Bob Hutton’s Attempt To Get A Job On The Daily Mail

The welfare state was set up in the late 1940s by the Attlee government. This was, no doubt, motivated by a genuine desire to see an end to poverty by helping those who had fallen on hard times.

Thus begins Bob The Boy Blunder's latest pile of piffle. He continues:

However, over the last few decades it has become so massive that millions of our fellow-citizens now refuse to work because they know they can get free handouts from the state. I'm not writing now about those who are genuinely unemployed, but those who don't want to work (I see them often in Ramsgate town centre; all they are fit for is boozing, swearing and fathering kids by different women, producing another generation of scroungers – I call them the "Pramsgate Militia").

Now, unemployment rates aren't as easy to get a hold of as they might be, what with those in power wanting to look as if they've made an impact. "Out of work and claiming benefits," and suchlike circumlocutions are employed. The Fount Of All Knowledge™ gives the unemployment rate for Thanet (the district Ramsgate resides in when it's not sailing off into the North Sea) as 4.1%. This site puts the number (as of 2011) on Jobseeker's Allowance at 3.8% and those on Income Support (some of whom may be working part-time) at 5.5%. Which is higher than the national average, but then that's to be expected. Ramsgate's main industries are fishing and tourism; the former being very much in decline and the latter being notoriously fickle, depending on the British weather as it does, not to mention being highly seasonal. I've lived in a seaside town; believe me, Man doth not live year-round by a few weeks' worth of midsummer boom-time alone. And if the summer's wet, it's worse.

In short, Ramsgate is your typical depressed area, and the reasons for that are obvious and easy to understand. But anyway…

Given Ramsgate's (as of 2001) population, which I've rounded up to 40,000, and an unemployment rate which I've rounded down to 4% (we're definitely talking "kind of in the ball-park" figures here), there are likely somewhere around 1,600 people out of work there.

How many of those one-thousand, six-hundred people is Bob prepared to state he's seen cavorting in the town centre? (Shock! Horror! Unemployed people not sitting at home moping!) How many of the men are actually fathers to multiple children by multiple women, and how does he know? (And you know what? I'm quite bloody proud to live in a country where having a child doesn't mean people are forced to marry.)

Furthermore, there are currently somewhere around 1.2 million people unemployed in the UK. At which point we may want to take another look at Bob's "millions of our fellow-citizens" who "now refuse to work because they know they can get free handouts from the state." Millions, Bob? Plural? Are you saying that all of those people are refusing to work? Or are you just too lazy to take your own advice and google for information?

But okay, let's take a look at that national figure. According to this article the number of long-term (out of work for two years or longer) unemployed in January last year (Yeah: this is another aspect it's hard to find reliable figures for.) was 129,400. Unless that claim is wrong by an order of magnitude, I think the conclusion must be that Bob's talking out the part of his body usually reserved for sitting on. How not-unusual-at-all!

Now, I'll be the first to agree that those who scam the system should be brought to justice (Google, Starbucks… (Odd how people would rather pick on someone who manages to scam a paltry fifty quid a week than a corporation which manages millions, ain't it.)); but no system is perfect, and I would much rather have one which is "loose" enough that it pays the occasional undeserving person than one which is so "tight" that the truly needy are left wanting.

And there's another thing. I call it reality.

There are, currently, more people out of work than there are jobs available for them to do. Someone then, quite obviously, is going to be claiming benefits. Who would you rather work next to, a person who actually wants to work, or a shiftless lazy no-goodnik who's only there 'cause they were going to have their benefits cut if they didn't take the job? I would rather pay benefits to people who may be undeserving than end up carrying them at work. Magic up enough jobs so there's work for all, and I'll happily revisit that statement.

Bob continues:

…over the last 40 years, or so, many people have come to trust in the state to provide, rather than God. Consequently, they think they don't need God. In effect, the welfare state has caused people to end up in Hell.

Which I have to say is an interesting idea. I think Bob's got his dating a little mixed, mind. The wane in religiosity amongst the hoi polloy would seem to have begun (or at least, begun to accelerate) way back in the mid nineteenth-century. But more generally, that's also the same period during which more and more laws granting and protecting the rights of the common person have been established. Whether the somewhat coincidental decline in religiosity and rise in common rights is correlation or causation, or even a bit of both, I don't know, but it's certainly possible that there's a connection.

Mind you, even if there is, I suspect Bobberty and I are going to disagree heartily on whether helping our fellow human beings instead of waiting for an imaginary friend to step in, is a good thing or not…

I come now to the remedy: slash welfare spending, big time. As benefits are reduced so churches can set up soup kitchens where those in need can get soup and rolls to feed themselves. As the poor are queuing up to get their food Christian Evangelists can get alongside them and tell them of the Saviour. Perhaps such evangelists can sit down with them as they eat and tell them of the Bread of Life, and how they need to have their souls fed as well as their bodies.

Blimey, it's like I have the gift of prophecy innit!

I'd just like to point out that the strategy Bob espouses is one of the most craven, cowardly and downright despicable things I've ever read from him. And it has some tough competition, so it should be proud.

Allow me to paraphrase:

We should make sure that people become so hungry that they will queue up for a bread roll and a bowl of soup, and then take advantage of their condition and their gratitude.

Now, I'd never say that religious people never do good for good's sake. I've known too many good people who happened to be religious, to make such a sweeping statement. There is, though, a nasty side to way too much religious charity. Quite simply, it isn't charity, in the common usage of the word, which implies a certain amount of altruism. No, what it is is a manipulative ploy to get people into a position where they don't want to seem ungrateful, and then moralise at them. It's disgusting.

"At the end of the day," says Bob,

what matters is not how much of this world's goods we have but whether or not our souls are saved. Slashing benefits will help to get matters back into their proper perspective.

It is eternity that counts, not making people comfortable and state-dependent in this life.

Y'know, if by some slim chance there is a deity who takes an interest in our lives and our conduct, I would fully expect that deity to take a dim view indeed, of the behaviour of people like Bob, who would bring people almost to the point of starvation just so they can tell those people all about the thoughts and intentions of a being so powerful that they could create a whole universe in six days.

Back in the real world, for all Bob's talk of eternity, he cannot show the slightest shred of evidence supporting the idea of an afterlife, and yet he'd starve people in the name of it.

He is, in the most polite terms I can come up with, a complete fucking tosser.
Daz


You may use these HTML tags in comments
<a href="" title=""></a> <abbr title=""></abbr>
<acronym title=""></acronym> <blockquote></blockquote> <del></del>* <strike></strike>† <em></em>* <i></i>† <strong></strong>* <b></b>†

* is generally preferred over †

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Bob Hutton’s Attempt To Get A Job On The Daily Mail

  1. Very good post, and I agree wholeheartedly. Mr. Hutton’s post illustrates nicely the idea that the “afterlife” is used more to justify atrocious behavior than it is to justify moral behavior. What’s even worse is that the guy probably thinks himself morally upstanding for categorically wanting to starve unemployed people.

    Like

  2. Mind you, he has a precedent in the Hurly Babble. So this daft bint only goes and pours some horrifically expensive ointment all over Deer Lawd Jeezus’s feet. “That’s outrageous!” points out Judas (yes, that Judas). “The money you wasted on cosmetics could have fed a family of sixteen for a fortnight!” And Jeezus replied, “Yeah, but you’re *always* going to have poor people to waste your money on, but I’m not going to be here forever and I’m *much* more important.”

    Like

  3. Bob makes a common mistake in assuming that anyone he see’s during the daytime during the week must be a scrounger (wonder why Bob’s not at work? Hmmmm). Many people work shifts and at weekends so have time off during the week, so many of those he see’s may in fact be employed. Did he question them to find out? I doubt it.

    As for his comments that eternity is the most important thing, how bloody typical. Don’t bother trying to make this life better, just concentrate on the next. Bah!

    Like

  4. I fully concur with the comments of “donotwash” above. The poor will always be with us; indeed, God ordains our station in life. It is right to help the poor but they need to be saved, as most rich people do as well.

    Like

  5. God ordains our station in life.

    No, Bob, he doesn’t. We have no pre-ordained “station.” Monarchs do not rule by divine right, and the rest of us are not their subjects by command of a god. Accident of birth, is all it is, and we should not, as you imply, simply accept “our lot in life.”

    No gods
    No kings
    No masters

    Would you like to address the several flagrant exaggerations I pointed out in your post?

    Like

  6. I also note that BH cites Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians where he has a go at people who don’t work — Paul says, basically, “don’t work, don’t eat” so be aware there’s this bit of right-wing social engineering going on there …

    What BH does, of course, is take a quote out of context and applies it to whatever situation he wants to in order to big up his argument.

    Like

  7. Reply to donotwash: I don’t believe that people who genuinely can’t work should get no benefit, but those who refuse to work

    Reply to Daz: I haven’t exagerated. There are hordes of people who are offically “too ill” to work but are perfectly capable. These may not be classed as unemployed but they are still scrounging and sponging off the taxpayer, as well as bisobeying the Biblical injunction to work for a living.

    Like

  8. “I don’t believe that …” blah blah.

    I understand what it is that you do not believe. Your beliefs are poisonous and despicable, like that foul book you keep banging on about. I expect you’re also of the mindset that it is better for 100 innocent men to go to jail rather than to risk one guilty man to escape retribution.

    Like

  9. Bob, in a country with 1.2 million unemployed, you stated that “millions,” plural, are deliberately avoiding work so as to sponge off the state. In a town with 1,600 or so out of work, you stated that you’d observed, and had inferred the motivations of, a large enough sample to be able to state that such avoidance of work is a significant problem. You tar all of them with the brush of drunkenness and promiscuity, without explaining how you know the things you claim to be true. Yes: all of those are exaggerations (at best).

    Oddly enough in light of your sudden claim to be talking of those who “pretend to be ill,” Bob, the one aspect you noticeably didn’t copy straight off a Daily Mail editorial mention was the “Disability Benefit scroungers” myth.

    Like

  10. Hey Daz: Many thanks for setting up this blog and inviting comments. In doing so you have done me a BIG favour, this is because Jesus taught that when His followers are maligned their reward is great in Heaven.

    Therefore, every time yoiu, and your friends, abuse me you are increasing my reward in Heaven – thank you.

    Like

  11. The most depressing aspect of Hutton’s ludicrous beliefs is that when he does finally pop his clogs he won’t ever actually know that he was wrong.

    In the meantime, and as his latest comment clearly affirms, he is willing to waste his entire life (you know, the tangible, real, experiential thing that you’re living right now, Hutton) in the hope that he’ll have a better time in some post-Earthly existence for which there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever.

    I’ll now wait for Hutton to naysay all of the above, yet offer up not a shred of anything that might verify the reality of his beloved Disneyland in the sky.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Hey “Agent Cormac” – you have made an interesting comment. You acknowledge it is “depressing” that I won’t know I “was wrong”. Therein lies your problem – if I’m right you are in big trouble; if I’m wrong it won’t make any difference as I won’t know I’m wrong. In the meantime I’ve really enjoyed myself believing in a faith that has given me great joy and purpose in life.

    Like

  13. Hi Bob, you too have made a very interesting point. Maybe we should call it Bob’s Wager after its inventor – Blaise Pascal. It’s just a pity it has been thoroughly debunked.

    I could link to the debunking but I know you prefer to use Google to show you’re sincere.

    Like

  14. “… I’ve really enjoyed myself believing in a faith that has given me great joy and purpose in life.”

    Every man must have a hobby, I suppose … and for some their hobby is making a nuisance of themselves by pestering complete strangers about the fairy stories they like.

    Like

  15. Hey remmy: I know pascal’s wager; oddly enough, an atheist quoted it to me when I was passing out tracts in Ramsgate

    Hey donotwash: I don’t pester people, just offer them the word of life, if they reject it then that’s their loss.

    Like

  16. That’s “pestering” to me, sunshine. Anyone who claims to believe the rubbish you claim to believe is either mad, stupid or evil. Or all three. Which are you?

    Like

  17. Offer them the word of life? What does that even mean?

    If it sounds like nonsense it’s probably nonsense!

    Like

  18. Hi ‘Bob’,

    As ever you prefer to ignore the questions I have put to you and refuse to address them with a serious, adult response. So let me put it to you one more time and see if you can actually answer two very simple questions with two very simple answers. (I know I’m wasting my time, but let’s see how we go as your refusal to offer up a crystal-clear response to either will no doubt tell us everything we need to know about the veracity of your beliefs.)

    1. The only life for which you have any evidential proof is the one you are living right now. Agreed?

    2. There is no evidence whatsoever for the afterlife you crave. Agreed?

    If I am wrong on either count, please don’t hesitate to supply all the evidence you have.

    Like

  19. Face the truth, Bob. You don’t really give a shit about anybody else. As long as you get to heaven, anybody can quite literally go to hell. There are six billion souls on this planet, how are you going to save them all?

    Like

  20. Reply to donotwash: It is not perstering people to offer them the Word of Life, it is an act of love. If you saw a blind man walking towards a cliff edge you would warn him.

    Reply to remigius: of course you don’t know what it means to offer the Word of Life, the devil has blinded you.

    Reply to A.C: “God has written eternity in people’s hearts” (google it for the reference), therein lies the evidence you seek. However, you seek to supress that because you don’t want to repent of your sins and submit to Christ’s lordship.

    Like

  21. Reply to Dave Godfrey:

    It is most unfair to say that I don’t care about anybody else. I care passionately about peoples’ eternal welfare. That is why I spend so much time (my own time, unpaid) passing out tracts about eternity.

    Moreover, I don’t actually do the saving, God does. I’m simply passing out the truth and pointing them to the Saviour. Yes, there are 6 billion souls on earth, and most of them are heading for the Lake of Fire; that is why there are many, many thousands of born-again Christians spreading the Word.

    Like

  22. Bob, you say “God has written eternity in people’s hearts”. What does that mean? It’s nonsense. Yet when asked for an explanation all you do is give some guff about being blinded by a fictional bad wizard.

    If you cannot actually explain what it means at least have the courtesy to admit it.

    Like

  23. ‘God has written eternity in people’s hearts’

    It’s like trying to reason with a two-year-old child.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s