Friday 3 February 2012

True......

From an email and am unable to authenticate - but it resonates somewhat........


From a British soldier:
"I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay , I train for war and eventually deploy. I am required to pass a random urine test… for drugs, with which I have no problem. ... What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque because I have to pass one to EARN IT for them? Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque?"
Fair question, methinks............? 

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Beats me why cannon fodder need drug test.
They get pleanty of drugs in Afghanistan.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Anon Unfair comment? Suggest stick to the point?

SadButMadLad said...

Earlist reference I could find is 18 July 2006 on this site - http://www.savannahbest.com/savhist/savmomen01.htm. Scroll about 1/3 the way down the page.

TomTom said...

Yes, but then we would have to introduce urine tests in a) BBC b) Newspapers c) Parliament d) trading Floors of City Firms...........and then where would we all be ?

PeterCharles said...

It is indeed a very pertinent question, but so are all the other welfare questions.

Why are drunks and addicts classed and supported as disabled? Food stamps and supervision might be a better answer.

Why are single mothers given a house/flat and benefits? Shouldn't the onus be on their family/partner and if they are unable or willing adoption.

To ask but two.

Anonymous said...

I have a better idea.
How about the 650 EU rubber stampers in the sham parliament or the bloated staff at the MOD do a drugs test.
Seems fair to me.

UKSteve said...

I have no problem with the idea. And I'm unemployed.

Anonymous (original): Get a life?

Sniper said...

I think I first saw a version about 2+ years ago (soon after Barry got elected) and then it was from an US soldier in Iraq. So - politics then; doesn't make it wrong though.

TomTom said...


Why are drunks and addicts classed and supported as disabled?


Go back to the Thatcher Years when Disability was used to massage the Unemployment figures. They simply park Unemployables OFF the Unemployment Register and give them Early Retirement on the Taxpayer so long as they remain drugged and drunk.....and Disability is not means-tested.


Today I noticed that it costs £80/month for a discount bus/rail ticket but only £5 if registered Unemployed, so that is the difference between £120 Gross and £5

WitteringsfromWitney said...

SBML: thanks for the link.

TT: Pissed off?

Anon & UKS: Agreed - trust UKS, you find something pdq........

TT: And the story in the Mail about the two Euro winners with £10m demonstrates the stupidity of laws MPs dream up!