spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 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. No way! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Well, ex-prisoners won't be sent to Holiday Inn any time soon as the hotel chain has recently announced that it wants no further part of the Tory Work programme cut price slave labour scheme that encourages work for no pay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Well, ex-prisoners won't be sent to Holiday Inn any time soon as the hotel chain has recently announced that it wants no further part of the Tory Work programme cut price slave labour scheme that encourages work for no pay... We pay their benefits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 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. I'm not drunk. You said the sentencing was changing not me. And it patently isn't true. We don't know what the conditions will be yet but currently no prisoner is compelled to claim JSA on release. I haven't seen anything that changes that. What is changing is that prisoners who want to claim JSA will be referred straight to the work programme and not have to claim JSA for 12 months before being referred. The other change is the removal of the one week gap between leaving prison and being able to claim JSA. If prisoners refuse to join the work programme JSA is withdrawn. If they stay on the work programme (which many will do to claim JSA) then the work placements are mandated. I'm sorry but this is not the compulsory extension to sentencing you believe it to be. See post #34 onwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'm not drunk. You said the sentencing was changing not me. And it patently isn't true. We don't know what the conditions will be yet but currently no prisoner is compelled to claim JSA on release. I haven't seen anything that changes that. What is changing is that prisoners who want to claim JSA will be referred straight to the work programme and not have to claim JSA for 12 months before being referred. The other change is the removal of the one week gap between leaving prison and being able to claim JSA. If prisoners refuse to join the work programme JSA is withdrawn. If they stay on the work programme (which many will do to claim JSA) then the work placements are mandated. I'm sorry but this is not the compulsory extension to sentencing you believe it to be. See post #34 onwards. So, back to the main topic at hand, back from your off track crass semantic ridicule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 So, back to the main topic at hand, back from your off track crass semantic ridicule. I'm stating facts. I'm not the one who is being crass (or abusive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 We pay their benefits! I do hope you aren't suggesting that JSA and other benefits are a perfectly acceptable substitute to the National Minimum Wage? If a person over the age of 21 is working they are entitled to be paid an hourly rate of £6.08 per hour. Not to do so is exploitation, pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy80 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Do you really want criminals in your workplace, thugs etc.... I would only be happy to work alongside these people if I was allowed to kick them when they got things wrong. Bad idea - keep jobs for the law abiding. These people act like rabid dogs and they should be treat as such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 So I guess by that definition I'm a slave too then. I have bills to pay, living costs so I work to get money to pay for them. I have to toil in the woodyard and my customers gardens as a slave simply to get the money I need. And unbelievably, my customers would not just give me money if I couldn't be bothered to turn up and work. Criminal isn't it? Like something out of Amistad. Having to do a tiny amount of work in exchange for very generous benefits is not slavery. And if those benefits are so pathetic that claimants think a few weeks part time work experience is so demeaning and hideous that they don't want them then all they need do is sign off. Nobody is being forced to claim benefits. There's an enormous difference between selling your labour and being forced to provide labour for free- and it is for free, because we've been happy to pay them JSA without the need for them to work. We provide JSA as a collective society to all who need it because we have compassion and a historic knowledge that capitalism fails on a regular basis. Corporations are taking advantage of that compassion, just as fraudulent claimers take advantage of it, by using the money that we provide to keep people fed and housed whilst proffiting from that person's labour at very low cost to themselves. In that sense it's even worse than African slavery because the slave owner fed and housed his slaves at his own expense, today corporations want the rest of society to do that for them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I do hope you aren't suggesting that JSA and other benefits are a perfectly acceptable substitute to the National Minimum Wage? If a person over the age of 21 is working they are entitled to be paid an hourly rate of £6.08 per hour. Not to do so is exploitation, pure and simple. Yes, because there is other money being spent on their behalf. Money which we wouldn't have to pay if they weren't committing crimes in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.