spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Haha. Nope. Do you think the work programme is a compulsory extension to prisoner's sentences? I'm going on the details you've provided! (Hence why I ask if you're off head!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 Slaves, you are funny, they are being paid benefits to do the work. Not being forced other than being threatened with the loss of benefits. For the group in bold, isn't this an excellent opportunity for them? If the schemes are high quality with genuine prospects of long-term employment it would be an excellent opportunity. But based on the current economic climate and performance of the work programme as detailed by others in this thread the chances of that would appear to be slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'm going on the details you've provided! (Hence why I ask if you're off head!) It's not me who has been arguing that it is a compulsory extension to all prisoner sentences. You argued that. Cut the abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 so you were wrong then :hihi: Explain how you figure that, you proposed that your costs had gone up and that that was evidence of it not reducing costs, I indicated that the overall crime rate hasn't recently gone down significantly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 Sounds like you don't realise that many ex-cons are in work and don't need anything extra in place. You're grasping at straws now LOL So why are they having a compulsory extension to their sentence? You said that earlier in the thread. Not me. For reference, post #34 onwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I don't know if this is supposed to save the economy (I ain't said it's supposed to), rather help ex-offenders into "normal" life and give them an alternative to a life of crime. You're not really that naive are you Spooky? In 2001 the economy was booming- know what the government was doing to help prisoners find work? They ran basic literacy and numeracy courses, gave them action plans, updated their CV's and taught them some interview skills, they did NOT try to force them into unpaid labour, they tried to help them in a socially acceptable way. Know whats changed since then? The economy's gone completely bust and now corporations are clamouring for free labour and the government are handing it to them by every means possible. It's happened before historically and it was one of the most disgraceful eras of our history, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd even attempt to argue in favour of this grotesque policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 It's not me who has been arguing that it is a compulsory extension to all prisoner sentences. You argued that. Cut the abuse. Stop posing daft propositions and i'll not have to think if you're drunk or not! Have we not both agreed that if certain conditions are not met that all released prisoners will be put in this position. As I said the semantics you keep playing with are so trivial and ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 You're not really that naive are you Spooky? In 2001 the economy was booming- know what the government was doing to help prisoners find work? They ran basic literacy and numeracy courses, gave them action plans, updated their CV's and taught them some interview skills, they did NOT try to force them into unpaid labour, they tried to help them in a socially acceptable way. Know whats changed since then? The economy's gone completely bust and now corporations are clamouring for free labour and the government are handing it to them by every means possible. It's happened before historically and it was one of the most disgraceful eras of our history, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd even attempt to argue in favour of this grotesque policy. Those courses still run don't they, they should, but it didn't actually really work though did it, otherwise we wouldn't still be in this situation. Free labour, we are paying for it! Which historical point are you referring too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 So why are they having a compulsory extension to their sentence? You said that earlier in the thread. Not me. For reference, post #34 onwards LOL, different points you're using there. The quote you used was referring to workplace setup. This policy is because we have a problem, which you don't seem to acknowledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Which historical point are you referring too? The north Atlantic slave trade, which she keeps refering to as equivalent to asking benefit recipients do between 60 and 240 hours work a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.