Perhaps a bit of good news (not Olympics based)

#2
...Cait Reilly, a University of Birmingham geology graduate, had argued that making her work unpaid at a Poundland store for two weeks or risk losing her benefits was a breach of human rights...
But she wasn't working unpaid. What was she receiving from the taxpayer, Scotch mist?
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#5
But she wasn't working unpaid. What was she receiving from the taxpayer, Scotch mist?
Two down, millions more to go ^^ Let slip the dogs of the DWP and unleash WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
#7
I'm curious as to her employment history (or lack of) before, during & after finishing university.

Wouldn't this just set a precedent though in that, rather than private companies paying people 40 hours minimum wage a week (or whatever) they can just acquire cheaper manual labour through schemes such as the one described?
 
#8
Oh for fucks sake not this again, lets explain this simply for those who move their lips as they read the thread.

The actual work scheme was in it's self lawful, was from the beggining.

What the DWP failed to mention that it was in fact entirely voluntary and that she had a right to leave and it not effect her benefits, that was the case then this remains the case now. This is because slavery is illegal in the UK and has been for few centuries now, the work house is also now illegal and classed as slavery.

So can we despense with the fascist wank fantasies about work houses?

You were wrong in the other thread and you are even more wrong in this one.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#9
Oh for fucks sake not this again, lets explain this simply for those who move their lips as they read the thread.

The actual work scheme was in it's self lawful, was from the beggining.

What the DWP failed to mention that it was in fact entirely voluntary and that she had a right to leave and it not effect her benefits, that was the case then this remains the case now. This is because slavery is illegal in the UK and has been for few centuries now, the work house is also now illegal and classed as slavery.

So can we despense with the fascist wank fantasies about work houses?

You were wrong in the other thread and you are even more wrong in this one.
Quite right we should hang them.
 
#11
Fuck hanging them some of them are that fat the cost of rope would be to much, just starve them all to death. Or make them fight for food in a large stadium.

I reckon it would make a killing and is potentially the best money making idea since someone decided to put the Christians and the lions in the same show
 
#13
And why are you not talking about the olympics?

This event will make Britain so much better AND will solve all our problems.

Seriously, make the work shy smelly dossers do unpaid work in a chain gang.

They would make a good target at the side of the road
 
#14
Oh for fucks sake not this again, lets explain this simply for those who move their lips as they read the thread.

The actual work scheme was in it's self lawful, was from the beggining.

What the DWP failed to mention that it was in fact entirely voluntary and that she had a right to leave and it not effect her benefits, that was the case then this remains the case now. This is because slavery is illegal in the UK and has been for few centuries now, the work house is also now illegal and classed as slavery.

So can we despense with the fascist wank fantasies about work houses?

You were wrong in the other thread and you are even more wrong in this one.
Correct. You've got to love this site though, heh, there's the crypto-fascists, then there's the naughty little tinkers who rouse the crypto-fascists, then there's the ones who like to poke a toe in and then run and hide behind a crypto-fascist. Not to mention the fascists. Or the naughty little tinkers....

The ruling's most salient point, which the DWP will vigorously refute, is that they produced incorrect, misleading and ultimately unlawful information to the affected claimants. Fahsends of 'em. Stopped their benefits. Now they're, you're, we're probably going to have to make it up to them.

Unpaid work scheme ruling at high court could prompt wave of benefit rebates | Society | guardian.co.uk

Any of that fucking Bollinger left?


 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#15
#16
Not according the the BBC piece:- "The Government said it did not expect to make any payments to those who had lost benefits"
Mmm that'll provoke some attention. And of course this government's (and its predecessors) relationship with the truth and its own delusions of destiny are unassailable. Maybe the BBC's a naughty little shit-stirrer ^_~
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#17
What's wrong with making them work for their benefits? Not for major companies, but for community projects perhaps.
 
#18
Not according the the BBC piece:- "The Government said it did not expect to make any payments to those who had lost benefits"
Yeah they have been doing really well on not having to make u-turns of late.

It's not up to MP's it's up to the tribunals and they will quite happily hamstring the tories by paying back lost benefits, as they had to by law from day one reguardless of the court case.
 
#19
What's wrong with making them work for their benefits? Not for major companies, but for community projects perhaps.
If they want to pay them a living wage to do so and top their earnings up further to prevent poverty then they can do that, in fact a program of public works is long over due.

That is still not an excuse for slavery though.
 
#20
What's wrong with making them work for their benefits? Not for major companies, but for community projects perhaps.
Joker I'll make my position clear. Nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea of people on benefits working in the manner you suggest there. Even for big companies, if, at the heart of it, there might be a real prospect of real employment at a future point. That such would transpire remains to be seen.

My point is about how we are being fucking lied to.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top