Tory government want the jobless to work in "work houses"

[Anonymous]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/forced-labour-conservative-party-force-2322499

I'm sorry but what the hell? No, just, no! It's the 21st Century! Work Houses were outlawed YEARS ago.

More to the point, I have been "contributing to society" since I was 14 by doing voluntary work for almost every charity in Sheffield, and I've also done shop and other work on placements from College etc over the last 20 odd years.

[Anonymous]

---

@jonsie wrote:

I have been lucky in life whereby I have never been out of a job or had to claim benefits. Therefore I have paid an awful lot into the system without needing to take anything back.

Should I care about where this money goes or is used? Hell, yes! I have no problems with benefits for the less fortunate, single mothers, the disabled, school leavers unable to get any type of job, people being made redundant etc.

What I do object to is it being lavished on the people who don't want to work, the addicts, the alcoholics, the multi-children-factory producers (yeah...let's have another child = more money!), immigrant spongers and the just plain idle.

Something does have to be done but I don't think this is really the answer. Yes, weed out the spongers and yes, make them contribute in some way to their life of benefits that we are having to fund. God, there is enough litter out there, plenty of potholes to fill, buildings full of grafitti to clean. It's time we took pride in our enviroment.

How many public areas are overgrown, councils strapped for money to keep parks and streets clear of rubbish whist having to resort to speed cameras, bus lane and parking cameras and over zealous traffic wardens to keep the coffers topped up? These enviromental jobs are the type that the work-shy should be filling.

My concern is that the planned government action is going to make even less jobs available, after all, why employ someone and pay them when they can get the job done for free or at a great reduction in conjunction with some government scheme?

@Anonymous

Your father won't be forced to work for his pension, that isn't yet in the grand scheme of things.

---

What the "Powers that be", and the Daily Mail, want, is a "One size fits all" policy for everyone who claims a single penny from the government but doesn't work for money, that's why this "work house" won't happen, because it's totally un-workable IMO, not everyone is capable of working for starters, take me for instance, in order to recieve disability benefits, I had to be signed off by a Doctor as "sick", eh? OK I have disabilities, but aside from the occassional cold, I am very rarely really poorly or sick... And more to the point, despite being officially "too sick" to work, I've been doing voluntary work for donkey's years! And yes the DWP knows all about it before anyone starts.

[perksie]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

With respect Toby, if this comes in, I will be taking my family and getting the heck OUT of the UK.

For instance, in just over 3 weeks, my Dad will be a Pensioner when he retires, should he be made to work in a "work house" even though he's worked for 50 years?

---

If you believe anyone in the government or opposition is going to ask anyone to work in retirement you are living in cuckoo land.

If you think you can find a country better than this one and that will have you as a resident, then why not move there and give up all the whinging?

You won't do that though because you know which side your bread is buttered!

I have flagged this thread as I don't believe this forum is a suitable place for people to air their political convictions, so it should be removed.

Maybe a supporter of the British National Party will be along next to have their say!

[Toby]

Hi browni,

I was merely saying that it wouldn't be unpaid work as Richard may have thought (i.e. people would still receive their unemployment benefit). I'm not saying I support it or not, I was simply stating a fact. Or am I misunderstanding?

[Anonymous]

Earlier this year, back when I was going to appointments with an advisor from Remploy most weeks, I had an interview (if you can call it that) for a job working at Dixons PC Knowhow call centre on the Sheffield Parkway, I got about halfway thorugh the interview before I literally stood up and walked out, because they wouldn't let me work part time hours as due to my benefit status I can only work a maximum of 16 hours in a week, and for reasons I'd rather not go into because I'm in a mood already, I can't come off benefits and/or work full time.

[Anonymous]

As I said a very emotional subject that can swiftly go off track and become personal.

The subject matter is current and should be discussed as long as it remains constructive.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
As I said a very emotional subject that can swiftly go off track and become personal.

The subject matter is current and should be discussed as long as it remains constructive.

---

Yes BoB, this is a subject I tend to get rather emotional about, but for the sake of not getting banned, I have remained civil throughout, despite certain comments that at any other time would've made me blow a fuse.

[Anonymous]

The whole point around discussion is to remain calm and constructive Richard.

As soon as one loses control the discussion is lost.

Count to 10 ;). It's what I do.

[jonsie]

I can see how an such a highly emotive subject that can have life changing consequences will have more of an impact on people directly affected by the proposals but whether this plan is the right way to get us out of the mess we are in is highly debatable.

[Toby]

Hi guys,

I can definitely understand why some think this kind of discussion may not be suitable here, but if it remains constructive, we can let it continue (for now). I'll keep an eye on it.

EDIT: Hi guys, I've decided to close this discussion now. Thanks