robbiex wrote:
Also many of the jobs offer such small wages then it would be impossible for people to live on these wages. Would you work for the minimum wage.

DO THESE PEOPLE WANT WORK OR NOT ? (Whose fault is it that they are better qualified?)

I'm astonished to find anyone who would employ someone who had been laying on a settee watching Jeremy Kyle for the last 9 years.

BR wrote:

I agree totally with the FAT CONTROLLER. The UNEMPLOYED are a sad statistic and need to be given REaL jobs on wages around £25K + once they have been out of work for more than 5 years. Then if they dont hold down those jobs then they should be assessed for some sort of programme.

Great idea, BR.
Are you going to pay for it - because I certainly am not, and I don't see anyone else wanting to give even more money to the workshy either !

Most of these people (who have been on the dole for NINE years) are actually unemployable - but we've got to support these spongers (and their offspring, who will grow-up in the same culture) for the rest of their lives.

In The Know wrote:
BR wrote:

I agree totally with the FAT CONTROLLER. The UNEMPLOYED are a sad statistic and need to be given REaL jobs on wages around £25K + once they have been out of work for more than 5 years. Then if they dont hold down those jobs then they should be assessed for some sort of programme.

Great idea, BR.
Are you going to pay for it - because I certainly am not, and I don't see anyone else wanting to give even more money to the workshy either !

Most of these people (who have been on the dole for NINE years) are actually unemployable - but we've got to support these spongers (and their offspring, who will grow-up in the same culture) for the rest of their lives.

Again ITK, I disagree vehemently. No-one is unemployable..a sweeping and thoughtless remark which perpetuates the problem, shifts reponsibility away from the individual, breeds apathy and low self esteem. In fact it does everything you are so wholeheartedly against.

Everyone has something to offer.

If those further up the pole like yourself changed their attitudes toward the unemployed then perhaps we might begin to heal the wounds. As things stand I'm not hopeful.

But of course it would never do to have the riff raff sticking their grotesque snouts in the trough would it?

Call me a wet liberal but I simply don't like sticking the boot in to a man when he's down.

The Fat Controller wrote:

Again ITK, I disagree vehemently. No-one is unemployable..a sweeping and thoughtless remark which perpetuates the problem, shifts reponsibility away from the individual, breeds apathy and low self esteem. In fact it does everything you are so wholeheartedly against.

Everyone has something to offer.

If those further up the pole like yourself changed their attitudes toward the unemployed then perhaps we might begin to heal the wounds. As things stand I'm not hopeful.

But of course it would never do to have the riff raff sticking their grotesque snouts in the trough would it?

Call me a wet liberal but I simply don't like sticking the boot in to a man when he's down.

Well, the starting point HAS TO BE that they people get off their backsides and DO something, isn't it?

I have a feeling that if they had to attend the Job Centre for 40 hours a week - spending all that time looking for a job (because getting a job is a job in itself) - then they would be successful very quickly !!!

Thanks In the know,

I'm not against cutting the unemployment budget (in fact I'm all for it) - but do not automatically assume that if we save money in one area we can continue wasting it in another.

You write, "There are almost 6 million people on benefits - and 1.4 million of them have been ... earning (tax free) "money on the side" ?"

Where is your evidence for this?

It's time the rich who benefit directly or indirectly from military spending took some responsibility for their own lives - THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE THEM A LIVING !

Best Wishes,
Stephen

The Fat Controller wrote:

Call me a wet liberal but I simply don't like sticking the boot in to a man when he's down.

Thanks, FC for posting that. I have refrained from posting here so far due to the pig ignorance of someone who somehow thinks they are all knowing, and who recently rubbed my nose in it for being out of work due to ill health.

Stephen wrote:

You write, "There are almost 6 million people on benefits - and 1.4 million of them have been ... earning (tax free) "money on the side" ?"

Where is your evidence for this?

It was a question - hence the "?" - not a statement !

Do you honestly believe that none of them are earning money "on the side" ?

david wrote:
and who recently rubbed my nose in it for being out of work due to ill health.

You did that yourself by posting that you ran a successful company (to impress us with your knowledge) but I remembered that in a previous post you had told us that you were on benefits.

Just to clarify ... there is nothing wrong with being on benefit - while you are trying to re-build your life.

What I object to is people who have been on benefits for DECADES and clearly have no intention of ever standing on their own feet.

I don't deny that there is a problem with long term unemployed but it's due to numerous social and political factors in the main. I cannot believe that the large majority of people who are unemployed for a long term would not rather have a job, not just for the extra money but the self satisfaction that comes with it which is why I will be working until they carry me to my grave.

There is a good case to be made that welfare benefits are an excellent way of any government spreading taxes as wide as possible via welfare recipients who immediately pump it back into the economy. After all it's never enough to save so it's spent almost upon receipt.

There may well be even more hundreds of thousands out of work if welfare payments were stopped.

I reckon my socialist father..even though he was a banker..was correct as he has been about everything so far long after his death.

One day they will have to pay people a social wage not to got to have a job as there will less and less jobs and more and more people. A job will be some sort of prize to have.

BR wrote:
What about the BANKERS who got an "EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT" of around £200 Billion Quantititve Easing plus £800 billion handouts ( Northern Rock and RBS each had around £200 billion )

Surely they are the ones who are FIRST TO THE WALL. Not the poor buggers who get £60 a week unemployment benefit and struggle to pay the most basic bills.

This is the LIE that the NWO have done. The middle class turn on the POOR rather than the UBER RICH. It is the ELITE who have protected their own jobs at OUR EXPENSE and the POOR who always suffer.

I agree totally with the FAT CONTROLLER. The UNEMPLOYED are a sad statistic and need to be given REaL jobs on wages around £25K + once they have been out of work for more than 5 years. Then if they dont hold down those jobs then they should be assessed for some sort of programme.

It is the BANKERS who have put us a TRILLION in the red. Not the poor.

My view exactly. Yes, I am sure there are (some) people out there who do not want to work. I am sure that there are some out there who merely want to scam and cheat as much from the benefit system that they possibly can. But is that a reason to demonize the entire unemployed or suggest nazi-type solutions?

I also agree that the majority of Job-Center īvacanciesī appear to be adverts for non existing jobs with agencies in order to get people on their books.

Lets also be clear about something else... The government (in the form of job centres) should NOT be copping-out of their own jobs, roles and responsibilities by promoting these agencies (private businesses) like they are!

The vast majority of these agencies are NOT offering REAL jobs, are not offering jobs with a decent wage that is both dependable and that people can actually live on. The majority of these agencies have little or no regard for the people on their books.. Their bottom line is having loads of people on their books so that they can quickly supply workers to any business that wants to hire their services!

They will then charge the company who needs workers and extortionate hourly rate for the hours worked (but will actually save the company money and effort as they do not need to supply the worker with any of the employment benefits normally afforded to employees). Then they will pay their ītempsī a PITTANCE of an hourly rate and pocket the difference... God, what an incredibly good scam.... I wish I had thought of it.. But then again, if I had, I would probably not have done it as I care about other people a little too much to do it!

And the BIGGEST scandal? That all of this is aided and abetted by the government and job centers! The tax payer is actually funding these private agencies and promoting their scams INSISTING that the unemployed use their services..

Nice business if you can get it!

BrazilBoysBlog wrote:

Yes, I am sure there are (some) people out there who do not want to work. I am sure that there are some out there who merely want to scam and cheat as much from the benefit system that they possibly can. But is that a reason to demonize the entire unemployed or suggest nazi-type solutions?

What percentage of this 1.4 MILLION (who have been claiming unemployment benefit for at least NINE years !!!!) do you think actually want to work?

What do you suspect they have been doing to help themselves achieve work?

If they have done NOTHING for the last NINE years and thus made themselves virtually unemployable .... whose fault is that?

I have shown that there ARE jobs out there - for those who want them - and if they are low paid etc then maybe the jobseeker ought to have been doing SOMETHING to improve their skills and qualifications so that they got a better (paid) job?

After all, we have already spent BILLIONS of educating these people haven't we?

BBC Radio 4's 'Moral Maze' programme on this subject was very good this evening.

I was a bit afraid at first that Daily Mail right winger Melanie Phillips and also Clare Fox were on the panel, as they are both fairly Thatcherite in approach.

However, what I liked about the programme was that the arguments that were made, whatever the opinion of the speaker, were very respectful and treated the subject with sensitivity.

I found myself agreeing with people I would never normally agree with, which is always a healthy thing.

Highly Recommended.

Here's a link (it is on air now so you may need to wait a bit)

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sjq68

Thanks, David .... will try to check it out over the next day or two.