UK Wants Unemployed Youth to Do Unpaid Work for the State. State Sponsored Slavery or.....?

a reply to: Aspie

Hopefully something is done regarding the problem. Personally i would just have went to the Police myself, then again i imagine your complaint could quite possably fallen upon deaf ears without your local councillors clout behind said complaint. Such is the world in which we live. You just need to hope now that the councillor in question does not have any fingers in the drug dealing pie.

The argument about whether it's fair to make all of them work is misdirection.

The real issue here is the cutting in half of the minimum wage.

If an employer can get someone to do your job for at least half the wage, then of course they will.

If those numbers available to be forced to work in this scheme increases, then how long is it until people of all ages are demanding to be on this scheme, accepting half-minimum wage, because they can't compete, so can't get a job on full minimum wage.

The rules will say that unless you're a part of this government scheme you HAVE to be paid full minimum wage. So unless you're on the scheme it'll be hard to get a job, trying to compete with those in the scheme whom employers can pay far less.

That's the long game of this - to have everyone demanding to be on this scheme. Serfdom, basically, forced to work for a pittance that represents subsidence. Not unlike a Communism in which a very few are farrrrrr more 'equal' than the rest.

a reply to: Pandaram

if you research, i mean case by case, most convicted racists and the terrorists are on doll.... almost ol ov em.. big time.

Err....that's not the way it works around here, or anyone else as far as I'm aware.
You made the claim that 'most convicted racists and the terrorists are on the doll[sic]' so the onus is on YOU to provide sourced evidence to back up your statement.

And even if that's true - which I very much doubt - that still doesn't mean that most benefit claimants are either racists or terrorists.

a reply to: Pandaram

So your argument is that racism and terrorism are synonymous with people who claim benefits?

Now that just wrong on so many different levels.

a reply to: Aspie

The vast majority of immigrants in the past few yeaars are only here because of our over generous benefit system.

I'd certainly agree that far too many who are here exploit our benefit system and that reform in this area is urgently needed.
But as a percentage of the whole its really quite small.

The simple fact remains that the best way to address our unemployment issues and to get people off benefits is to create an environment where there are real, genuine jobs that pay an honest days wage for an honest days work.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Pandaram

So your argument is that racism and terrorism are synonymous with people who claim benefits?

Now that just wrong on so many different levels.

I'll go one better and suggest Most Racist and Terrorist are employed...In Government.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Aspie

The vast majority of immigrants in the past few yeaars are only here because of our over generous benefit system.

I'd certainly agree that far too many who are here exploit our benefit system and that reform in this area is urgently needed.
But as a percentage of the whole its really quite small.

The simple fact remains that the best way to address our unemployment issues and to get people off benefits is to create an environment where there are real, genuine jobs that pay an honest days wage for an honest days work.

I completely agree.

The thing is we can never have anything fair and 'honest' as long as there are corrupt criminals in charge.

The majority of MP's are inherently dishonest and therefore nothing 'honest' can ever come from them, they are only able to think like the criminal fraudsters they are. There should be background and drug/booze checks on candidates before allowing to stand for MP's, and also random tests and checks throughout their time in office. They should be almost squeaky clean.

They should be means-tested too on on their applications for their taxpayer-funded benefits (expenses), none of them should be entitled to any taxpayer money when they are paid so well and are quite wealthy. They are the only UK citizens who don't have to be means-tested when applying for 'help' from taxpayer cash to the tune of £thousands each, but everyone else has to be destitute and are grilled under a spotlight just to get a few quid.

Mp's treat taxpayer money as if it's their own personal cash reserves and dip into it whenever they like. Everything about them is crooked and corrupt, and this is why the UK is jobless and starving, except them.

originally posted by: andy1972

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: jude11

In a country with a supposed minimum wage this is simply illegal.

They should be getting £5.13 or £6.50 per hour depending on there age and even then its quite frankly nowhere near enough to live.

You've got a very good point there! Someone should be fairly compensated for their work....

These people leave school, and without ever having contributed their taxes to the state coffers, they then proceed to live the following years on state benefits, to which they havn't contributed.
They want free money, then let them earn it doing menial tasks for the community.

Im sick of the sponging bastards of the world.

These people dont work, evade working yet expect a free hándout because its their "right".

Its time to give back a little of what the states given.. And now thousands will #ting their beds at the mere thought of having to get up before midday to work.

And at the other end of the spectrum you have the very rich who hide their money away in Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying the thousands in tax that is legally due from them and many of these people have never done a proper days work in their lives.

The main trouble is that there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be employed and the range of jobs does not match the skill-set of people who are available to work.

There are less and less jobs offering high wages and good prospects available and it is the jobs with low wages and no prospects that the government are busy creating in their thousands. When MPs say things are getting better, that is misleading as most people are now less well off with pay cuts and freezes and zero contracts, while the buying power of their wages is less.

Like someone pointed out earlier, MaggieT did away with apprenticeships and our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas or been privatised and phased out because of automation. At least with apprenticeships you are giving people the skills and with on the job training the job is already there.

Whatever job you do, whether it be cleaning or being a doctor, your wages should at least be enough to live on and have regular increases, which are rewards for staying in that job and maintaining the buying power of your wage.

originally posted by: doobydoll

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Aspie

The vast majority of immigrants in the past few yeaars are only here because of our over generous benefit system.

I'd certainly agree that far too many who are here exploit our benefit system and that reform in this area is urgently needed.
But as a percentage of the whole its really quite small.

The simple fact remains that the best way to address our unemployment issues and to get people off benefits is to create an environment where there are real, genuine jobs that pay an honest days wage for an honest days work.

I completely agree.

The thing is we can never have anything fair and 'honest' as long as there are corrupt criminals in charge.

The majority of MP's are inherently dishonest and therefore nothing 'honest' can ever come from them, they are only able to think like the criminal fraudsters they are. There should be background and drug/booze checks on candidates before allowing to stand for MP's, and also random tests and checks throughout their time in office. They should be almost squeaky clean.

They should be means-tested too on on their applications for their taxpayer-funded benefits (expenses), none of them should be entitled to any taxpayer money when they are paid so well and are quite wealthy. They are the only UK citizens who don't have to be means-tested when applying for 'help' from taxpayer cash to the tune of £thousands each, but everyone else has to be destitute and are grilled under a spotlight just to get a few quid.

Mp's treat taxpayer money as if it's their own personal cash reserves and dip into it whenever they like. Everything about them is crooked and corrupt, and this is why the UK is jobless and starving, except them.

Most MPs are millionaires. They are lying, cheating, self-serving hypocrites who have no idea what life is like for the majority of people and therefore are not able to represent them (which is what MPs are voted in to parliament to do).

If you listen to them they talk about being in it together (most people will never earn what they do), but they do not give answers to questions or use real words to talk about taking real action. They bicker and fight and its usually a mudslinging contest of past and present statistics. Same problems, all of the time and nothing ever gets done.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: dismanrc

This maybe true; the problem is that the grunt job of cleaning up trash and such is not a profit producing job.

As a rule local councils collect waste - a service funded through council tax etc.




I guess many in the US view the way things are here in the UK and Europe as being 'socialist' - if that means caring for the most needy and vulnerable in our society then despite my intense dislike of labelling and stereotyping, so be it.

Would it be fair to say that the local councils are equivalent to the US mayor/city counsel system?

I have lived in Bosnia and am currently living in Greece.

I do understand European to a degree. Western European attitudes do vary from the Balkan area ideas.

Here thing like supporting the needy are done much more on the "family" bases or charity.

The US has lost the "family" style support over the past 30-40 years, but we do have a very large charity support system in the states. For what ever reason that system is not widely expressed in the media.

I guess it comes back to the idea that we look at supporting the needy though charities and community project and not so much though direct government. But then again that has been changing over the past few years also.

Something has to be done about those youth that claim benefits and do a job, the job being drug dealing, they make big money at it and spunk the dole money on take aways etc, this is a large problem around cities here in the UK.

There's a LOT of money being wasted upon these thieves, if someone brings in a scheme that rids the system of these scum then I'm for it. People really have to start understanding that Benefits area privilege and not a right, you get them for being unable to work or to look for work, that's the agreement so when you are NOT seeking work and not unable to work then I don't believe you should be given money just for slumming it or up to no good..

originally posted by: jude11
Ok, I have to admit that I'm torn on this one.

www.activistpost.com...
www.bbc.com...
David Cameron: "From day one young people must play their part and make an effort." Young people out of work, education or training for six months will have to do unpaid community work to get benefits if the Conservatives win the election.

David Cameron said about 50,000 18 to 21-year-olds would be required to do daily work experience from day one of their claim, alongside job searching.

The welfare shake-up would make sure young people "don't get sucked into a life on welfare", he said in a speech.

I have to approach both sides to be fair.

1. FORCING people to work for the state is state slavery. Period. If you are behind bars we can see a difference of course as it can be seen as a debt to society. Let's not bring in the corporate owned prison-for-profit issue because that's another thread entirely.

But...

2. If you are accepting money from the state because you either can't or won't find work, is it right? I think there are points to be made that if the citizens pay taxes that go into your pocket then you working to benefit said citizens is not all that crazy of an idea. Or am I missing something here? In essence you can be seen as employees of the citizens paying taxes to pay you.

Now to my main problem with it all...

The tone of the article is "STATE SPONSORED SLAVERY" and I do see the underlying issue but if there is a line drawn as to monies taken and labor served as equal, is that slavery?

So I can see what he's talking about but then he shows his true colors by using certain words that lead me to believe all is not what it seems. The term ORDER & DISCIPLINE doesn't sit right with me at all. This sounds like the NWO rearing its ugly head.

'Order and discipline'

[ex[Those aged between 18 and 21 who have not been in employment, education or training, known as "Neets", for six months would no longer receive jobseeker's allowance (JSA). Instead, they would be paid the youth allowance, paid at the same rate as JSA - £57.35 a week. However, to receive it they would be required to carry out 30 hours a week of mandatory community work from the first day of claiming benefits.

This could involve making meals for older people or working for local charities, alongside 10 hours of job hunting.

Preparing meals for the elderly, clearing sidewalks of snow, trash pick up or working for a charity seems like a fair trade but the wording of it all has me in my ATS mode. And that is...Don't Trust. Of course Cameron's name on it should suffice as enough of a warning.

So, some great work could be accomplished if a program such as this were implemented but because of the source and ominous undertones with the wording I have to find myself saying don't support it because it's a Pandora's box. I see it as a sad reflection on where we are that even a good idea by elected officials must be met with scrutiny and most of all suspicion because very rarely is a decision going to benefit us not in the high seat.

IMO

Peace




This thread was promoted on the ATS Twitter Feed with the following image:

originally posted by: j4y303

originally posted by: jude11
Ok, I have to admit that I'm torn on this one.

www.activistpost.com...
www.bbc.com...
David Cameron: "From day one young people must play their part and make an effort." Young people out of work, education or training for six months will have to do unpaid community work to get benefits if the Conservatives win the election.

David Cameron said about 50,000 18 to 21-year-olds would be required to do daily work experience from day one of their claim, alongside job searching.

The welfare shake-up would make sure young people "don't get sucked into a life on welfare", he said in a speech.

I have to approach both sides to be fair.

1. FORCING people to work for the state is state slavery. Period. If you are behind bars we can see a difference of course as it can be seen as a debt to society. Let's not bring in the corporate owned prison-for-profit issue because that's another thread entirely.

But...

2. If you are accepting money from the state because you either can't or won't find work, is it right? I think there are points to be made that if the citizens pay taxes that go into your pocket then you working to benefit said citizens is not all that crazy of an idea. Or am I missing something here? In essence you can be seen as employees of the citizens paying taxes to pay you.

Now to my main problem with it all...

The tone of the article is "STATE SPONSORED SLAVERY" and I do see the underlying issue but if there is a line drawn as to monies taken and labor served as equal, is that slavery?

So I can see what he's talking about but then he shows his true colors by using certain words that lead me to believe all is not what it seems. The term ORDER & DISCIPLINE doesn't sit right with me at all. This sounds like the NWO rearing its ugly head.

'Order and discipline'

[ex[Those aged between 18 and 21 who have not been in employment, education or training, known as "Neets", for six months would no longer receive jobseeker's allowance (JSA). Instead, they would be paid the youth allowance, paid at the same rate as JSA - £57.35 a week. However, to receive it they would be required to carry out 30 hours a week of mandatory community work from the first day of claiming benefits.

This could involve making meals for older people or working for local charities, alongside 10 hours of job hunting.

Preparing meals for the elderly, clearing sidewalks of snow, trash pick up or working for a charity seems like a fair trade but the wording of it all has me in my ATS mode. And that is...Don't Trust. Of course Cameron's name on it should suffice as enough of a warning.

So, some great work could be accomplished if a program such as this were implemented but because of the source and ominous undertones with the wording I have to find myself saying don't support it because it's a Pandora's box. I see it as a sad reflection on where we are that even a good idea by elected officials must be met with scrutiny and most of all suspicion because very rarely is a decision going to benefit us not in the high seat.

IMO

Peace




This thread was promoted on the ATS Twitter Feed with the following image:

oops first post
Judging by spelling I would say a lot of you are our American buddies and you may not know the state of our health and welfare system. We get people from all over Europe and the uk abusing our system. We have so many people who get given houses, free healthcare and free money for sitting on their fat backsides because they cannot be bothered to get up and do a hard days graft ( work ). I have been thinking of the same idea for a while, if you want all these benefits then you should do community work. Why should I pay my taxes, work 6 days a week to pay for a roof over my head and feed my family and pay for them to sit at home. I will admit our system is seriously flawed however I do not see making people clean up my streets or clean graffiti etc for their huge benefits a problem.
Thanks

originally posted by: j4y303

originally posted by: j4y303

originally posted by: jude11
Ok, I have to admit that I'm torn on this one.

www.activistpost.com...
www.bbc.com...
David Cameron: "From day one young people must play their part and make an effort." Young people out of work, education or training for six months will have to do unpaid community work to get benefits if the Conservatives win the election.

David Cameron said about 50,000 18 to 21-year-olds would be required to do daily work experience from day one of their claim, alongside job searching.

The welfare shake-up would make sure young people "don't get sucked into a life on welfare", he said in a speech.

I have to approach both sides to be fair.

1. FORCING people to work for the state is state slavery. Period. If you are behind bars we can see a difference of course as it can be seen as a debt to society. Let's not bring in the corporate owned prison-for-profit issue because that's another thread entirely.

But...

2. If you are accepting money from the state because you either can't or won't find work, is it right? I think there are points to be made that if the citizens pay taxes that go into your pocket then you working to benefit said citizens is not all that crazy of an idea. Or am I missing something here? In essence you can be seen as employees of the citizens paying taxes to pay you.

Now to my main problem with it all...

The tone of the article is "STATE SPONSORED SLAVERY" and I do see the underlying issue but if there is a line drawn as to monies taken and labor served as equal, is that slavery?

So I can see what he's talking about but then he shows his true colors by using certain words that lead me to believe all is not what it seems. The term ORDER & DISCIPLINE doesn't sit right with me at all. This sounds like the NWO rearing its ugly head.

'Order and discipline'

[ex[Those aged between 18 and 21 who have not been in employment, education or training, known as "Neets", for six months would no longer receive jobseeker's allowance (JSA). Instead, they would be paid the youth allowance, paid at the same rate as JSA - £57.35 a week. However, to receive it they would be required to carry out 30 hours a week of mandatory community work from the first day of claiming benefits.

This could involve making meals for older people or working for local charities, alongside 10 hours of job hunting.

Preparing meals for the elderly, clearing sidewalks of snow, trash pick up or working for a charity seems like a fair trade but the wording of it all has me in my ATS mode. And that is...Don't Trust. Of course Cameron's name on it should suffice as enough of a warning.

So, some great work could be accomplished if a program such as this were implemented but because of the source and ominous undertones with the wording I have to find myself saying don't support it because it's a Pandora's box. I see it as a sad reflection on where we are that even a good idea by elected officials must be met with scrutiny and most of all suspicion because very rarely is a decision going to benefit us not in the high seat.

IMO

Peace




This thread was promoted on the ATS Twitter Feed with the following image:

oops first post
Judging by spelling I would say a lot of you are our American buddies and you may not know the state of our health and welfare system. We get people from all over Europe and the uk abusing our system. We have so many people who get given houses, free healthcare and free money for sitting on their fat backsides because they cannot be bothered to get up and do a hard days graft ( work ). I have been thinking of the same idea for a while, if you want all these benefits then you should do community work. Why should I pay my taxes, work 6 days a week to pay for a roof over my head and feed my family and pay for them to sit at home. I will admit our system is seriously flawed however I do not see making people clean up my streets or clean graffiti etc for their huge benefits a problem.
Thanksalso not everything in life is a conspiracy or new world order bollocks it can be a case if common sense

a reply to: NeoSpace

out of curiosity were you one of the poor bast**ds to have to work you arse off in pound land. and to the op i completely disagree with i personally think they should be drafted in to the reserves a sort of home guard if you will. and have to conduct a mandatory 45 days a year training. but making people work for benefits i don't think is right.if they're 18-21 that is older people whose been on it their whole lives im bit more open mined about. their is an exception i am agreeing with that crony Cameron on people with drugs and alcohol problems have to get clean before they are aloud to have benefits

a reply to: jude11

There is no surprise here and i think its a good idea, sit at home do nothing and get paid for it, or help the community and get paid for it

I run a recruitment agency and i can assure you there is plenty of jobs out there, just the youth of today are bone idol. The amount of people i recruit and dont show up on their first day or dont even last a week without coming up with an excuse. or just say "im here to prove to the job center i have attempted to get work so i can keep my benefits"

the best labor i have is foreign labor as they understand the meaning of having to get by in this world.

A good example is of a chicken factory in Newark that had just opened up and created around 500+ jobs to people without any skill set. The majority of English people laughed and turned up their nose whilst the foreign labor took the opportunity. . . these will be the same English people that sit around and say "there's no jobs out there"

Don't get me wrong im not in favor of any mainstream politics but i think this is x1 good idea at least

Peace Out

originally posted by: Mclaneinc
Something has to be done about those youth that claim benefits and do a job, the job being drug dealing, they make big money at it and spunk the dole money on take aways etc, this is a large problem around cities here in the UK.

There's a LOT of money being wasted upon these thieves, if someone brings in a scheme that rids the system of these scum then I'm for it. People really have to start understanding that Benefits area privilege and not a right, you get them for being unable to work or to look for work, that's the agreement so when you are NOT seeking work and not unable to work then I don't believe you should be given money just for slumming it or up to no good..

Hear, hear!!

A massive, MASSIVE part of our taxes are wasted on people who have grown up with a "can't work, won't work" mentality. This scheme looks like it primarily targets people who are young and drives home a work ethic. The proposal is that after six months of not working you are then put onto this scheme? More than fair enough. Despite what people say, there are jobs out there and no reason for people to be on jobseekers for more than six months.

Maybe it's because I was raised by sensible parents, but I have always been of the opinion that if I'm out of work, any job will do. Any income is better than leeching off the state! If that means emptying bins, cleaning, flipping burgers or whatever, then so be it.

I do have to say, despite my hatred for them as a whole the Tories are impressing me with their latest aggressive stance on benefit abusers

Make the lazy buggers work for their hand outs. There's plenty of work out there, British youtrh is too lazy to do it, too many aspirations and supposed mental health issues/on the sick. Work or starve it's as simple as that

a reply to: Mclaneinc

Something has to be done about those youth that claim benefits and do a job, the job being drug dealing, they make big money at it and spunk the dole money on take aways etc, this is a large problem around cities here in the UK.

So all young benefit claimants are drug dealers?

The vast majority of drug dealers I know are employed, most in good jobs, self-employed or successful business men who can 'wash' their money through legitimate businesses.
Sure, they some may have a few 'joeys' who do their running for them, but even most of them have jobs albeit minimum wage type jobs.

But the FACT remains that most benefit recipients are genuine cases who largely through no fault of their own can not find suitable employment thanks to successive governments screwing up the economy in one way or another or real disabilities.

Of course there's a percentage who seek to exploit the system - and I fully support efforts to weed them out - but they are very much in the minority and to tar all benefit recipients with the same brush and to treat them in such a manner is outright victimisation.

Its so convenient to label them all as scroungers, drug dealers, immigrants etc and deflects away from the real criminals - the politicians / bankers and industrialists who screw the system over with impunity.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

If there is plenty of work out there then why not give them real jobs with real wages?

And starve they will indeed with only an extra £10 added to there all ready insufficient benefit. You do realise that a adult weekly travel card cost far more than £10, not to mention what are the poor souls supposed to eat all day. Should they also have to visit our Food Banks?