MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Some people will no doubt spend it on booze and fags but even so this argument is outdated Victorian moralising at its worst My eldest daughter (who doesn't currently work) and her husband have 2 small children. My son-in-law's employer doesn't dictate how he spends his salary or give him part of it as food vouchers to stop him spending it on things they don't approve of. They just hand over the money and leave it at that. Why should benefit recipients be treated any differently and trusted less? The state can and should encourage good parenting and penalise bad but the benefit system is not the mechanism by which this should be achieved.Did they give any reasons for not just giving people the £30, other than the 'they'll spend it on drugs and fags' line usually wheeled out in such circumstances?