worth the watch

[screenexile]

Perhaps we weren't mentioning the correct benefits scheme - DLA, ESA, etc.  I don't pretend to be an expert on the situation but any point I was trying to make earlier in the thread was as simple as this:

Mr A worked for ten years, paying his taxes, national insurance, etc.  Mr A has recently become unemployed but is actively seeking another job.  Mr A now receives benefits, JSA I presume, to the tune of about £60-70 per week.  If Mr A has a family this may be increased, I'm not sure.  Let's pretend he has no family and it stays at the above total.

Moving on to Mr B.  Mr B perhaps worked a while ago but hasn't worked for lets say ten years.  Mr B is an alcoholic, and lets pretend he has no children so we can make the comparison with Mr A.  Mr B gets perhaps 3-4 times (a rough estimate) the amount of money Mr A gets and may also get his rent paid, heating allowance, etc. 

Yes Mr B is an alcoholic and yes alcoholism is a disease, but how does this qualify Mr B any more than Mr A to receive a substantial amount more in his benefits package each week.  Surely Mr A who has contributed for X number of years to the system through tax and national insurance contributions deserves to be treated better than someone who has contributed nothing or very little?  How does this extra money help him to beat his alcoholism?  Surely it encourages it by giving him access to more money than usual to buy more alcohol and therefore makes his problems worse. 

If alcoholics got the same benefits package as your average Joe Bloggs there would be a lot less registered alcoholics due to the fact that there would be no financial benefits to being an alcoholic.  You do not defeat a disease by giving people who suffer from it access to the very thing that causes it.  Give them the same amount of benefits and access to people or programs that can help them.

I see where you're coming from but that's a bit of a generalisation. If you ever talk to a recovering alcoholic you'll find they say they were born an alcoholic. It has nothing to do with the availability or the cost of alcohol. It's a disease that they can no more control than say you could control diabeties. No-one knows they have the disease until it's too late and by that stage the damage may well be done, in that they could have lost their job or family or both. There is no evidence that reducing the money available to an alcoholic will result in less alcoholism, in fact I would go the other way and suggest it may lead to higher crime rates as they could turn to crime to fund the drink. I'm no expert on it, but I do know that cutting off money would have little or no effect.

I agree that Alcoholism is a disease but to say that it's like Diabetes doesn't make sense. If a diabetic doesn't get insulin they might die. If an Alcoholic doesn't get Alcohol they're better off.

Gambling addiction would be on a par with Acoholism yet nobody is advocating giving them more money. In my opinion if dropping funding for Alcoholics has no great effect then why not do it? Pump the money into schemes to combat addiction rather than feed the habit!

[Hoof Hearted]

screenmachine, tbrick, now exile, is the next series coming from Glenelly Villas i wonder ? Excuse in already !

[haranguerer]

If you ever talk to a recovering alcoholic you'll find they say they were born an alcoholic. It has nothing to do with the availability or the cost of alcohol. It's a disease that they can no more control than say you could control diabeties.

Absolute bollocks imo. Some people may be more inclined to overindulge, in drink/food/drugs, whatever. The majority of its still down to them however. Of course if you talk to a recovering alcoholic he'll say he was born with it - you wont find too many people, no matter how much they pretend to be, who are fully honest, even with themselves, and will say, you know what, it was my fault.