Keith Rich Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 Which is the cheapest option for the tax payer giving someone £200 a week to sit at home or giving that same person £400 a week to sit in an air-conditions office doing nothing of any use. How do you come to those figures? And where are the other figures I asked for. You've just made it all up haven't you. And what about Tories taking from the disabled to pay for mistakes of their muiti millionair banker friends. Not answered that either have you. Just give it up and admitt that these Tory Eaton bullingdon boys are the scum of the earth. Don't you know that they hate you with a vengence and would prefer it if you were in the workhouse...where we soon all will be under this lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 How do you come to those figures? And where are the other figures I asked for. You've just made it all up haven't you. And what about Tories taking from the disabled to pay for mistakes of their muiti millionair banker friends. Not answered that either have you. Just give it up and admitt that these Tory Eaton bullingdon boys are the scum of the earth. Don't you know that they hate you with a vengence and would prefer it if you were in the workhouse...where we soon all will be under this lot. You didn’t ask me for any figures you asked speedbirdone and yes the figures are estimates but it is reasonable to assume that most public sector workers are paid more than someone on social security. My point is there is little point inventing jobs that don’t need doing just to employ people at a higher cost to the tax payer than them not working, people need employing in meaningful and productive jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 You didn’t ask me for any figures you asked speedbirdone and yes the figures are estimates but it is reasonable to assume that most public sector workers are paid more than someone on social security. My point is there is little point inventing jobs that don’t need doing just to employ people at a higher cost to the tax payer than them not working, people need employing in meaningful and productive jobs. Sorry you Tory nutters all sound the same. What are these jobs that don't need doing? The Police? Fire Brigade? Nurses? Doctors? Health workers? Teachers? What jobs are being invented? None Jobs are being destroyed as they always are under the Nasty Party. The Tory mafia are always telling us that people are better off on the dole than working. So what is the point paying someone more money to be idle than to be employed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Sorry you Tory nutters all sound the same. What are these jobs that don't need doing? The Police? Fire Brigade? Nurses? Doctors? Health workers? Teachers? What jobs are being invented? None Jobs are being destroyed as they always are under the Nasty Party. The Tory mafia are always telling us that people are better off on the dole than working. So what is the point paying someone more money to be idle than to be employed. The Police, Fire Brigade, Nurses, Doctors, Health workers, Teachers, are the jobs that need doing, why are you angry that the none jobs are being destroyed, it’s cheaper for someone to be unemployed than to be paid to do a none job. Who is paid more money to be idle than they would be paid to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 The Police, Fire Brigade, Nurses, Doctors, Health workers, Teachers, are the jobs that need doing, why are you angry that the none jobs are being destroyed, it’s cheaper for someone to be unemployed than to be paid to do a none job. Who is paid more money to be idle than they would be paid to work? But it is these vital jobs that are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 But it is these vital jobs that are going. It does make you wonder why we here about these people possibly losing their jobs whilst councils are still employing and advertising the none jobs. I keep hearing about police losing their jobs even though they cannot be made redundant. In the grand scheme of things how important is it to have a Water Polo Coach LeisureGrade 6 (£22,958 - £27,052)28/09 when all these important jobs are supposedly being lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bojangles Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Sorry you Tory nutters all sound the same. - - - .Across England, significantly more people vote Tory than Labour, even in the years Labour has won - does that mean most English people are nutters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pb1977 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 But it is these vital jobs that are going. Does make you wonder why we are only hearing about jobs like The Police, Fire Brigade that are been cut and not the 1000's of council non jobs that im sure we could quite easily manage without. Among the jobs that have been spawned by the boom in “non-jobs” were a “bouncy castle attendant” on a salary of £13,000 at Angus council in Scotland and a “cheerleading development officer” in Falkirk. North East Lincolnshire council advertising for a “future shape programme manager” on £70,189 per annum. According to data, the number of people employed by local authorities in Britain stood at 2,728,000 in 1997 when Labour came to power. Last year the figure was 2,907,000. There were 741,702 people on council payrolls who were not in traditional “front- line” jobs such as those in education, social services, recreation, libraries, planning, environmental health, culture, heritage or trading standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 Across England, significantly more people vote Tory than Labour, even in the years Labour has won - does that mean most English people are nutters? Like I told you before you see things in posts that are not there and then you reply to that. Weird. By the way are you from Sheffield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 Does make you wonder why we are only hearing about jobs like The Police, Fire Brigade that are been cut and not the 1000's of council non jobs that im sure we could quite easily manage without. Among the jobs that have been spawned by the boom in “non-jobs” were a “bouncy castle attendant” on a salary of £13,000 at Angus council in Scotland and a “cheerleading development officer” in Falkirk. North East Lincolnshire council advertising for a “future shape programme manager” on £70,189 per annum. According to data, the number of people employed by local authorities in Britain stood at 2,728,000 in 1997 when Labour came to power. Last year the figure was 2,907,000. There were 741,702 people on council payrolls who were not in traditional “front- line” jobs such as those in education, social services, recreation, libraries, planning, environmental health, culture, heritage or trading standards. Why are you so sure we can do without these jobs when you know nothing about them? Can't you reallly not see how the Tories are pulling the wool over your eyes and taking you for a fool? I just don't understand how you can be so gulable and naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.