Discussion:
Welfare to work at last.
(too old to reply)
Niteawk
2008-01-07 22:21:12 UTC
Permalink
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50 quid
a week. Should be fun :)
Robbie
2008-01-07 22:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
--
Robbie
Niteawk
2008-01-08 10:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.


I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
s***@yahoo.co.uk
2008-01-08 11:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Better than having your benefits cut of after a certain time period
and left to starve as happens in some countries and America I belive.
I don't really belive they do want people to work for nothing, At one
time maybe but not now I don't think. For one thing governments want
to get re electec.
Niteawk
2008-01-08 13:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Better than having your benefits cut of after a certain time period
and left to starve as happens in some countries and America I belive.
I don't really belive they do want people to work for nothing, At one
time maybe but not now I don't think. For one thing governments want
to get re electec.

Jeasus H christ! the government want to what! this may come as a bit of a
surprise to you, no matter what way you vote or even if you do not vote, I
dont. No matter what happens, we will always have the same 3 ring circus
running this country, lab, lib dem, and tories.
The government as it is know is not elected by the people, for eg who voted
for G. Brown to lead this country! give up..... no one actually voted for
this.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-08 13:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Better than having your benefits cut of after a certain time period
and left to starve as happens in some countries and America I belive.
I don't really belive they do want people to work for nothing, At one
time maybe but not now I don't think. For one thing governments want
to get re electec.
Jeasus H christ! the government want to what! this may come as a bit of a
surprise to you, no matter what way you vote or even if you do not vote, I
dont. No matter what happens, we will always have the same 3 ring circus
running this country, lab, lib dem, and tories.
The government as it is know is not elected by the people, for eg who voted
for G. Brown to lead this country! give up..... no one actually voted for
this.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Our system of government is that you vote (or don't vote) for a local
representative.
If you are a member of a party, you get to vote for leadership of the
party when it is up for change.
But otherwise you just get to vote on the local representative.

Then whichever party has the most local representatives, their leader
becomes prime minister.
Its a workable system.

America has a system where you can have representatives from one party
voted in and a president from the other party.
Can make for some interesting situations but also bog down more than
our system.

But if you aren't a member of a party in this country, those of us who
are will vote for the leader we want. And ignore the non-votes of non-
members.
You don't vote at election time, your choice. But you are then stuck
with whoever others voted for.

Martin <><
Niteawk
2008-01-08 13:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants,
I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Better than having your benefits cut of after a certain time period
and left to starve as happens in some countries and America I belive.
I don't really belive they do want people to work for nothing, At one
time maybe but not now I don't think. For one thing governments want
to get re electec.
Jeasus H christ! the government want to what! this may come as a bit of a
surprise to you, no matter what way you vote or even if you do not vote, I
dont. No matter what happens, we will always have the same 3 ring circus
running this country, lab, lib dem, and tories.
The government as it is know is not elected by the people, for eg who voted
for G. Brown to lead this country! give up..... no one actually voted for
this.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Our system of government is that you vote (or don't vote) for a local
representative.

Thats all you get is a local rep, he/she has no real power to do anything


If you are a member of a party, you get to vote for leadership of the
party when it is up for change.
But otherwise you just get to vote on the local representative.


Yep.

Then whichever party has the most local representatives, their leader
becomes prime minister.
Its a workable system.


I think its a bent system, the people should be allowed to vote for who they
want to run the country.


America has a system where you can have representatives from one party
voted in and a president from the other party.
Can make for some interesting situations but also bog down more than
our system.


Not interested in the yanks.

But if you aren't a member of a party in this country, those of us who
are will vote for the leader we want. And ignore the non-votes of non-
members.


You don't vote at election time, your choice. But you are then stuck
with whoever others voted for.


It does not matter who votes or not, you will end up with the same clowns
running this country regardless of what happens at the polls. Its always
been between tories and labour and both are as bad as each other, there is
no difference between them.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-08 14:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants,
I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Better than having your benefits cut of after a certain time period
and left to starve as happens in some countries and America I belive.
I don't really belive they do want people to work for nothing, At one
time maybe but not now I don't think. For one thing governments want
to get re electec.
Jeasus H christ! the government want to what! this may come as a bit of a
surprise to you, no matter what way you vote or even if you do not vote, I
dont. No matter what happens, we will always have the same 3 ring circus
running this country, lab, lib dem, and tories.
The government as it is know is not elected by the people, for eg who voted
for G. Brown to lead this country! give up..... no one actually voted for
this.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Our system of government is that you vote (or don't vote) for a local
representative.
Thats all you get is a local rep, he/she has no real power to do anything
Yours may not have the power to do anything. My local one has power to
do quite a bit.
Including VOTING on issues before him. May be foreign to you but some
people do vote.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If you are a member of a party, you get to vote for leadership of the
party when it is up for change.
But otherwise you just get to vote on the local representative.
Yep.
Then whichever party has the most local representatives, their leader
becomes prime minister.
Its a workable system.
I think its a bent system, the people should be allowed to vote for who they
want to run the country.
Why?
So you can end up with someone who doesn't have support of a major
party? Someone who has to spend time fighting to get things through
parliament?
Party members do vote for who they want to run the country in the
event of the party winning the election (or if holding power already,
voting for prime minister).
But thats just for party members.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
America has a system where you can have representatives from one party
voted in and a president from the other party.
Can make for some interesting situations but also bog down more than
our system.
Not interested in the yanks.
Yet you seem to want to emulate their system to a degree.

"the people should be allowed to vote for who they
want to run the country." is what you said. A system used by the
yanks.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
But if you aren't a member of a party in this country, those of us who
are will vote for the leader we want. And ignore the non-votes of non-
members.
You don't vote at election time, your choice. But you are then stuck
with whoever others voted for.
It does not matter who votes or not, you will end up with the same clowns
running this country regardless of what happens at the polls.
Actually you don't.
The candidates for each party are decided by local members. And its
not just the 3 parties that win.
The 'same clowns' are decided by the registered voters who are members
of that party. If you don't like the choice, either put your own
candidate forwards as an independant or take a few friends and join a
local party. Then have enough convinced about your choice of candidate
to get him/her put on the ballot for the public.



Its always
Post by m***@hotmail.com
been between tories and labour and both are as bad as each other, there is
no difference between them.- Hide quoted text -
Then you'll be pleased to know that there are other party MPs who get
elected too. Perhaps not in your area.
Have you thought that the reason you end up with the MP you have is
because the majority of those voting in your area actually want that
person?
You don't have to like it, but the majority of those who show up to
vote do.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
- Show quoted text -
Martin <><
Niteawk
2008-01-10 12:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants,
I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Better than having your benefits cut of after a certain time period
and left to starve as happens in some countries and America I belive.
I don't really belive they do want people to work for nothing, At one
time maybe but not now I don't think. For one thing governments want
to get re electec.
Jeasus H christ! the government want to what! this may come as a bit of a
surprise to you, no matter what way you vote or even if you do not vote, I
dont. No matter what happens, we will always have the same 3 ring circus
running this country, lab, lib dem, and tories.
The government as it is know is not elected by the people, for eg who voted
for G. Brown to lead this country! give up..... no one actually voted for
this.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Our system of government is that you vote (or don't vote) for a local
representative.
Thats all you get is a local rep, he/she has no real power to do anything
Yours may not have the power to do anything. My local one has power to
do quite a bit.
Including VOTING on issues before him. May be foreign to you but some
people do vote.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If you are a member of a party, you get to vote for leadership of the
party when it is up for change.
But otherwise you just get to vote on the local representative.
Yep.
Then whichever party has the most local representatives, their leader
becomes prime minister.
Its a workable system.
I think its a bent system, the people should be allowed to vote for who they
want to run the country.
Why?
So you can end up with someone who doesn't have support of a major
party? Someone who has to spend time fighting to get things through
parliament?

Who said anything about parliament? I am talking about the right for the
public to vote for who they want to run the country.


Party members do vote for who they want to run the country in the
event of the party winning the election (or if holding power already,
voting for prime minister).
But thats just for party members.

I am not so sure about that, as I recall Brown told everyone he was going to
be PM.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
America has a system where you can have representatives from one party
voted in and a president from the other party.
Can make for some interesting situations but also bog down more than
our system.
Not interested in the yanks.
Yet you seem to want to emulate their system to a degree.

Not really, I would like to see a system where the people decide, as it is
we do not have an say in who runs the country, so we end up with leaders
that tell us what to do rather than doing what we want them to do, its a
dictatorship.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-10 12:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants,
I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Better than having your benefits cut of after a certain time period
and left to starve as happens in some countries and America I belive.
I don't really belive they do want people to work for nothing, At one
time maybe but not now I don't think. For one thing governments want
to get re electec.
Jeasus H christ! the government want to what! this may come as a bit of a
surprise to you, no matter what way you vote or even if you do not vote, I
dont. No matter what happens, we will always have the same 3 ring circus
running this country, lab, lib dem, and tories.
The government as it is know is not elected by the people, for eg who voted
for G. Brown to lead this country! give up..... no one actually voted for
this.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Our system of government is that you vote (or don't vote) for a local
representative.
Thats all you get is a local rep, he/she has no real power to do anything
Yours may not have the power to do anything. My local one has power to
do quite a bit.
Including VOTING on issues before him. May be foreign to you but some
people do vote.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If you are a member of a party, you get to vote for leadership of the
party when it is up for change.
But otherwise you just get to vote on the local representative.
Yep.
Then whichever party has the most local representatives, their leader
becomes prime minister.
Its a workable system.
I think its a bent system, the people should be allowed to vote for who they
want to run the country.
Why?
So you can end up with someone who doesn't have support of a major
party? Someone who has to spend time fighting to get things through
parliament?
Who said anything about parliament? I am talking about the right for the
public to vote for who they want to run the country.
And its parliament who make major decisions.
The Prime Minister does a lot of things, but needs parliament to get
many things done.
The public can vote for the party leader. If they are a member of the
party.
Non-members get no voting rights about who will be leader.

And if you had like the Yanks system where the person making the
executive decisions and the people deciding on major issues are from
two different parties, makes it much harder to get policies done.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Party members do vote for who they want to run the country in the
event of the party winning the election (or if holding power already,
voting for prime minister).
But thats just for party members.
I am not so sure about that, as I recall Brown told everyone he was going to
be PM.
You can tell everyone you are going to be PM, doesn't make it so
however.
But being the acknowledged successor of the PM would help enormously.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
America has a system where you can have representatives from one party
voted in and a president from the other party.
Can make for some interesting situations but also bog down more than
our system.
Not interested in the yanks.
Yet you seem to want to emulate their system to a degree.
Not really, I would like to see a system where the people decide, as it is
we do not have an say in who runs the country,
So wanting a system like the Yanks for the purposes of deciding who
will run the country.

As it is, the party members decide who will lead the party. And the
voters in each area at election time will decide which candidate
becomes an MP.
The party with the most MPs wins - and their party leader becomes PM.



so we end up with leaders
Post by m***@hotmail.com
that tell us what to do rather than doing what we want them to do, its a
dictatorship.- Hide quoted text -
No, its a form of democracy.

Leaders of parties are chosen by democratic voting by party members.
MPs are chosen by vote within their area (and those that don't vote
don't get their vote counted).

You don't have to like the system but it does work. As do other
systems in other places.
The best system overall for accountability is actually a dictatorship.
Its the only system where you know exactly who to blame for things
going wrong - the dictator.

Still, if you want to change our system then get elected, get support
for the change and introduce a private bill. Or persuade the
government of the day to change the system.
Or you could simply become a dictator and take over the country, but
the chances of that might be slimmer. :)

Martin <><
Niteawk
2008-01-10 17:57:15 UTC
Permalink
You don't have to like the system but it does work. As do other
systems in other places.
The best system overall for accountability is actually a dictatorship.
Its the only system where you know exactly who to blame for things
going wrong - the dictator.

Still, if you want to change our system then get elected,


Like I said, the system is bent, its up to the party/'s who they let in,
still if I had the money I could buy myself a seat in the house of lords.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-11 10:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
You don't have to like the system but it does work. As do other
systems in other places.
The best system overall for accountability is actually a dictatorship.
Its the only system where you know exactly who to blame for things
going wrong - the dictator.
Still, if you want to change our system then get elected,
Like I said, the system is bent, its up to the party/'s who they let in,
still if I had the money I could buy myself a seat in the house of lords.
Actually its not up to the parties who they let in.
You apply for membership, you get in. You get support from other
members in the local branch and you can propose someone else to
represent the party in the area at the next election. Or get yourself
proposed.

And if not the sitting MP, you can start campaigning now for the next
election. The only time limit to campaigning is for sitting MPs, not
their opponents.
Sitting MPs can't start campaigning until the election is called.

Martin <><
Robbie
2008-01-08 12:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for
50 quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using
free labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by
disgruntled ex employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to
being forced to work for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants, I have always said they expect people to work for nothing.
They have created mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
A question for you Niteawk: if you could be guaranteed your HB and CTB
paid in full would you work for £30 more than you could get on the dole?
That is working 30+ hours a week.
--
Robbie
Niteawk
2008-01-08 13:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using
free labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by
disgruntled ex employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to
being forced to work for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants, I have always said they expect people to work for nothing.
They have created mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
A question for you Niteawk: if you could be guaranteed your HB and CTB
paid in full would you work for £30 more than you could get on the dole?
That is working 30+ hours a week.
The amount is derisory but I suppose I would work for it as long as it was
£30 clear of what I get now.
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-18 15:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for
50 quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using
free labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by
disgruntled ex employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to
being forced to work for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants, I have always said they expect people to work for nothing.
They have created mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
A question for you Niteawk: if you could be guaranteed your HB and CTB
paid in full would you work for £30 more than you could get on the dole?
That is working 30+ hours a week.
--
Robbie
that would be illegal given the minimum wage. working for £90 would be
less than 30 hours considerably.

why not just properly employ people rather than keep them in some
labour market twilight zone?
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-18 18:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for
50 quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using
free labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by
disgruntled ex employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to
being forced to work for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants, I have always said they expect people to work for nothing.
They have created mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
A question for you Niteawk: if you could be guaranteed your HB and CTB
paid in full would you work for £30 more than you could get on the dole?
That is working 30+ hours a week.
--
Robbie
that would be illegal given the minimum wage. working for £90 would be
less than 30 hours considerably.
why not just properly employ people rather than keep them in some
labour market twilight zone?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As Niteawk has pointed out, he needs a certain minimum that will cover
his outgoings before he will take a job.
So is there something to be said for benefit plus an amount plus Hb/
CTB? Or would forcing people to work for minimum wage but not
necessarily full additional benefits be OK?

Martin <><
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-19 08:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for
50 quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using
free labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by
disgruntled ex employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to
being forced to work for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants, I have always said they expect people to work for nothing.
They have created mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
A question for you Niteawk: if you could be guaranteed your HB and CTB
paid in full would you work for £30 more than you could get on the dole?
That is working 30+ hours a week.
--
Robbie
that would be illegal given the minimum wage. working for £90 would be
less than 30 hours considerably.
why not just properly employ people rather than keep them in some
labour market twilight zone?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As Niteawk has pointed out, he needs a certain minimum that will cover
his outgoings before he will take a job.
So is there something to be said for benefit plus an amount plus Hb/
CTB? Or would forcing people to work for minimum wage but not
necessarily full additional benefits be OK?
Martin <><
the minimum wage is too low as it is. no one should be working for
such a pitifully low dehumanising wage as this in an economy as rich
as ours. it shouldn't happen. this doesn't help people get into a
better life at all, and keeping them on benefits while disguising that
as their wage is just appalling - if there is work then hire them
properly. free labour is a joke and will have a knock on effect for
those already working in that job. what are the council srteet
sweepers actually going to think when they find themselves working
alongside people doing it for nothing. simple answer, they will get
squeezed out.

if the government wants to give these people work then it should pay
them and hire them properly as any other employer. paying them a
proper wage would also help, but then it's ok for politicians to pay
themselves huge sums and vast pay rises while giving tax breaks to
their fellow economic movers and shakers at the top, while offering
the most vulnerable members of our cosiety a pittance.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-19 09:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for
50 quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using
free labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by
disgruntled ex employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to
being forced to work for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with
immigrants, I have always said they expect people to work for nothing.
They have created mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
A question for you Niteawk: if you could be guaranteed your HB and CTB
paid in full would you work for £30 more than you could get on the dole?
That is working 30+ hours a week.
--
Robbie
that would be illegal given the minimum wage. working for £90 would be
less than 30 hours considerably.
why not just properly employ people rather than keep them in some
labour market twilight zone?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As Niteawk has pointed out, he needs a certain minimum that will cover
his outgoings before he will take a job.
So is there something to be said for benefit plus an amount plus Hb/
CTB? Or would forcing people to work for minimum wage but not
necessarily full additional benefits be OK?
Martin  <><
the minimum wage is too low as it is. no one should be working for
such a pitifully low dehumanising wage as this in an economy as rich
as ours. it shouldn't happen. this doesn't help people get into a
better life at all, and keeping them on benefits while disguising that
as their wage is just appalling - if there is work then hire them
properly. free labour is a joke and will have a knock on effect for
those already working in that job. what are the council srteet
sweepers actually going to think when they find themselves working
alongside people doing it for nothing. simple answer, they will get
squeezed out.
if the government wants to give these people work then it should pay
them and hire them properly as any other employer. paying them a
proper wage would also help, but then it's ok for politicians to pay
themselves huge sums and vast pay rises while giving tax breaks to
their fellow economic movers and shakers at the top, while offering
the most vulnerable members of our cosiety a pittance.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Is the minimum wage too low? Not so long back there was no minimum
wage - and people still had jobs.
Took me years of working plus one promotion to get above what minimum
wage is today.

My hourly rate now is considerably above minimum wage, but I'm only
part time (and cannot work full time for health reasons) so my pay is
below what a full time minimum wage worker will get.
Yet I can manage, how is that? Mortgage, council tax, running a car -
plus a £2500 bill a year (with the recent price rises) for gas and
electricity. My wife is a full time Uni student.

If minimum wage was £10 an hour, it would still be too low for many
people. But would create its own problems for the economy. :)

I'm not in favour of the working for the dole money. Didnb't like it
last time, won't like it next time. Yet its a popular idea in
government.
There's currently a scheme called 'Steps to work' that does something
like that - volunteering while getting benefit, though at least it is
somewhat people wanting to do the work.

Government does not give anyone work, except when it employs them
itself. Government has no business creating jobs in the marketplace -
thats what companies do.
They can make things easier for companies, such as offering tax
reductions or cash for taking on certain groups of people (good old
positive discrimination). But nothing to say companies have to keep
the people on.
Such as on the old YTS scheme, where many companies had the trainees
for the 2 years then replaced them with a new batch of trainees. And
raked the money in.

And what exactly is a 'proper wage'? The market tends to sort out
wages - companies that don't pay enough tend not to get and keep the
highest quality staff. Pay rises, last I looked, were running on
average around 4% excluding government workers.
If its a certain minimum to buy a house, will a pay drop be acceptable
when house prices drop?

Or are there certain minimum incomes that no-one should be paid? After
all, a chunk of the working populace work just part-time. :)

Martin <><
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-19 12:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Is the minimum wage too low? Not so long back there was no minimum
wage - and people still had jobs.
Took me years of working plus one promotion to get above what minimum
wage is today.
And that's a good thing how?

You seriously want to tell me that £5.75 an hour is a living wage?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
My hourly rate now is considerably above minimum wage, but I'm only
part time (and cannot work full time for health reasons) so my pay is
below what a full time minimum wage worker will get.
Yet I can manage, how is that? Mortgage, council tax, running a car -
plus a £2500 bill a year (with the recent price rises) for gas and
electricity. My wife is a full time Uni student.
What's your point? That if we all eat bread and water and live on the
bare minimum like modern day cavemen? That's something we should
aspire to?

Meanwhile the rich get richer.

What a wonderful world of inequality and exploitation.

A fair days wage for a fair days work, surely.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If minimum wage was £10 an hour, it would still be too low for many
people. But would create its own problems for the economy. :)
Bollocks. this is one of the richest countries in the world, there's
plenty to go around. The problem is the peopel at the top don't want
to change the staus quo so the people at the bottom remain scraping
by. The gap between rich and poor has increased under a labour
government and all we ever hear about is the precious economy.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
There's currently a scheme called 'Steps to work' that does something
like that - volunteering while getting benefit, though at least it is
somewhat people wanting to do the work.
All these schemes are just a waste of peoples lives.

the government should be helping them get into meaningful longterm
well paid work, not forcing them into causal meaningless short term
mundane drudgery for no recompense. what kind of world do we have if
thats how we do things. No wonder half the country gets wasted on weed
and drink. no wonder kids have nothing better to do than cause
disruption.

why not give the unemplpoyed a real chance; give them proper long term
help and change this culture of stigmatising them for being out of
work. life doesn't revolve solely around the hallowed economy. it
makes me sick.

but that wont happen because the system we have at the moment is
broken.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Government does not give anyone work, except when it employs them
itself. Government has no business creating jobs in the marketplace -
thats what companies do.
govenrment wants people to work, government can fucking help people
get work. not threaten them and destroy their self esteem.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
They can make things easier for companies, such as offering tax
reductions or cash for taking on certain groups of people (good old
positive discrimination). But nothing to say companies have to keep
the people on.
and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-19 16:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Is the minimum wage too low? Not so long back there was no minimum
wage - and people still had jobs.
Took me years of working plus one promotion to get above what minimum
wage is today.
And that's a good thing how?
You seriously want to tell me that £5.75 an hour is a living wage?
Well thats above minimum wage. Plenty of jobs do pay more than that.
Not so many unskilled jobs, but some.

What exactly is a living wage to you per hour and per week?
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
My hourly rate now is considerably above minimum wage, but I'm only
part time (and cannot work full time for health reasons) so my pay is
below what a full time minimum wage worker will get.
Yet I can manage, how is that? Mortgage, council tax, running a car -
plus a £2500 bill a year (with the recent price rises) for gas and
electricity. My wife is a full time Uni student.
What's your point? That if we all eat bread and water and live on the
bare minimum like modern day cavemen? That's something we should
aspire to?
Bread and water? No, I tend to stick to better food than that.
My point is that people can be paid a much higher hourly rate and live
comfortably on lower annual income than a full time minimum wage
earner.
Several million people work part time.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Meanwhile the rich get richer.
So join them. Nothing to stop the poor getting richer either.
The same tools, the same methods are available to both rich and poor.

I've met a few millionaires (you tend to in my line of work). All self
made people - none inherited money, just worked hard at achieving
their goals.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
What a wonderful world of inequality and exploitation.
So whats stopping you?
Yes, the rich will have more money than you. Most I've come across
have had to work to become rich.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
A fair days wage for a fair days work, surely.
But who decides what is 'fair'?

Is it double the national average wage? Is it a number plucked out of
the air? Is it dependent on exactly what money the employer has to
play with? Is it dependent on exactly how much the employee wants to
be able to spend?
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If minimum wage was £10 an hour, it would still be too low for many
people. But would create its own problems for the economy.  :)
Bollocks. this is one of the richest countries in the world, there's
plenty to go around.
And what does plenty to go around have to do with minimum wage?

Put wages up, you put costs up. Put costs up you put prices up.
Put them up enough, you can't sell your products and the contracts for
goods and services go to other companies in other countries.
Oh, and the costs of buying goods and services in this country goes up
too. So your extra income doesn't go as far as you'd like because
things cost more to pay for the extra income!


The problem is the peopel at the top don't want
Post by g***@googlemail.com
to change the staus quo
Really? And who exactly are these people at the top? And what do their
wants have to do with what you do?

so the people at the bottom remain scraping
Post by g***@googlemail.com
by.
And the people at the bottom don't get to choose?
Dear me, your education is sadly lacking. Still, up to you if you want
to stay on the bottom for the rest of your life.

The gap between rich and poor has increased under a labour
Post by g***@googlemail.com
government and all we ever hear about is the precious economy.
Yes, the gap has increased. We also have quite a large increase in
numbers of rich people.
The 'poor' have seen their wages increase quite a bit, in many cases
more than doubling over the last 15 years.
The minimum wage is a starting point, not the top of the ladder.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
There's currently a scheme called 'Steps to work' that does something
like that - volunteering while getting benefit, though at least it is
somewhat people wanting to do the work.
All these schemes are just a waste of peoples lives.
Not all.
If you've been out of the job market for years, or trying to break
into a new type of work, often more difficult without any experience
in that work.
Some experience is better than none.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
the government should be helping them get into meaningful longterm
well paid work,
And what exactly is 'meaningful work' never mind how do government
guarantee 'long term' or force employers to provide 'well paid work'?
I've yet to come across any company that can guarantee work is long
term. Best that can be said is that few companies seek to go bust.


not forcing them into causal meaningless short term
Post by g***@googlemail.com
mundane drudgery for no recompense.
Ok, so get them some recompense. They can get a job.
Meaningless? What sorts of jobs are you thinking of?
Mundane? Many jobs have a mundane element - often foisted off on the
new person but sometimes part of the everyday job.

what kind of world do we have if
Post by g***@googlemail.com
thats how we do things. No wonder half the country gets wasted on weed
and drink.
Wasted on drink I've seen. Not so much the wasted on weed.
Maybe its too low key round here for me to notice the people are
wasted. :)

no wonder kids have nothing better to do than cause
Post by g***@googlemail.com
disruption.
Here's how it often goes.

Some group, charity or council decides to do something with the kids.
They set up a youth club, activities, something to do and somewhere to
go.
There's plenty of money available to do that.
But then locals complain about the kids, about the noise, about the
fact that there are kids passing by their house even.
And the place gets shut down.

So the kids are back to nothing to do and nowhere to go. And cause
disruption again.

I've seen it happen many times in different parts of the country,
including upsetting a political meeting because the kids were hanging
around....... :)
Post by g***@googlemail.com
why not give the unemplpoyed a real chance;
Will they take it if its offered?
Will they increase skills, will they increase job prospects?

Or is that too much like hard work?


give them proper long term
Post by g***@googlemail.com
help
Yes, some areas do offer long term help. No idea if it would meet with
your idea of 'proper' though.

and change this culture of stigmatising them for being out of
Post by g***@googlemail.com
work. life doesn't revolve solely around the hallowed economy. it
makes me sick.
Yet the country does revolve around the economy. Life may not, but
jobs, taxes, wages, investment, savings and housing do revolve around
the economy.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
but that wont happen because the system we have at the moment is
broken.
Then fix it.
If you see what needs doing, get things changed. Just don't expect
everyone to agree with you and be aware that you can make things
worse.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Government does not give anyone work, except when it employs them
itself. Government has no business creating jobs in the marketplace -
thats what companies do.
govenrment wants people to work, government can fucking help people
get work. not threaten them and destroy their self esteem.
Good news then. £1.5 billion over the next 3 years to get people back
into work.
Bad news is, its whether they like it or not. And only in the worst
20% of the country will that money be available (on top of other
monies).
Thats money that was being spent on the poorest 10% of the country
(neighbourhood renewal fund finishing in March this year).
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
They can make things easier for companies, such as offering tax
reductions or cash for taking on certain groups of people (good old
positive discrimination). But nothing to say companies have to keep
the people on.
and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
So get the poor to be richer. The same tools for both rich and poor
exist, the only people that can stop the poor being poor however is
themselves.

If you gave all the poor £100,000 each then they wouldn't be poor. For
a few minutes at least.
But a year later, or two years, or five years - many of them would be
poor once again.

You can't force someone to be rich, you can't force someone to be
poor. There are enough moving each way to show that choices come into
it.

Martin <><
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-19 17:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Is the minimum wage too low? Not so long back there was no minimum
wage - and people still had jobs.
Took me years of working plus one promotion to get above what minimum
wage is today.
And that's a good thing how?
You seriously want to tell me that £5.75 an hour is a living wage?
Well thats above minimum wage. Plenty of jobs do pay more than that.
Not so many unskilled jobs, but some.
What exactly is a living wage to you per hour and per week?
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
My hourly rate now is considerably above minimum wage, but I'm only
part time (and cannot work full time for health reasons) so my pay is
below what a full time minimum wage worker will get.
Yet I can manage, how is that? Mortgage, council tax, running a car -
plus a £2500 bill a year (with the recent price rises) for gas and
electricity. My wife is a full time Uni student.
What's your point? That if we all eat bread and water and live on the
bare minimum like modern day cavemen? That's something we should
aspire to?
Bread and water? No, I tend to stick to better food than that.
My point is that people can be paid a much higher hourly rate and live
comfortably on lower annual income than a full time minimum wage
earner.
Several million people work part time.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Meanwhile the rich get richer.
So join them. Nothing to stop the poor getting richer either.
The same tools, the same methods are available to both rich and poor.
I've met a few millionaires (you tend to in my line of work). All self
made people - none inherited money, just worked hard at achieving
their goals.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
What a wonderful world of inequality and exploitation.
So whats stopping you?
Yes, the rich will have more money than you. Most I've come across
have had to work to become rich.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
A fair days wage for a fair days work, surely.
But who decides what is 'fair'?
Is it double the national average wage? Is it a number plucked out of
the air? Is it dependent on exactly what money the employer has to
play with? Is it dependent on exactly how much the employee wants to
be able to spend?
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If minimum wage was £10 an hour, it would still be too low for many
people. But would create its own problems for the economy. :)
Bollocks. this is one of the richest countries in the world, there's
plenty to go around.
And what does plenty to go around have to do with minimum wage?
Put wages up, you put costs up. Put costs up you put prices up.
Put them up enough, you can't sell your products and the contracts for
goods and services go to other companies in other countries.
Oh, and the costs of buying goods and services in this country goes up
too. So your extra income doesn't go as far as you'd like because
things cost more to pay for the extra income!
The problem is the peopel at the top don't want
Post by g***@googlemail.com
to change the staus quo
Really? And who exactly are these people at the top? And what do their
wants have to do with what you do?
so the people at the bottom remain scraping
Post by g***@googlemail.com
by.
And the people at the bottom don't get to choose?
Dear me, your education is sadly lacking. Still, up to you if you want
to stay on the bottom for the rest of your life.
The gap between rich and poor has increased under a labour
Post by g***@googlemail.com
government and all we ever hear about is the precious economy.
Yes, the gap has increased. We also have quite a large increase in
numbers of rich people.
The 'poor' have seen their wages increase quite a bit, in many cases
more than doubling over the last 15 years.
The minimum wage is a starting point, not the top of the ladder.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
There's currently a scheme called 'Steps to work' that does something
like that - volunteering while getting benefit, though at least it is
somewhat people wanting to do the work.
All these schemes are just a waste of peoples lives.
Not all.
If you've been out of the job market for years, or trying to break
into a new type of work, often more difficult without any experience
in that work.
Some experience is better than none.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
the government should be helping them get into meaningful longterm
well paid work,
And what exactly is 'meaningful work' never mind how do government
guarantee 'long term' or force employers to provide 'well paid work'?
I've yet to come across any company that can guarantee work is long
term. Best that can be said is that few companies seek to go bust.
not forcing them into causal meaningless short term
Post by g***@googlemail.com
mundane drudgery for no recompense.
Ok, so get them some recompense. They can get a job.
Meaningless? What sorts of jobs are you thinking of?
Mundane? Many jobs have a mundane element - often foisted off on the
new person but sometimes part of the everyday job.
what kind of world do we have if
Post by g***@googlemail.com
thats how we do things. No wonder half the country gets wasted on weed
and drink.
Wasted on drink I've seen. Not so much the wasted on weed.
Maybe its too low key round here for me to notice the people are
wasted. :)
no wonder kids have nothing better to do than cause
Post by g***@googlemail.com
disruption.
Here's how it often goes.
Some group, charity or council decides to do something with the kids.
They set up a youth club, activities, something to do and somewhere to
go.
There's plenty of money available to do that.
But then locals complain about the kids, about the noise, about the
fact that there are kids passing by their house even.
And the place gets shut down.
So the kids are back to nothing to do and nowhere to go. And cause
disruption again.
I've seen it happen many times in different parts of the country,
including upsetting a political meeting because the kids were hanging
around....... :)
Post by g***@googlemail.com
why not give the unemplpoyed a real chance;
Will they take it if its offered?
Will they increase skills, will they increase job prospects?
Or is that too much like hard work?
give them proper long term
Post by g***@googlemail.com
help
Yes, some areas do offer long term help. No idea if it would meet with
your idea of 'proper' though.
and change this culture of stigmatising them for being out of
Post by g***@googlemail.com
work. life doesn't revolve solely around the hallowed economy. it
makes me sick.
Yet the country does revolve around the economy. Life may not, but
jobs, taxes, wages, investment, savings and housing do revolve around
the economy.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
but that wont happen because the system we have at the moment is
broken.
Then fix it.
If you see what needs doing, get things changed. Just don't expect
everyone to agree with you and be aware that you can make things
worse.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Government does not give anyone work, except when it employs them
itself. Government has no business creating jobs in the marketplace -
thats what companies do.
govenrment wants people to work, government can fucking help people
get work. not threaten them and destroy their self esteem.
Good news then. £1.5 billion over the next 3 years to get people back
into work.
Bad news is, its whether they like it or not. And only in the worst
20% of the country will that money be available (on top of other
monies).
Thats money that was being spent on the poorest 10% of the country
(neighbourhood renewal fund finishing in March this year).
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
They can make things easier for companies, such as offering tax
reductions or cash for taking on certain groups of people (good old
positive discrimination). But nothing to say companies have to keep
the people on.
and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
So get the poor to be richer. The same tools for both rich and poor
exist, the only people that can stop the poor being poor however is
themselves.
If you gave all the poor £100,000 each then they wouldn't be poor. For
a few minutes at least.
But a year later, or two years, or five years - many of them would be
poor once again.
You can't force someone to be rich, you can't force someone to be
poor. There are enough moving each way to show that choices come into
it.
Martin <><
it's because of short sighted people like you that the status quo
remains.

i'm sick and tired of it and sick and tired of the ignorance. you have
not one fucking clue what you are talking about if you seriously argue
that the same tools exist for the poor as they do for the rich. not
fucking one.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-19 18:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Is the minimum wage too low? Not so long back there was no minimum
wage - and people still had jobs.
Took me years of working plus one promotion to get above what minimum
wage is today.
And that's a good thing how?
You seriously want to tell me that £5.75 an hour is a living wage?
Well thats above minimum wage. Plenty of jobs do pay more than that.
Not so many unskilled jobs, but some.
What exactly is a living wage to you per hour and per week?
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
My hourly rate now is considerably above minimum wage, but I'm only
part time (and cannot work full time for health reasons) so my pay is
below what a full time minimum wage worker will get.
Yet I can manage, how is that? Mortgage, council tax, running a car -
plus a £2500 bill a year (with the recent price rises) for gas and
electricity. My wife is a full time Uni student.
What's your point? That if we all eat bread and water and live on the
bare minimum like modern day cavemen? That's something we should
aspire to?
Bread and water? No, I tend to stick to better food than that.
My point is that people can be paid a much higher hourly rate and live
comfortably on lower annual income than a full time minimum wage
earner.
Several million people work part time.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Meanwhile the rich get richer.
So join them. Nothing to stop the poor getting richer either.
The same tools, the same methods are available to both rich and poor.
I've met a few millionaires (you tend to in my line of work). All self
made people - none inherited money, just worked hard at achieving
their goals.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
What a wonderful world of inequality and exploitation.
So whats stopping you?
Yes, the rich will have more money than you. Most I've come across
have had to work to become rich.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
A fair days wage for a fair days work, surely.
But who decides what is 'fair'?
Is it double the national average wage? Is it a number plucked out of
the air? Is it dependent on exactly what money the employer has to
play with? Is it dependent on exactly how much the employee wants to
be able to spend?
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If minimum wage was £10 an hour, it would still be too low for many
people. But would create its own problems for the economy.  :)
Bollocks. this is one of the richest countries in the world, there's
plenty to go around.
And what does plenty to go around have to do with minimum wage?
Put wages up, you put costs up. Put costs up you put prices up.
Put them up enough, you can't sell your products and the contracts for
goods and services go to other companies in other countries.
Oh, and the costs of buying goods and services in this country goes up
too. So your extra income doesn't go as far as you'd like because
things cost more to pay for the extra income!
The problem is the peopel at the top don't want
Post by g***@googlemail.com
to change the staus quo
Really? And who exactly are these people at the top? And what do their
wants have to do with what you do?
so the people at the bottom remain scraping
Post by g***@googlemail.com
by.
And the people at the bottom don't get to choose?
Dear me, your education is sadly lacking. Still, up to you if you want
to stay on the bottom for the rest of your life.
The gap between rich and poor has increased under a labour
Post by g***@googlemail.com
government and all we ever hear about is the precious economy.
Yes, the gap has increased. We also have quite a large increase in
numbers of rich people.
The 'poor' have seen their wages increase quite a bit, in many cases
more than doubling over the last 15 years.
The minimum wage is a starting point, not the top of the ladder.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
There's currently a scheme called 'Steps to work' that does something
like that - volunteering while getting benefit, though at least it is
somewhat people wanting to do the work.
All these schemes are just a waste of peoples lives.
Not all.
If you've been out of the job market for years, or trying to break
into a new type of work, often more difficult without any experience
in that work.
Some experience is better than none.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
the government should be helping them get into meaningful longterm
well paid work,
And what exactly is 'meaningful work' never mind how do government
guarantee 'long term' or force employers to provide 'well paid work'?
I've yet to come across any company that can guarantee work is long
term. Best that can be said is that few companies seek to go bust.
not forcing them into causal meaningless short term
Post by g***@googlemail.com
mundane drudgery for no recompense.
Ok, so get them some recompense. They can get a job.
Meaningless? What sorts of jobs are you thinking of?
Mundane? Many jobs have a mundane element - often foisted off on the
new person but sometimes part of the everyday job.
 what kind of world do we have if
Post by g***@googlemail.com
thats how we do things. No wonder half the country gets wasted on weed
and drink.
Wasted on drink I've seen. Not so much the wasted on weed.
Maybe its too low key round here for me to notice the people are
wasted.  :)
no wonder kids have nothing better to do than cause
Post by g***@googlemail.com
disruption.
Here's how it often goes.
Some group, charity or council decides to do something with the kids.
They set up a youth club, activities, something to do and somewhere to
go.
There's plenty of money available to do that.
But then locals complain about the kids, about the noise, about the
fact that there are kids passing by their house even.
And the place gets shut down.
So the kids are back to nothing to do and nowhere to go. And cause
disruption again.
I've seen it happen many times in different parts of the country,
including upsetting a political meeting because the kids were hanging
around.......   :)
Post by g***@googlemail.com
why not give the unemplpoyed a real chance;
Will they take it if its offered?
Will they increase skills, will they increase job prospects?
Or is that too much like hard work?
give them proper long term
Post by g***@googlemail.com
help
Yes, some areas do offer long term help. No idea if it would meet with
your idea of 'proper' though.
and change this culture of stigmatising them for being out of
Post by g***@googlemail.com
work. life doesn't revolve solely around the hallowed economy. it
makes me sick.
Yet the country does revolve around the economy. Life may not, but
jobs, taxes, wages, investment, savings and housing do revolve around
the economy.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
but that wont happen because the system we have at the moment is
broken.
Then fix it.
If you see what needs doing, get things changed. Just don't expect
everyone to agree with you and be aware that you can make things
worse.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Government does not give anyone work, except when it employs them
itself. Government has no business creating jobs in the marketplace -
thats what companies do.
govenrment wants people to work, government can fucking help people
get work. not threaten them and destroy their self esteem.
Good news then. £1.5 billion over the next 3 years to get people back
into work.
Bad news is, its whether they like it or not. And only in the worst
20% of the country will that money be available (on top of other
monies).
Thats money that was being spent on the poorest 10% of the country
(neighbourhood renewal fund finishing in March this year).
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
They can make things easier for companies, such as offering tax
reductions or cash for taking on certain groups of people (good old
positive discrimination). But nothing to say companies have to keep
the people on.
and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
So get the poor to be richer. The same tools for both rich and poor
exist, the only people that can stop the poor being poor however is
themselves.
If you gave all the poor £100,000 each then they wouldn't be poor. For
a few minutes at least.
But a year later, or two years, or five years - many of them would be
poor once again.
You can't force someone to be rich, you can't force someone to be
poor. There are enough moving each way to show that choices come into
it.
Martin  <><
it's because of short sighted people like you that the status quo
remains.
i'm sick and tired of it and sick and tired of the ignorance. you have
not one fucking clue what you are talking about if you seriously argue
that the same tools exist for the poor as they do for the rich. not
fucking one.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
Same tools for the poor as for the rich. Lets list a few shall we, and
you can say if you haven't got access to any of them.

ISAs
Share trading
Share dividend
High interest savings accounts
Investment clubs
Credit unions
Personal tax return
Libraries
Internet

Now, are there any of those tools that only the rich have access to?

There are a few others, but rather more specialised and not of much
interest outside particular industries.

Its because of people not wanting to use the tools that are available
that they remain poor.

If you want to learn how to make a million pounds, you can do it.
Takes lots of time and effort, and more risk than keeping money in a
simple savings account.
But whats stopping you? Besides you, nothing.

Still, I daresay its much easier for you to blame others for you not
being rich than to actually take some responsibility for your own
actions and decisions.
Or are you suggesting that no matter what you do, your actions and
decisions don't mean a thing when it comes to money? There are a few
like that, they tend to have appointees or people with power of
attorney to handle their financial affairs.
Try telling J K Rowling that she shouldn't have bothered writing -
last I looked, her income was about £100 million a year.
She is an extreme example, but she isn't the only person who has gone
from being poor to being rich by their own efforts. Every year we have
more and more millionaires in this country, often not people
inheriting money but making it.

Martin <><
tdh270
2008-01-21 11:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
You think you do.

There is the old stock market adage - you have to speculate to accumulate.

The key word is 'speculate'.

I'm unemployed, but I also have a 10k Halifax share dealing account - so I
could, if I so wanted, buy 10k worth of stock this very day... So why
don't I you may ask.

The risk mainly - but also my lack of experience.

Maybe the JC should do share dealing courses?.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-22 19:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by tdh270
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
You think you do.
No, I do know.
Post by tdh270
There is the old stock market adage - you have to speculate to accumulate.
The key word is 'speculate'.
I'm unemployed, but I also have a 10k Halifax share dealing account - so I
could, if I so wanted, buy 10k worth of stock  this very day... So why
don't I you may ask.
The risk mainly - but also my lack of experience.
Maybe the JC should do share dealing courses?.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Experience? You learn by doing. Some things can be learned from books,
some by talking to those who do invest.
Then deciding where for yourself.

I do some investing through a tracker ISA, so take advantage of tax
laws. :)
But I also invest some direct - some conservatively, some with higher
growth in mind, occasionally with income in mind.

There are risks and there are risks.
Keeping the money in a bank is a risk - do you know that the day your
benefit is due there won't be a run on your bank? I'm not sure many
account holders saw the northern rock crisis coming.
Other investments are minor risk, with some being a lot riskier these
days (like banks and some of the property mutual funds).


There are investment courses. Tend to have to pay for them - though
the open university personal finance course will give a bit of
information to start with (and is free for unemployed people or those
on low income).
Doesn't go into great detail - its an overview more than anything
else.

Other information is available free at the library or on various
websites. Various specialist shows too, though have to watch out for
salesmen selling their product as the best thing since a guy called
Buzz said "Can I go first Neil?"(1969).

Up to you what risks you take - you won't be able to totally avoid
risk even while unemployed.

Getting richer is down to you, no-one else. As also is getting
poorer. :)
Your decisions. Your actions. Your planning (or lack).

Government, company and other individuals actions can make things
easier or harder (investing is a hell of a lot easier now than it was
even 10 years ago) but its till you that decides what to do and how to
do it.

Martin <><
Niteawk
2008-01-23 03:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by tdh270
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
You think you do.
No, I do know.
Post by tdh270
There is the old stock market adage - you have to speculate to accumulate.
The key word is 'speculate'.
I'm unemployed, but I also have a 10k Halifax share dealing account - so I
could, if I so wanted, buy 10k worth of stock this very day... So why
don't I you may ask.
The risk mainly - but also my lack of experience.
Maybe the JC should do share dealing courses?.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Getting richer is down to you, no-one else. As also is getting
poorer. :)
Your decisions. Your actions. Your planning (or lack).


What a load of bollocks, you dont get to make decisions if you are working
class, you will be give a minimum wage if you get a job and a shithole
council house if you are lucky or unlucky, depends how you look at it,
although they are in the process of removing the housing option. Your kids
will have to attend the same crap state school you attended, hence they are
likely to be out of work for most of their working life, and being told yet
again what to do to find work, but what jobs you must apply for as well.

Your decisions? Your actions? Your planning? FUCK OFF you cunt, only joking
mate :)
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-23 08:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by tdh270
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
You think you do.
No, I do know.
Post by tdh270
There is the old stock market adage - you have to speculate to accumulate.
The key word is 'speculate'.
I'm unemployed, but I also have a 10k Halifax share dealing account - so I
could, if I so wanted, buy 10k worth of stock this very day... So why
don't I you may ask.
The risk mainly - but also my lack of experience.
Maybe the JC should do share dealing courses?.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Getting richer is down to you, no-one else. As also is getting
poorer.  :)
Your decisions. Your actions. Your planning (or lack).
What a load of bollocks, you dont get to make decisions if you are working
class,  
You personally may be incapable of making decisions about anything,
but the rest of us will be making decisions about things pretty much
every day.
What to wear, where to go, what to do, what to buy, what to eat and so
on.

you will be give a minimum wage if you get a job

And that stops you from ever saving money? Ever?



and a shithole
Post by m***@hotmail.com
council house if you are lucky or unlucky, depends how you look at it,
Some council estates aren't bad. I'm on one, or what used to be one
before the entire stock was sold off.
Relatively quiet, not much crime, decent amenities close by (except
supermarkets and banks).
Post by m***@hotmail.com
although they are in the process of removing the housing option.
True, though I notice a number of the companies that have bulk
purchased council houses keep them in far better condition than most
councils ever did.


Your kids
Post by m***@hotmail.com
will have to attend the same crap state school you attended,
A state school that is crap from one generation to the next?
Suprising.
And where exactly does parental support for education come in? Or even
home schooling, which seems to be a viable option these days.

hence they are
Post by m***@hotmail.com
likely to be out of work for most of their working life, and being told yet
again what to do to find work, but what jobs you must apply for as well.
Still able to decide things, still able to save or spend.
I've met a few people my age who have hardly worked in their life, and
don't plan to either.
Others, like me, plan on what to do and how to get there - earning a
lot more, paying more in taxes but having a much higher standard of
living too. :)
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Your decisions? Your actions? Your planning?  FUCK OFF you cunt, only joking
mate :)
Can always drift through life getting the worst jobs.....
Or plan what you want to do, then work backwards from that point to
figure out how to get to that point.

Martin <><
Niteawk
2008-01-23 14:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by tdh270
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
You think you do.
No, I do know.
Post by tdh270
There is the old stock market adage - you have to speculate to accumulate.
The key word is 'speculate'.
I'm unemployed, but I also have a 10k Halifax share dealing account - so I
could, if I so wanted, buy 10k worth of stock this very day... So why
don't I you may ask.
The risk mainly - but also my lack of experience.
Maybe the JC should do share dealing courses?.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Getting richer is down to you, no-one else. As also is getting
poorer. :)
Your decisions. Your actions. Your planning (or lack).
What a load of bollocks, you dont get to make decisions if you are working
class,
You personally may be incapable of making decisions about anything,
but the rest of us will be making decisions about things pretty much
every day.
What to wear, where to go, what to do, what to buy, what to eat and so
on.

you will be give a minimum wage if you get a job

And that stops you from ever saving money? Ever?


Not entirely, I am sure you could save 10p a week at a push.




A state school that is crap from one generation to the next?


Yes, state education is crap, always has been. And adult education is very
difficult to get, if not impossible in most areas.




hence they are
Post by m***@hotmail.com
likely to be out of work for most of their working life, and being told yet
again what to do to find work, but what jobs you must apply for as well.
Still able to decide things, still able to save or spend.


If you live in cloud cuckoo land, I am sure you can do a lot with the NMW or
JSA.


I've met a few people my age who have hardly worked in their life, and
don't plan to either.

You met the royal family??? T. Blair, I met a few public school twits as
well, they dont have to work, thats what the working class is for :)





Can always drift through life getting the worst jobs.....

The system will see to it that you get the lowest paid worst jobs going, in
fact they insist on it. They will also tell you that you cant get higher
paid work because you do not have any qualifications, but then they made
sure of that with their crap state education. As an adult, just in case you
might find a worthwhile course, they will tell you that you cant do it as
you are supposed to be looking for work, then they will send you on a series
of worthless ND courses, once again making sure you learn nothing of any
practical use, can you see the pattern here? they make damn sure you learn
fuck all so you cant earn fuck all, then they order you to apply for the
lowest paid crap going.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-23 17:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by tdh270
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I do happen to know what I'm talking about.
You think you do.
No, I do know.
Post by tdh270
There is the old stock market adage - you have to speculate to accumulate.
The key word is 'speculate'.
I'm unemployed, but I also have a 10k Halifax share dealing account - so I
could, if I so wanted, buy 10k worth of stock this very day... So why
don't I you may ask.
The risk mainly - but also my lack of experience.
Maybe the JC should do share dealing courses?.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Getting richer is down to you, no-one else. As also is getting
poorer. :)
Your decisions. Your actions. Your planning (or lack).
What a load of bollocks, you dont get to make decisions if you are working
class,
You personally may be incapable of making decisions about anything,
but the rest of us will be making decisions about things pretty much
every day.
What to wear, where to go, what to do, what to buy, what to eat and so
on.
you will be give a minimum wage if you get a job
I'm on considerably more per hour than minimum wage.
But as I'm part-time, overall on less than a minimum wage full timer.
Manage to save a bit. :)
Post by m***@hotmail.com
And that stops you from ever saving money? Ever?
Not entirely, I am sure you could save 10p a week at a push.
10p per week is a start. Better than nothing.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
A state school that is crap from one generation to the next?
Yes, state education is crap, always has been.
Ah, must write a memo about that to my wife's old state school, they
have a couple of thousand students and are considered the best in
their town. Despite sharing the town with a private school!

And adult education is very
Post by m***@hotmail.com
difficult to get, if not impossible in most areas.
Never had any trouble getting it in Lancashire or West Midlands. Not
tried it elsewhere.
Is it just your area that doesn't do it?

Local schools and colleges in many areas rely on adult education
courses to fully utilise their buildings and balance their budgets.
We have courses starting 3 times a year here, though the January and
April ones tend to have a lot of short courses with practical
application rather than academic (though can be useful to see if you
like a subject).
Post by m***@hotmail.com
hence they are
Post by m***@hotmail.com
likely to be out of work for most of their working life, and being told yet
again what to do to find work, but what jobs you must apply for as well.
Still able to decide things, still able to save or spend.
If you live in cloud cuckoo land, I am sure you can do a lot with the NMW or
JSA.
Your choices, not anyone else.
Some things are fairly fixed - council tax and rent. Others are more
variable, with ability to shop around or cause costs to be changed.
Such as gas, electricity, insurances, phone and internet bills.
And some can be very variable - such as food and clothing.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I've met a few people my age who have hardly worked in their life, and
don't plan to either.
You met the royal family???
Only two of them so far. :)
The ones not working I've met at my place of work.

T. Blair, I met a few public school twits as
Post by m***@hotmail.com
well, they dont have to work, thats what the working class is for :)
Seems to mean a lot to you, this class issue.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Can always drift through life getting the worst jobs.....
The system will see to it that you get the lowest paid worst jobs going,
And you can see to it that you get the highest paid or best jobs
going. For your skills and abilities.
I don't recall any employer or JC that restricts you from applying for
jobs.


in
Post by m***@hotmail.com
fact they insist on it. They will also tell you that you cant get higher
paid work because you do not have any qualifications,
Qualifications help in some jobs. In others they don't matter.
And in some, certain qualifications are essential.

but then they made
Post by m***@hotmail.com
sure of that with their crap state education.
If you had crap state education, was it the fault of those teaching
and the material being taught? Or the fault of the person who was
supposed to be learning?
Our education system is a bit crap in that it focuses on stuff you'll
probably never use and ignores important stuff you'll use most of the
time. But learning is again down to you.


As an adult, just in case you
Post by m***@hotmail.com
might find a worthwhile course, they will tell you that you cant do it as
you are supposed to be looking for work,
Many courses are available while looking for work. Depends on the
course requirement in time though.
And some courses require a lot more time than others.

Come to think of it, a full time degree student will be able to
usually get over £6k a year, plus work part-time/summer jobs. Plus
additional help if necessary from a handful of funding streams.

then they will send you on a series
Post by m***@hotmail.com
of worthless ND courses,
Worthless to you perhaps. Possibly they are set at the lowest common
denominator - not everyone even finishes school these days.


once again making sure you learn nothing of any
Post by m***@hotmail.com
practical use,
No practical use at all?
Not even how to make a CV? Or how to write a letter? :)

can you see the pattern here? they make damn sure you learn
Post by m***@hotmail.com
fuck all so you cant earn fuck all, then they order you to apply for the
lowest paid crap going.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And that prevents you from also applying for other jobs that are more
relevant to your skills and abilities exactly how?

Your choice to simply follow along with them. Or get something better.

Martin <><
tdh270
2008-01-24 21:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I do some investing through a tracker ISA, so take advantage of tax
laws. :)
But I also invest some direct - some conservatively, some with higher
growth in mind, occasionally with income in mind.
Can you be more specific - are we talking shares, or other investment?

I doubt you'll get rich with an ISA, even a tracker. Just out of
curiously, how has your ISA performed recently?

To be honest, I am well aware of the risk involved in investing, I do have
a pension. But look at all the risk buy-to-let investors have taken.
Anecdotally, I'd have to say they're likely to lose badly.

I may have a look of investment courses, maybe Learn Direct
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-25 12:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by tdh270
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I do some investing through a tracker ISA, so take advantage of tax
laws.  :)
But I also invest some direct - some conservatively, some with higher
growth in mind, occasionally with income in mind.
Can you be more specific - are we talking shares, or other investment?
Mainly shares, though one of the investment clubs I'm in does dabble
in bonds occasionally.
Post by tdh270
I doubt you'll get rich with an ISA, even a tracker.
You'll be less poor on average - despite stock crashes, shares do tend
to go up as a group.
FTSE return tends to beat most savings accounts. And ISAs mean less
tax payable than otherwise. :)

 Just out of
Post by tdh270
curiously, how has your ISA performed recently?
Still ahead of what I put in - though still early to see what long
term effects the market changes will make.
Post by tdh270
To be honest, I am well aware of the risk involved in investing, I do have
a pension.
Yes, they can be a risk in themselves. As many have found out.

 But look at all the risk buy-to-let investors have taken.

Not entirely a bad risk. Recent purchases have more risk with
possibility of prices dropping than those who purchased a few years
ago.
Rate of return is low at the moment in cash terms, though capital
increase can still happen.
Post by tdh270
Anecdotally, I'd have to say they're likely to lose badly.
Could do, though again in the long term property tends to go up.
Just short term, things may make some investors nervous.
Post by tdh270
I may have a look of investment courses, maybe Learn Direct
The open university personal finance course is fun. Though is an
overview more than digging in deep. Oh, and course fee and course
grant can be paid if qualifying.
The Motley Fool website has some good articles at times, and some good
books on investing too. www.fool.co.uk


Martin <><

m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-08 12:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Ummm.......many companies use free labour. We call them volunteers.
We have 3 of them the building at the moment, probably saving us £38k
a year in salary and on-costs. Plus other volunteers who come in at
certain times, do certain things for us and so on - all unpaid.
Many on benefits do work for nothing - as volunteers, or even working
for themselves doing DIY, their own car maintenance etc.


Being forced to work for nothing, thats not exactly an attractive idea
all round.
It would however be an incentive to work for wages instead......

Oh, and who are this 'They' who have created mass unemployment and how
did this 'They' manage to create such a thing?

Martin <><
Niteawk
2008-01-08 13:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Ummm.......many companies use free labour. We call them volunteers.
We have 3 of them the building at the moment, probably saving us £38k
a year in salary and on-costs. Plus other volunteers who come in at
certain times, do certain things for us and so on - all unpaid.
Many on benefits do work for nothing - as volunteers, or even working
for themselves doing DIY, their own car maintenance etc.


Being forced to work for nothing, thats not exactly an attractive idea
all round.
It would however be an incentive to work for wages instead......

Oh, and who are this 'They' who have created mass unemployment and how
did this 'They' manage to create such a thing?

I dont care what the charity sector does, they have no shortage of
volunteers, and thats the point, people do it because they want to. This
proposed welfare lark means people have no choice.
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-18 15:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Ummm.......many companies use free labour. We call them volunteers.
We have 3 of them the building at the moment, probably saving us £38k
a year in salary and on-costs. Plus other volunteers who come in at
certain times, do certain things for us and so on - all unpaid.
Many on benefits do work for nothing - as volunteers, or even working
for themselves doing DIY, their own car maintenance etc.
Being forced to work for nothing, thats not exactly an attractive idea
all round.
It would however be an incentive to work for wages instead......
Oh, and who are this 'They' who have created mass unemployment and how
did this 'They' manage to create such a thing?
Martin <><
And those people work for nothing by choice?

Voluntary work is not the same as work for welfare, which is
undignifying and soul destroying for starters.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-18 19:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
Ummm.......many companies use free labour. We call them volunteers.
We have 3 of them the building at the moment, probably saving us £38k
a year in salary and on-costs. Plus other volunteers who come in at
certain times, do certain things for us and so on - all unpaid.
Many on benefits do work for nothing - as volunteers, or even working
for themselves doing DIY, their own car maintenance etc.
Being forced to work for nothing, thats not exactly an attractive idea
all round.
It would however be an incentive to work for wages instead......
Oh, and who are this 'They' who have created mass unemployment and how
did this 'They' manage to create such a thing?
Martin  <><
And those people work for nothing by choice?
Voluntary work is not the same as work for welfare, which is
undignifying and soul destroying for starters.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh yes, those people work for nothing by choice.
Volunteers save the third sector billions of pounds a year. What with
trustees (usually volunteer, occasionally employed), support jobs,
frontline jobs, shop jobs, visiting jobs and mentoring jobs to name
just a few - the work gets done for payment of expenses only.

I agree, voluntary work is not the same as work for welfare. The
person volunteering can be on welfare. But they choose to volunteer.
Forcing volunteers, that can be a disaster. With recent plans that the
political parties have been touting, the third sector would end up
with the people that don't want to get a job and don't want to
study......

Martin <><
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-18 15:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
free mvoement of labour means cheap employees and low wages. the
unemployed serve a necessary function for the government.

Unfortunately making people work for nothing is immoral.
m***@hotmail.com
2008-01-18 18:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
free mvoement of labour means cheap employees and low wages. the
unemployed serve a necessary function for the government.
Unfortunately making people work for nothing is immoral.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
True, making them work for nothing is immoral. Them choosing to work
for nothing is called volunteering and is accepted.
But its choice.

Martin <><
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-19 08:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by Niteawk
Post by Robbie
Post by Niteawk
C'mon ye bastards, holidays are over. Get yer arses out to work for 50
quid a week. Should be fun :)
£60 please - you're doing yourself out of a tenner!
£60 is it, there is a problem with this, where the hell are we going to
work? I think it will cause problems for employers, any company using free
labour can expect to be burned to the ground, not only by disgruntled ex
employees, people on benefits will not take kindly to being forced to work
for nothing.
I am beginning to understand why they are flooding the UK with immigrants, I
have always said they expect people to work for nothing. They have created
mass unemployment to achieve this goal.
free mvoement of labour means cheap employees and low wages. the
unemployed serve a necessary function for the government.
Unfortunately making people work for nothing is immoral.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
True, making them work for nothing is immoral. Them choosing to work
for nothing is called volunteering and is accepted.
But its choice.
Martin <><
the scheme isn't about choice. choosing to have no benefits and thus
no income as somewhat thus dependent is not a choice.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...