Tebbit says young unemployed should pull weeds for benefits.

[cardoor]

I think all the unemployed should be locked up in cages with a basic PC and access to jobsites only. Fed only bread and water. They would only allowed out of their cage for job interviews, weeding and litter picking.

[Bonzo77]

I think all the unemployed should be locked up in cages with a basic PC and access to jobsites only. Fed only bread and water. They would only allowed out of their cage for job interviews, weeding and litter picking.

 

Yeah, but you're a tool, so no one cares what you think!

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 15:37 ----------

 

Anyone with an ounce of grey matter can unfortunately get around that one,just as they can easily get around having to sign on when it suits, i.e they get a days work cash in hand. But technically yes they aren't supposed to take holidays.

(that isn't just anecdotal either i know for a fact)

 

Genuine question...........

 

What is someone is laid off and they already have a 2 week holiday booked. Say they're laid off on 1st October and their holiday starts on 15th for 2 weeks. Are they not entitled to sign on until after their holiday? Do they have to take a 2 week break in their payments received?

[Jonny5]

I think all the unemployed should be locked up in cages with a basic PC and access to jobsites only. Fed only bread and water. They would only allowed out of their cage for job interviews, weeding and litter picking.

Norman? Is that you :hihi:

[Mister M]

I think all the unemployed should be locked up in cages with a basic PC and access to jobsites only. Fed only bread and water. They would only allowed out of their cage for job interviews, weeding and litter picking.

 

It's scary to think how many people would be in agreement with this statement....Agreed that it's okay for other unemployed people to be treated in a sub human way, but if they became unemployed they'd soon change they're tune

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 16:36 ----------

 

As well as the young unemployed he also thinks criminals should pull weeds thus equating in a stroke criminals and those on benefits. No surprise there then.

 

Surely if there is a need for weeds to be pulled then people should be employed to do it, at or above NMW, otherwise any job that is in some way menial could be taken from the person employed to do it and given to an unemployed person or criminal at a cheap rate. I bet employers can't wait.

 

As for the weed in question....I deliberately grow it. It's great for bees and cinnabar moths and butterflies and I can think of a lot more useless things that could be eradicated.....such as Lord Tebbit.

 

Horses rarely die from eating ragwort unless they are forced to eat it because of lack of proper pasture, even then most deaths occur from horses eating dried ragwort which has been dug up, cut down or killed and left in the field. Ragwort is an important part of our native biodiversity, supports 30 species of insects and helps to sustain the now fragile bee populations that we need to pollinate crops.

 

Norman is an attention seeker of the highest order....

[Lotusflower]

The point he is making is perfectly valid. It is inhuman and cruel to allow people, particularly young people to sit at home doing nothing and drawing benefits. All UK citizens should be required to work as long as they are capable of doing so.

 

And when they are incapable the Tory Party will still argue that it's perfectly valid to force them into work or sanction their benefits.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thousands-with-degenerative-conditions-classified-as-fit-to-work-in-future--despite-no-possibility-of-improvement-9811910.html

 

 

Propriety (and Forum rules) forbid me from expressing my opinion of the Tories here.

[Mecky]

I notice we never level that comment at the volunteers working for charities or fundraising for charities(including unemployed). Those people are happy to work for free, so why not volunteer to pick weeds or mend fences.

 

Because they're not happy to do it for free. I expect if you shoved charity shop workers out into the cold and rain to pick up little they wouldn't like it either. Furthermore what will the street cleaners do for work?

[charmer]

And when they are incapable the Tory Party will still argue that it's perfectly valid to force them into work or sanction their benefits.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thousands-with-degenerative-conditions-classified-as-fit-to-work-in-future--despite-no-possibility-of-improvement-9811910.html

 

 

Propriety (and Forum rules) forbid me from expressing my opinion of the Tories here.

 

Why should those who can work be able to chose not to yet still receive more in money and luxuries than 6 of the 7 billion people on this planet?

[Mecky]

Why should those who can work be able to chose not to yet still receive more in money and luxuries than 6 of the 7 billion people on this planet?

 

Because poverty is relative to the environment and society which a person lives in, as you've been told many times before

[RonJeremy]

Because poverty is relative to the environment and society which a person lives in, as you've been told many times before

 

Drivel. So where people are starving in Africa, they are not poor if all their neighbours are starving. You do type total tripe sometimes. the worrying thing is you may even believe some of it.

[SavannahP]

So you're going to put the drivers of road sweepers out of work now...

 

No one would be out of work, but they might have to do something different, perhaps they could supervise people with brushes, possibly keep one machine to sweep the roads that are deemed to dangerous for people with brushes.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 18:08 ----------

 

Whilst I was the same principle applies to anyone made to work for their benefits. In effect they are performing a job in order to earn their benefits (it has been suggested that the number of hours should should balance their benefits to what would be earned on NMW) with non of the employment rights that go hand in hand with being employed.

If we can afford to pay people the equivalent of NMW in benefits for performing labour then we can afford to simply employ them to do the job for NMW... that fact is we can't, otherwise we would already by doing it.

As see proposals such as this as nothing more than a chance to exploit people for cheap labour.

 

jb

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 15:12 ----------

 

They would be working, why shouldn't they have the same employment rights as anyone else?

 

You appear to be assuming that anyone on benefits does not already have these skills.

 

You think the solution to unemployment is enforced labour with the removal of all employment rights? And that this is a good thing?

 

jb

 

They would be employed and have the same rights as everyone else, if they get £65 a week in JSA they would be employed to work 10 hours a week and get 4 weeks holiday and bank holidays like everyone else.

 

There is no reason why the government can't give people a job instead of benefits. The welfare state is there to give people the amount of money they need to survive whilst they find employment. Instead of giving them money for doing nothing, why not just give them a job which pays the amount of money they need until they find a more suitable job.

Edited October 23, 2014 by SavannahP