It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jobless to work 'clearing litter'

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Polly Toynbee The Guardian, Tuesday July 22, 2008 Article historyThey were headlines to die for, everything that James Purnell had planned. "Labour blitz on dole scroungers" said the Sun, with "Get clean or lose your benefits, junkies told" from the Daily Mail. His prominent article in the Mail on Sunday was headlined: "There is nothing leftwing about expecting everyone else to pay for people who simply don't want to work." My, it was tough, tough, tough. But for bleeding-heart liberals he wrote an entirely different comment in these pages yesterday - "Only we can help the poor" - challenging Cameron on poverty while emphasising the caring elements in his welfare reform green paper.

If only some impish subversive had sent the Mail on Sunday article to the Guardian and vice versa, everyone might have learned something, instead of pandering to prejudice. There is no doubt from my emails that some Guardian readers forget how toxic to Labour's chances it can be when the party is seen as soft on welfare cheats. People who work hard for low pay are rarely tolerant of those they think are cheating on benefits. The wonder is that the low paid are willing to do menial work without career prospects for only a little more than the dole - especially mothers, who until now haven't been forced to work. But most do.

Purnell could have reminded Mail readers of that strong work ethic among the battalions of cleaners and carers, while scroungers are surprisingly few. Instead he inflamed prejudices drawn from eye-popping cases in shockumentaries about Shameless estates. It was Bill Clinton who said you can never ever be too tough on welfare, they will always cry for more. So do you go on turning the screw for ever? That becomes self-defeating, feeding the appetite for more loathing and less understanding of the poor.

If Purnell wanted to change the minds of Mail readers, he might have written about poverty for them, not for the Guardian. Childless claimants have already had benefits cut by nearly 10% in Labour's reign: try living on £60 a week. Instead of devising villains, he could have described honestly the problems of getting marginal cases back to the world of work. In jobcentres where there are jobs, the left-behind unemployed are often the odd, the indefinably helpless, the non-communicators, the traumatised, the great array of human hard luck cases whom employers run a mile from. See those who queue outside urban post offices on benefit days - is that where you would go to recruit for staff? The government should help them into mainstream life for their own sake as well as for taxpayers'. But if not Labour, then who will remind voters that any society always has fallers who need picking up: the shirkers who need a push are bit-part players.

Can Purnell give personal advisers the time to offer people intensive personal support? The Department for Work and Pensions has had a £2bn cut, so the quality of help remains to be seen. Many claimants are indeed drug addicts - but will there be 200,000 new rehab places of sufficiently high quality to cure them? If voters are treated like grown-ups, they understand the reality of intractable problems - but Purnell prefers the politician's trick of magical thinking, which seeds cynicism when results are slow and incremental.

The plans are good: four benefits have been simplified into two. Thanks to wiser heads in the Treasury, Purnell was saved from himself when he wanted to cut benefits for existing incapacity claimants. Now, nobody loses out and the sickest will get more - but wait for high-profile cases when the dying get wrongly summoned for work tests. To oblige the fit to work on graffiti and litter clearing if they have been refusing chances for two years seems sensible - depending, as ever, on how it is applied. The DWP expects to use this power sparingly because make-work schemes are phenomenally expensive. The idea is to flush out those who work while claiming: many will leave the dole rather than turn up every day.

The amount of this work contracted to the private or voluntary sector stays the same: nine out of 10 unemployed are found jobs via Jobcentre Plus within a year, with only the hardest last tenth handed over to contractors after that. But contracts will be sharper, only paying by results once people have stayed in work for six months. The excellent Pathways to Work scheme was rolled out in April and should show results. Anyone off sick for more than six months is given intensive help: if they get a job they still get £40 a week on top of their wages for a year and the crucial right to go back on incapacity benefit if they fail. It has proved decisive in persuading the long-term sick to risk trying a job - and staying there. Mothers on the new deal will now keep all the maintenance they get from absent fathers, on top of their benefits, which at least removes the last vestige of an excuse for the majority of absent fathers who pay nothing. But why didn't Purnell accentuate the positive?

The stage management of this "revolution" will not make him popular with many colleagues, nor his party. Maybe he deserves thanks as a self-sacrificing sin-eater for Labour. His aides say of course it had to be billed as super-radical, to deny the Tories this turf. Cameron says he's "thrilled" with the policy - so in the short run, Labour has neutralised welfare reform.

But where does it take the party beyond a couple of days' headlines? Purnell missed the chance to take ideas about welfare away from endless punishment into Labour terrain, showing what really works in easing impoverishment, illiteracy, and all that leads to unemployment. The timing is bad for a target of getting 80% into work: extra toughness is an odd response to thousands of jobs cascading out of the building industry.

Purnell's colleagues gnash their teeth at his grandstanding claims of the greatest "revolution" since Beveridge. Since the first new deal, Labour has done well on welfare to work, among the EU's best. Inheriting high numbers parked on incapacity, new cases have fallen every year for the last eight years. But who would know that from Labour's rhetoric? Taxpayers do have strong gut feelings about fairness for all - at the top and the bottom. But the same day Purnell cracked the whip on scroungers, Alistair Darling retreated on closing key tax loopholes on foreign earnings, under pressure from the City. Why is it always more righ




posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by LLoyd45
 


We did'nt have guns taken away from us because we never had them in the first place and we don't want them .I'm intruiged that you take the issue of banning knives aka'pointy things' so lightly.I'm sure the greiving families of the teenagers that died everyday (and in one day five teens died)for the last few weeks with some horror and disbelief.There is a teenage knife crime epidemic going on in Britain and it is of great concern to politicians and public alike and it is not a joke.

Furthermore all this hysterical non-sense about 'Orwellian Britain' etc etc is ribbish.No we are not living under Sharia law and in fear of bin inspectors.We are a healthy ,functioning democracy.Don't beleive everything you read on the internet.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by candyfloss

We did'nt have guns taken away from us because we never had them in the first place and we don't want them.


Well, All I can say is, "it's a good thing you don't want them, because you can't have them". It's not a personal choice you have to make, the decision has already been made for you by your government.


I'm intruiged that you take the issue of banning knives aka'pointy things' so lightly.I'm sure the greiving families of the teenagers that died everyday (and in one day five teens died)for the last few weeks with some horror and disbelief.There is a teenage knife crime epidemic going on in Britain and it is of great concern to politicians and public alike and it is not a joke.
I'm sure it's not a laughing matter. Unfortunately you have been disarmed by your governemt, and are unable to defend yourself from those individuals who do, and will continue to carry weapons legally or not. I imagine there just aren't enough police officers to go around.


Furthermore all this hysterical non-sense about 'Orwellian Britain' etc etc is ribbish.No we are not living under Sharia law and in fear of bin inspectors.We are a healthy ,functioning democracy.Don't beleive everything you read on the internet.
I never said you were living under Sharia law, but itmay be a real possibility for you in the future. your government is far more oppressive than the United States. The UK is the prototype of things to come for the US if we don't all wake up soon.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by LLoyd45]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by LLoyd45
Your opinions find respect here as well. I just thought it was strange, because I am usually on your side and not CC's.


I see your point about abuse, but so far the abuse has not occurred. This plan sounds to me like a really great way to get people off the public dole and get them to enter the world of reality, and there is some mention of safeguards to protect those who are truly unable to perform productive work.

Something simply has to be done to make welfare, unemployment, or prison uncomfortable. I don't want to see anyone go hungry or do without, but at the same time, I realize that a massive central government cannot fund everyone's life. All of that money is coming from the pockets of workers who actually want to improve their lot in life and pull their own weight. Why should it go to someone who doesn't want to work so they can be lazy? And what will happen when there are not enough workers to provide for the bums?

Better to save those we can than to all die trying to save someone who doesn't want to be saved.

TheRedneck


I see the road turned downward, as in "middle of the road stance". Only my strong belief in theology allows me to continue to commit to the rules of the financial game. I feel good inside even if i know my taxes went to uselessness, it's the act that makes me feel rich. If the bums don't get it and they don't now, because I'm broke then it was still their own stupidity if they have to suffer now. Someone who does live off of others will obviously suffer in the end. To me, further oppression cost more.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by rightwingnut]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I want a nuclear bomb...but boo hoo...i cant have them,silly laws.Truth is,people in the UK could care less about guns.Pointless in most peoples opinions,thats culture for you.No way is better....except america has an astonishingly high gun crime rate....nevermind illegal trade in guns to south america...



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lethil
I want a nuclear bomb...but boo hoo...i cant have them,silly laws.Truth is,people in the UK could care less about guns.Pointless in most peoples opinions,thats culture for you.No way is better....except america has an astonishingly high gun crime rate....nevermind illegal trade in guns to south america...



I could'nt agree more.It's never occured to us ,as a nation,to want guns.The very idea is preposterous.Once again we are NOT ,repeat,NOT going to have Sharia law in England.Just because some nitwit on the internet got hold of the wrong end of the stick does not mean it get's a rapid passage through parliament.I think one QC said that aspects of Sharia law may have to be considered to serve the Muslim population adequately.This ,for example,can mean special provisions for getting a mortagtage to buy a house as Muslim people see lending money as usury.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by candyfloss

Originally posted by Lethil
I want a nuclear bomb...but boo hoo...i cant have them,silly laws.Truth is,people in the UK could care less about guns.Pointless in most peoples opinions,thats culture for you.No way is better....except america has an astonishingly high gun crime rate....nevermind illegal trade in guns to south america...



I could'nt agree more.It's never occured to us ,as a nation,to want guns.The very idea is preposterous.Once again we are NOT ,repeat,NOT going to have Sharia law in England.Just because some nitwit on the internet got hold of the wrong end of the stick does not mean it get's a rapid passage through parliament.I think one QC said that aspects of Sharia law may have to be considered to serve the Muslim population adequately.This ,for example,can mean special provisions for getting a mortagtage to buy a house as Muslim people see lending money as usury.


AHEM *Britain*...there are muslims in other parts of the Uk aswell...but apart from that agreed! although shariah law should be added to *some* parts of the law,much like judaism is already...it doesnt override british law,but it gives a bit of leeway for muslims,i have no problem with that.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by Lethil]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Lethil
 


Sorry ,your right Britain,apologies..



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
What makes me laugh is the American attitude towards an armed populace.

"But what if we are invaded?!" they cry! My oh, my, what do you think we have a professional army for? We aren't living in ancient Greek city-states and there are no barbarians threatening to come running out of the hills (even the Scots have managed to give it a rest now!) and destroy civilization.

As I can't actually think of a time when America has been invaded, since it's independance, its hard to imagine where they have gotten this fear of invasion from.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


Americans Were Occupied by the British Until their Armed populace forced them off the continent.

They maintain their Right to bear arms in case their own Military ever falls under the Control of a Government that does not adhere to the constitution.

An armed populace would also help repel a foreign invasion - observe Iraqis fighting for their freedom against a foreign occupier.

Question Answered.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


You may want to try to better understand our forefathers genious in giving us the right to keep and bear arms & our insistance on not giving up that right.

I'm really not to concerned about being invaded at this point in time. However if something like that were ever to happen a hell of a lot of us would be able to defend what's ours. WE wouldn't have to sit in fear waiting for the troops to arrive. If i looked out the window and saw enemy soldiers marching down the street, i could dial a couple of numbers and in minutes we'd be a well armed militia on our street defending our country. Can you do the same ?

Every single citizen should be able and allowed to defend their country, not just the military.


I guess you also don't know that our right to keep and bear arms is not only to protect ourselves and our country from foriegn invaders. It's also to protect ourselves and our country from those domestic enemies that would try to turn our wonderful constitutiuon into nothing more than a piece of paper and bring an end to our country and way of life.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by candyfloss
 


Just curious, why should your country have to change any part of their laws to accomodate someones religious beliefs ? Don't you have seperation of church and state over there ? Would everybody be entitled to any of the perks that they would put in place to appease the muslims concerning morgtages, or would it only apply to the muslims while everyone else had to adhere to the original laws ?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


there is a difference here in the states, we unemployment program and welfare. if you are laid off from your jobs you receive unemployment benefits, then there is mothers that lay up in the bed all day that have five kids by five different dads and receive money from the state with out an attempt to even get a job, this is wellfare. my thought on the whole thing is there should be a statue of limitation on welfare just like unemployment benefits you get 18 weeks then you can file for one extention of 8 weeks and thats it. it is not the tax payers job to make sure that joe,billy,betty,bubba, and brandon are taken care of it is their responsabillity.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
Most people on welfare either lack the mental capacity to work, have disabilities, or some other mental disorder which is debilitating and prevents them from working a normal job.


You need to have a look at the welfare office here in Las Vegas and watch the Humvees, Cadilacs and BMW's that drive up to get their checks...

Family around the corner from me... big house, runs a landscaping business, 6 vehicles one being a new 2008 Humvee... yet three members of the household are on welfare... We know because they boast and laugh about it...

Just an FYI



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by crawgator406

there is a difference here in the states, we unemployment program and welfare. if you are laid off from your jobs you receive unemployment benefits,


Don't forget that its called Unemployment Insurance... and its based on previous hours worked and contributions for our paychecks... quite a difference



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthTellist
Americans Were Occupied by the British Until their Armed populace forced them off the continent.


You must be joking. Don't tell me you are as indoctrinated as the Muslim "Muslims have never invaded a Christian country!" (which I have actually had thrown at me in a discussion...!).

I think the first line of the Wiki article on the subject sums it up nicely:

"The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence,[3] was a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and thirteen British colonies on the North American continent."

British colonies. It was a coup, not a liberation.


Originally posted by TruthTellistThey maintain their Right to bear arms in case their own Military ever falls under the Control of a Government that does not adhere to the constitution.

An armed populace would also help repel a foreign invasion - observe Iraqis fighting for their freedom against a foreign occupier.

Question Answered.


Question answered? No, you have just explained how you have no faith in your own armed forces and distrust your own damn government to the point where you are so terrified you need to own a lethal weapon to feel you can deal with it.

I was asking where you got your fear of FOREIGN invasion.



Originally posted by chise61
You may want to try to better understand our forefathers genious in giving us the right to keep and bear arms & our insistance on not giving up that right.


No "genius" about it, and no reason behind keeping it.



Originally posted by chise61However if something like that were ever to happen a hell of a lot of us would be able to defend what's ours. WE wouldn't have to sit in fear waiting for the troops to arrive. If i looked out the window and saw enemy soldiers marching down the street, i could dial a couple of numbers and in minutes we'd be a well armed militia on our street defending our country. Can you do the same ?


My god, you just told me you weren't scared of invasion, and the previous poster (and the rest of your post) goes on to detail how you expect the tanks rolling down your streets to be your own!

I have no idea what sort of ethnic cleansing you expect your government to take part in, either. You speak like you expect your government to start committing genocide against your own people.



Originally posted by chise61I guess you also don't know that our right to keep and bear arms is not only to protect ourselves and our country from foriegn invaders.


I'm a big, big fan of military history, and I can tell you that getting a bunch of untrained, uncoordinated civilians out on the streets to fight a professional army is just asking for a slaughter.

Aside from the fact you clearly think your own army is incompetent, you'd not have the balls to go out and actually fight a proper army if they were marching down your streets, anyway.

And you know what? Massacres probably would occur too, because an armed civilian population attacking an army is simply going to force the army to destroy them completely.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Where's the mods. I thought this thread was supposed to be about UK unemployment, not about guns or British Imperialism.
Geez some people never miss an opportunity to peddle their hatred and ignorance. Here's the hard cold truth. Whatever you think of British imperialism, what's done is done. Fact, what happened in the past is past tense and there isn't a person here on ATS who had any bearing whatsoever on historical events, so please, let's just stick to the theme of the thread.

Which is?

"Jobless slaves to work clearing litter".


Do we get one of those fancy orange jump suits?





[edit on 25-7-2008 by kindred]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I feel sorry for the current hard workers who actually clean the streets, soon they'll be jobless, have less money and be forced to do the job they did previously.... ahh the shame.

Plus the fact that these freeloaders won't even bother doing it and if push comes to shove the "Human rights" crap will be waved about thus quashing the whole movement



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

My god, you just told me you weren't scared of invasion, and the previous poster (and the rest of your post) goes on to detail how you expect the tanks rolling down your streets to be your own!

I have no idea what sort of ethnic cleansing you expect your government to take part in, either. You speak like you expect your government to start committing genocide against your own people.


I'm a big, big fan of military history, and I can tell you that getting a bunch of untrained, uncoordinated civilians out on the streets to fight a professional army is just asking for a slaughter.

Aside from the fact you clearly think your own army is incompetent, you'd not have the balls to go out and actually fight a proper army if they were marching down your streets, anyway.





First off i'd like to suggest that you go back and reread my post and try to comprehend what i actually said, instead of trying to twist my words around to make it appear as if i've said or implied something that i did not.


I never said that i expect any tanks to be rolling down the streets, let alone that they would be my own. I was just explaining to you why our forefathers were genious enough to give us the right to keep and bear arms (the reasoning behind that right), and why we have no intention of giving up that right.


And where might i ask did you see any mention of genocide in my post ? I made no reference to genocide, and definately no mention of my own goverment commiting genocide, in any of my posts.


We do still have militias in our country. There are also people that although they would rather not die, would rather be slaughtered than give up their freedoms without a fight. It may be incomprehensible to you, but we value our freedoms and intend to keep them.


Again you'll have to show me where i said that i believe my military is incompetent ! Actually quite the opposite is true, i believe we have a very competent military, after all they were competent enough to drive the British military out of our country twice weren't they. And if i'm not mistaken during a time when the British military was the best in the world.


I have nothing but the highest respect and faith in our military, so please have the decency not to try to imply that i meant something other than what i said. When i said that we wouldn't have to sit in fear waiting for our military, i meant that if we ever were invaded they can not possibly be on every street of every city, and our right to keep and bear arms would allow us to help them in defending ourselves and our country.


You are right i wouldn't have the balls to do anything because as far as i know men are the only ones with balls, and since i'm not a man i don't have them, so technically you are right
Aside from that you don't know me personally and have no idea what i'm capable of, or what kind of training i may or may not have had. I may not want to go down, but you better believe that if it ever came to that i'll go down fighting.



Hopefully this time you will be able to comprehend what i have said and not what you choose to believe i meant. Unless you're a person that tries to come out ahead in a disscussion by twisting people's words around to suit your own agenda. If you can't have an intelligent disscussion without twisting my words around, then i'd rather not attempt to hold a dissussion with you.


If you feel the need to reply to my post, please do so in a private message so that we don't derail this thread further.


My apologies to the members so going so far off the topic



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by deathpoet69


So, you're saying that you have a bad attitude in some way (only reason I can think of for being let go that many times) and your girlfriend is overweight(? Not real familiar with the 'stone', so I'm guessing form context), and because of that you can't work?


I am saying that when I was working and been in school through out my life I have had a bad attiude and still have abit of temper that I try to keep down because it gets me in to trouble. My girlfriend is of the sick for depression and at the time obesity. She has lost alot of weight and has become alot stronger and confident in her self. We have just applied for voluenteering work



Based on the assumptions I made above, I see the problem. It is that you want a job, but you want the job to be exactly what you want to do, not what your employer wants done. That's not a problem with the employer; it's a problem with you.


I just am applying to youth volunteering because i want to help youths who suffer in silence which will gain me experiance to get a proper job as in, social working or a police officer.


A job only exists because someone wants/needs someone to perform a task. It does not exist because you want it. It is not a right, nor an entitlement. If you want to be paid, you have to perform useful work, not just do whatever you want to do. That is called 'fun', not work.

I no that. I am learning.



"Taken care of"? Wait, did someone not wipe your nose when you wanted them to? Oh, how terrible. Hey, here's a great idea: how about taking care of yourself? I do, and so do millions of other people around the globe..



Sort the menality of a young society out first before complaining about their injustice in the future. I have taken care of myself since i was a kid, with no help from a parent figure or education system, i have been in alot of dangerous situations which somtimes i have put myself in but come straight back out off. thank you.




Ah, the obligatory threat paragraph. "Give me what I want or I'll hurt you." Now how could any employer refuse someone with that attitude?
..


Reducation



Speaking for myself, I care quite a bit about my world. That's why I want lazy whiners to get out and do something, before the workers have to retire and there is no one to do anything. Well, almost anything, sounds like there will be a lot of professional cryers.



those on welfare are mentally delinquent to society who have an average age span of 10. I am not one of them though.





I'm sorry, were you refused education when you were younger? I thought the UK had a similar public education system to what we have here, where every child gets to go to school. Oh, let me guess, you quit..


I was refused education in the sense they cant help me because of my unruly behavioural problems and ended up been excluded, i dint quit.
I was refused gcse's an exam in england look it up.
I dint get a record of achievement either, i left school at 13 then soon as i was 16 i went to college and achieved an exam all without the help of the education i had in the past.
As for starting your own business, that is actually a great idea! Now stop threatening and do it.



Oh, how terrible it is to work for 4 weeks a year, or eventually have to actually work for charities to help out people who genuinely need it in return for your refusal to work in the public sector and your insistence on getting money for nothing. You can always try and hide your attitude a while and get a real job, then this wouldn't even affect you.

Totally agree, i tried that in all the jobs i had and i dint seem to hold it back. i dint concentrate and was always doing something wrong however i am making a change to that and i am now volunteering for charities to gain experience to know how to handle a working environment.




You don't need any of these things, these are simply excuses you are using to justify your present life choice. Life coaching? What in the name of Robert E. Lee is that? Someone to hold your hand so you can live? Anger management... sheesh, how about just biting your tongue and growing up. Anxiety management? Give me a break, you're not anxious; you're childish. Get off your rump and get out on the street and try to find something to do. And when someone gives you a chance, take it and don't screw it up.
agree, just like what others have told me. I should take it in action. I would like someones advice on how to start a conversation to someone who is not like in to the things we are. How do i separate conspricy type topics to average life type topics that everyone speaks about. How do i intergrate with certain groups in the working enviroment?. I shy away somtimes and become an outcast. any advice from anyone?

And before you start whining about this, no, I do not 'hate' you or want you to 'suffer'. I want you to be able to hold your head up and be a man. I want you to take some pride in yourself. I want you to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I want you to feel like you're somebody, because you are.

And i agree, thank you. give me some advice about how to interact at work.

TheRedneck
(yeah, I'm back from working for a living)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join