While challenging other’s tactics is fine, you seem either motivated by a personal or political agenda, or else incapable of reading and listening to others.

Your objection to Olive’s “methodology” is that cancelling her benefit would deprive herself and her child. This is false as others already pointed out that her action has political and financial support from union and other groups.

In contrast to this solidarity, your earlier presumptive claim that Olive was recieving money from family, and thus in a privileged position relative to individuals “born” into welfare poverty, divides beneficiaries while unwittingly supporting a deserving/underserving poor distinction.

You also object to Olive’s “methodolgy” because it “encourages” other beneficiaries to take the same actions and thus deprive themselves and their children. Yet nowhere does Olive ask for or encourage similar actions. You insult beneficiaries intelligence and parental skills by suggesting they’d cancel their benefits and only means of survival just because they heard some relatively minor activist — who has alternative support — cancelled her benefit to make a political point. Like we really need you to “make us aware of what they may get themselves into if they follow this stance” — how patronizing!

Finally, you condemn one of the posters as a “coward” for using an anonymous username, naively assuming everyone is in a safe and privileged position to openly criticize existing political and economic powers in a public forum accessible to employers, government agencies, fascists etc.

She can ensure this is the case by losing her pathetic sense of entitlement and getting a job in the private sector or, better still, starting her own independent business.

If there were less government, there would be less government incompetency.