Discussion:
Can the Tories get any Nastier
(too old to reply)
Judith
2014-10-15 12:50:23 UTC
Permalink
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a fringe
meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.

He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an hour.




They really are a very, very Nasty party.
John
2014-10-15 13:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a fringe
meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an hour.
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
Aye, look at them and cringe, but be warned that the real nasties in UKIP
will make them look like left wing liberals if the people are ever daft
enough to elect them as a government.

John.
Let It Be
2014-10-15 17:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a
fringe meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled
people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an
hour. They really are a very, very Nasty party.
Aye, look at them and cringe, but be warned that the real nasties in
UKIP will make them look like left wing liberals if the people are
ever daft enough to elect them as a government.
John.
+1

And the frightening thing is that there is 'talk' of UKIP and the Tories
forming a coalition if the next election results in a hung Parliament -
shudder at the thought!
True Blue
2014-10-15 19:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
Post by John
Aye, look at them and cringe, but be warned that the real nasties in
UKIP will make them look like left wing liberals if the people are
ever daft enough to elect them as a government.
John.
+1
And the frightening thing is that there is 'talk' of UKIP and the Tories
forming a coalition if the next election results in a hung Parliament -
shudder at the thought!
Alright....what exactly are you so worried about?
Let It Be
2014-10-16 00:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by True Blue
Post by Let It Be
Post by John
Aye, look at them and cringe, but be warned that the real nasties in
UKIP will make them look like left wing liberals if the people are
ever daft enough to elect them as a government.
John.
+1
And the frightening thing is that there is 'talk' of UKIP and the
Tories forming a coalition if the next election results in a hung
Parliament - shudder at the thought!
Alright....what exactly are you so worried about?
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German Workers
Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to peoples fears about
immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,

In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very good job
of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at the moment.
abelard
2014-10-16 10:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German Workers
Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to peoples fears about
immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very good job
of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Let It Be
2014-10-16 20:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very
good job of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at
the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German Workers
Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they were far right!

It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset someone as it
appears to have been delete from the thread - at least I am unable to fon
it.
Let It Be
2014-10-16 20:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:29:30 +0100, "Let It Be"
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities
etc, In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very
good job of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at
the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German
Workers Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they
were far right!
It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset
someone as it appears to have been delete from the thread - at least
I am unable to fon it.
Apoligies for the typos - and the corrected version is below:

It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset someone, as
it appears to have been *deleted* from the thread - at least I am unable to
*find* it.
Alex Heney
2014-10-16 21:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
Post by Let It Be
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:29:30 +0100, "Let It Be"
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities
etc, In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very
good job of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at
the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German
Workers Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they
were far right!
It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset
someone as it appears to have been delete from the thread - at least
I am unable to fon it.
It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset someone, as
it appears to have been *deleted* from the thread - at least I am unable to
*find* it.
It is not *possible* for a post to be deleted from the thread.

This is not a moderated group, nobody has the ability to delete posts,
except the owners/admins of the individual servers.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You can name your salary here. I call mine Fred.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
Let It Be
2014-10-16 23:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Let It Be
Post by Let It Be
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:29:30 +0100, "Let It Be"
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities
etc, In other words their far-right policies that they are doing
a very good job of hiding under a load of artificial political
bonhomie at the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national
socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German
Workers Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they
were far right!
It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset
someone as it appears to have been delete from the thread - at least
I am unable to fon it.
It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset
someone, as it appears to have been *deleted* from the thread - at
least I am unable to *find* it.
It is not *possible* for a post to be deleted from the thread.
This is not a moderated group, nobody has the ability to delete posts,
except the owners/admins of the individual servers.
Alex,

The post was sent, received and replied to by a couple of posters - but the
post has disappeared and it certainly didn't do that itself! Oh, and
individual posts can be 'pulled' if you have the knowledge or the legal
authority to do so. Perhaps True Blue has some pull with his rather
medacious party leader[s]! *eg*

A copy of that post is below, and if you can find the original in uk.legal,
please feel free to point me in the right direction - let's see if it
survives this time!

____________________________________________________
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Let It Be
Post by Let It Be
Aye, look at them and cringe, but be warned that the real nasties in
UKIP will make them look like left wing liberals if the people are
ever daft enough to elect them as a government.
John.
+1
And the frightening thing is that there is 'talk' of UKIP and the
Tories forming a coalition if the next election results in a hung
Parliament - shudder at the thought!
Alright....what exactly are you so worried about?
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German Workers
Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to peoples fears about
immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,

In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very good job
of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at the moment.

__________________________________________________________
Alex Heney
2014-10-18 00:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Let It Be
Post by Let It Be
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:29:30 +0100, "Let It Be"
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities
etc, In other words their far-right policies that they are doing
a very good job of hiding under a load of artificial political
bonhomie at the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national
socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German
Workers Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they
were far right!
It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset
someone as it appears to have been delete from the thread - at least
I am unable to fon it.
It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset
someone, as it appears to have been *deleted* from the thread - at
least I am unable to *find* it.
It is not *possible* for a post to be deleted from the thread.
This is not a moderated group, nobody has the ability to delete posts,
except the owners/admins of the individual servers.
Alex,
The post was sent, received and replied to by a couple of posters - but the
post has disappeared and it certainly didn't do that itself! Oh, and
individual posts can be 'pulled' if you have the knowledge or the legal
authority to do so. Perhaps True Blue has some pull with his rather
medacious party leader[s]! *eg*
No they can't.

NOBODY can remove a post from usenet as a whole.

Posts can be removed from google groups, and they can be removed from
individual servers if you have the admin rights, or in the (very)
unusual situation where a server honours a cancel request.
Post by Let It Be
A copy of that post is below, and if you can find the original in uk.legal,
please feel free to point me in the right direction - let's see if it
survives this time!
It is still there in my copy of uk.legal. (and in the references
above)

<news:m1n3h7$c5u$***@dont-email.me>
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
abelard
2014-10-16 20:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very
good job of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at
the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German Workers
Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they were far right!
then you are remarkably ignorant
Post by Let It Be
It would also seem that my OP with that statement in has upset someone as it
appears to have been delete from the thread - at least I am unable to fon
it.
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Let It Be
2014-10-16 23:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:29:30 +0100, "Let It Be"
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very
good job of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie
at the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German
Workers Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they
were far right!
then you are remarkably ignorant
I've been called far worse in my rather long life ablard and if UKIP ever
get into power, I really hope that I am proven wrong with their hidden
agenda [1] - or even better, an electorate that is not so gullible as to
actually elect them (other than as a mid-term or by-election protest vote if
people must register their displeasure at the incumbent political party).

[1] If I proven correct though, then the people who voted them in (along
with those that didn't) will really see their true colours and their very
sheltered lives shattered when their draconian policies on welfare, NHS,
employment rights etc take effect.
abelard
2014-10-17 09:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:29:30 +0100, "Let It Be"
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very
good job of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie
at the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German
Workers Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they
were far right!
then you are remarkably ignorant
I've been called far worse in my rather long life ablard
no doubt...and your ignorance is no surprise when socialists
have spent decades falsely asserting white is black
Post by Let It Be
and if UKIP ever
get into power, I really hope that I am proven wrong with their hidden
agenda [1] - or even better, an electorate that is not so gullible as to
actually elect them (other than as a mid-term or by-election protest vote if
people must register their displeasure at the incumbent political party).
[1] If I proven correct though, then the people who voted them in (along
with those that didn't) will really see their true colours and their very
sheltered lives shattered when their draconian policies on welfare, NHS,
employment rights etc take effect.
increasingly they do look very dubious....

any population daft enough to vote fascist 'new' labour into
power is daft enough for anything
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Let It Be
2014-10-17 23:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:43:50 +0100, "Let It Be"
Post by Let It Be
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:29:30 +0100, "Let It Be"
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a
very good job of hiding under a load of artificial political
bonhomie at the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national
socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German
Workers Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they
were far right!
then you are remarkably ignorant
I've been called far worse in my rather long life ablard
no doubt...and your ignorance is no surprise when socialists
have spent decades falsely asserting white is black
Best laugh that I've had today - and you believe that the Tories or UKIP
don't embelish the truth? Bloody hell, if the noses of the Tories and UKIP
get any longer because of the downright lies they tell......
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
and if UKIP ever
get into power, I really hope that I am proven wrong with their
hidden agenda [1] - or even better, an electorate that is not so
gullible as to actually elect them (other than as a mid-term or
by-election protest vote if people must register their displeasure
at the incumbent political party).
[1] If I proven correct though, then the people who voted them in
(along with those that didn't) will really see their true colours
and their very sheltered lives shattered when their draconian
policies on welfare, NHS, employment rights etc take effect.
increasingly they do look very dubious....
I'm glad the you agree.
Post by abelard
any population daft enough to vote fascist 'new' labour into
power is daft enough for anything
Now that is a Tory calling the kettle black - or someone who doesn't really
know their political arse from their elbow!

Carry on with the jokes you young whippersnapper. LOL
Vidcapper
2014-10-17 06:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very
good job of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at
the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German Workers
Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they were far right!
then you are remarkably ignorant
OK then - if the Nazis were socialists, why did they hate communist
Russia so much?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2014-10-17 09:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very
good job of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at
the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German Workers
Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they were far right!
then you are remarkably ignorant
OK then - if the Nazis were socialists, why did they hate communist
Russia so much?
where did you get that canard...

socialist russia and national socialist were in close alliance
until long after britain declared war on germany
stalin and hitler divided poland and some others between them

they were in alliance from shortly after ww1...helping each other
to arm to the teeth...as socialists do...

like all socialists, hitler was a prize fool...like all socialists he
hoped to conquer the world..
but it was stalin who ended up conquering half of europe....

you are being fed bollox by socialists...

the propaganda was assisted by the allies as they helped
stalin to bring down hitler...
but people like churchill never forgot what a fundamental
evil both were...

expenditure on arms 1937
british empire $1.2 billion(5.7% of national income)
and that with a wide ranging empire)
german $4 billion(23.5%)
russia $5 billion (26.4%)

you've been raised on historic lies...
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
JNugent
2014-10-17 16:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
Post by abelard
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German
Workers Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to
peoples fears about immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
In other words their far-right policies that they are doing a very
good job of hiding under a load of artificial political bonhomie at
the moment.
how did 'the far right' get into comments about national socialists?
Have a look and see who the leader of National Socialist German Workers
Party was and what his policies were - I believe that they were far right!
then you are remarkably ignorant
OK then - if the Nazis were socialists, why did they hate communist
Russia so much?
Different breeds of socialist hate each other.

Popular Front for Judea, etc.

This is well-known.

You didn't REALLY think that The Life Of Brian was about Israel in the
first century AD, did you?
Basil Jet
2014-10-17 23:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
OK then - if the Nazis were socialists, why did they hate communist
Russia so much?
For the same reason BNP election results often led to BNP supporters
fighting amongst themselves.

If the Nazis were nationalists, how come all the places they invaded
were nations? ;-)
John
2014-10-16 10:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German Workers
Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to peoples fears about
immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
Absolutely right, and we've also had Farage's ridiculous suggestion that
people who are HIV+ should not be allowed to enter the UK - what next,
gassing those here who are infected or have AIDS? The following week
they'll be breaking the windows of known gays.

John.
Basil Jet
2014-10-16 10:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German Workers
Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to peoples fears about
immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
Absolutely right, and we've also had Farage's ridiculous suggestion that
people who are HIV+ should not be allowed to enter the UK - what next,
gassing those here who are infected or have AIDS? The following week
they'll be breaking the windows of known gays.
The devious bastards have even chosen a gay man to be their Scottish
MEP, so he'll be able to break his own windows with impunity!
John
2014-10-16 11:15:15 UTC
Permalink
The devious bastards have even chosen a gay man to be their Scottish MEP,
so he'll be able to break his own windows with impunity!
Initially there were some Jews in the NSGWP.

John.
Ophelia
2014-10-16 13:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German Workers
Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to peoples fears about
immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
Absolutely right, and we've also had Farage's ridiculous suggestion that
people who are HIV+ should not be allowed to enter the UK - what next,
gassing those here who are infected or have AIDS? The following week
they'll be breaking the windows of known gays.
The devious bastards have even chosen a gay man to be their Scottish MEP,
so he'll be able to break his own windows with impunity!
;-)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Rutterkin
2014-10-16 10:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
The similarities between UKIP and the National Socialist German Workers
Party of the 1930s with their policies and playing to peoples fears about
immigration, lack of work, ethnic minorities etc,
Sadly, there's more than a grain of truth there. The phoney nationalism,
the militarism, the hatred of disadvantaged people. It's another party
of privilege and oppression dressed in jingoism.
tim.....
2014-10-18 13:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Let It Be
Post by John
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a
fringe meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled
people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an
hour. They really are a very, very Nasty party.
Aye, look at them and cringe, but be warned that the real nasties in
UKIP will make them look like left wing liberals if the people are
ever daft enough to elect them as a government.
John.
+1
And the frightening thing is that there is 'talk' of UKIP and the Tories
forming a coalition
which is about as likely as the LDs winning an outright majority

tim
abelard
2014-10-18 19:40:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:53:01 +0100, "tim....."
Post by tim.....
Post by Let It Be
Post by John
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a
fringe meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled
people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an
hour. They really are a very, very Nasty party.
Aye, look at them and cringe, but be warned that the real nasties in
UKIP will make them look like left wing liberals if the people are
ever daft enough to elect them as a government.
John.
+1
And the frightening thing is that there is 'talk' of UKIP and the Tories
forming a coalition
which is about as likely as the LDs winning an outright majority
doesn't stop them voting on the same side of some issues
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Ian Jackson
2014-10-15 18:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a fringe
meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an hour.
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
On the face of it, this does seem a very cold-hearted thing to say.

However, follow-up explanations are that he was simply concerned with
the fact that some disabled people are not really capable of
economically doing the minimum wage's worth of work. Unless an employer
is prepared to act as a charity, this means that the chances of some
disabled being employed are be minimal.

What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
--
Ian
R. Mark Clayton
2014-10-15 18:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a fringe
meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an hour.
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
On the face of it, this does seem a very cold-hearted thing to say.
However, follow-up explanations are that he was simply concerned with the
fact that some disabled people are not really capable of economically
doing the minimum wage's worth of work. Unless an employer is prepared to
act as a charity, this means that the chances of some disabled being
employed are be minimal.
The old fashioned way of expressing this was to say that a job was "not
worth the candle" - this meant that it would cost more to light the
workplace than the benefit that could be derived from the work performed,
before even considering the question of wages.
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the disabled
person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum wage by the
employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the rest topped up as
a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be able to benefit from
social interaction and job satisfaction in the workplace. In principle,
this seems worthy of further discussion.
The state would also benefit in that there would be some economic benefit
derived from their work and not have to 100% benefits.
Post by Ian Jackson
--
Ian
Joe
2014-10-15 18:57:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:55:29 +0100
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the
minimum wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the
moment), and the rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled
worker would then be able to benefit from social interaction and
job satisfaction in the workplace. In principle, this seems worthy
of further discussion.
The state would also benefit in that there would be some economic
benefit derived from their work and not have to 100% benefits.
Credit where it's due, this is something Andy has suggested more than
once, and at least he's in a position to know a bit more about this
that either a Lord or Miliband.
--
Joe
Mel Rowing
2014-10-15 19:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:55:29 +0100
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the
minimum wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the
moment), and the rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled
worker would then be able to benefit from social interaction and
job satisfaction in the workplace. In principle, this seems worthy
of further discussion.
The state would also benefit in that there would be some economic
benefit derived from their work and not have to 100% benefits.
Credit where it's due, this is something Andy has suggested more than
once, and at least he's in a position to know a bit more about this
that either a Lord or Miliband.
Hey? I'm surprised he has not died of asphyxia being too idle to breathe!
White Spirit
2014-10-16 08:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Joe
Credit where it's due, this is something Andy has suggested more than
once, and at least he's in a position to know a bit more about this
that either a Lord or Miliband.
Hey? I'm surprised he has not died of asphyxia being too idle to breathe!
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
fraud. Look at what he is doing to earn money while receiving benefits:

http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html

'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'

Here's another for his 'music production':

http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html

'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'

Anyone who wants to report him and his wife (Katie Hopkins) for benefit
fraud can do so at this address:

https://secure.dwp.gov.uk/benefitfraud/

These are the details you will need:

Name: Andy Wainwright
Year of birth: 1973
Address: 8 Upper Fenn Road, Halstead, CO9 2HH
Telephone number: 01787 273 563
abelard
2014-10-16 10:37:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Joe
Credit where it's due, this is something Andy has suggested more than
once, and at least he's in a position to know a bit more about this
that either a Lord or Miliband.
Hey? I'm surprised he has not died of asphyxia being too idle to breathe!
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
Post by White Spirit
Anyone who wants to report him and his wife (Katie Hopkins) for benefit
https://secure.dwp.gov.uk/benefitfraud/
Name: Andy Wainwright
Year of birth: 1973
Address: 8 Upper Fenn Road, Halstead, CO9 2HH
Telephone number: 01787 273 563
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
JNugent
2014-10-16 11:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Joe
Credit where it's due, this is something Andy has suggested more than
once, and at least he's in a position to know a bit more about this
that either a Lord or Miliband.
Hey? I'm surprised he has not died of asphyxia being too idle to breathe!
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
That is a decision which an official has to make. It would be subject to
appeal.

Not for nothing is the question asked: "Have you done any work in the
last fourteen days?".

It means exactly what is asked, and it does NOT mean: "Have you done any
work in the last fourteen days which, on balance, taking one thing with
another, bearing in mind that some people are immensely rich whereas you
might not be so rich, you feel you ought to be required to report to me?".
Post by abelard
Post by White Spirit
Anyone who wants to report him and his wife (Katie Hopkins) for benefit
https://secure.dwp.gov.uk/benefitfraud/
Name: Andy Wainwright
Year of birth: 1973
Address: 8 Upper Fenn Road, Halstead, CO9 2HH
Telephone number: 01787 273 563
abelard
2014-10-16 11:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
That is a decision which an official has to make.
ah, the government inquisitor...
Post by JNugent
It would be subject to
appeal.
who knows how his group/s are registered, if at all....
Post by JNugent
Not for nothing is the question asked: "Have you done any work in the
last fourteen days?".
'i changed the baybee's nappee 138 times...thus i am employed
by the government to raise the next coterie of scrotes....
confusingly i also weigh 138 kilos, sir'
Post by JNugent
It means exactly what is asked, and it does NOT mean: "Have you done any
work in the last fourteen days which, on balance, taking one thing with
another, bearing in mind that some people are immensely rich whereas you
might not be so rich, you feel you ought to be required to report to me?".
are you, or have you ever been...
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
JNugent
2014-10-16 11:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
That is a decision which an official has to make.
ah, the government inquisitor...
..,.whose job it is to decide entitlement (in accordance with a set of
rules known as "the law") and to protect the funds paid in to the
Treasury by a band of people known as "taxpayers".
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
It would be subject to appeal.
who knows how his group/s are registered, if at all....
Post by JNugent
Not for nothing is the question asked: "Have you done any work in the
last fourteen days?".
'i changed the baybee's nappee 138 times...thus i am employed
by the government to raise the next coterie of scrotes....
confusingly i also weigh 138 kilos, sir'
Post by JNugent
It means exactly what is asked, and it does NOT mean: "Have you done any
work in the last fourteen days which, on balance, taking one thing with
another, bearing in mind that some people are immensely rich whereas you
might not be so rich, you feel you ought to be required to report to me?".
are you, or have you ever been...
...a worker?

Too many people would answer that with "Why should I?".
abelard
2014-10-16 12:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
That is a decision which an official has to make.
ah, the government inquisitor...
..,.whose job it is to decide entitlement (in accordance with a set of
rules known as "the law") and to protect the funds paid in to the
Treasury by a band of people known as "taxpayers".
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
It would be subject to appeal.
who knows how his group/s are registered, if at all....
Post by JNugent
Not for nothing is the question asked: "Have you done any work in the
last fourteen days?".
'i changed the baybee's nappee 138 times...thus i am employed
by the government to raise the next coterie of scrotes....
confusingly i also weigh 138 kilos, sir'
Post by JNugent
It means exactly what is asked, and it does NOT mean: "Have you done any
work in the last fourteen days which, on balance, taking one thing with
another, bearing in mind that some people are immensely rich whereas you
might not be so rich, you feel you ought to be required to report to me?".
are you, or have you ever been...
...a worker?
Too many people would answer that with "Why should I?".
an easy attitude to internalise in a world where governments
continually undermine freedoms
and introduce ever more irrationalist bureaucracy...
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
andy
2014-10-17 10:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
That is a decision which an official has to make.
ah, the government inquisitor...
..,.whose job it is to decide entitlement (in accordance with a set of
rules known as "the law") and to protect the funds paid in to the
Treasury by a band of people known as "taxpayers".
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
It would be subject to appeal.
who knows how his group/s are registered, if at all....
Post by JNugent
Not for nothing is the question asked: "Have you done any work in the
last fourteen days?".
'i changed the baybee's nappee 138 times...thus i am employed
by the government to raise the next coterie of scrotes....
confusingly i also weigh 138 kilos, sir'
Post by JNugent
It means exactly what is asked, and it does NOT mean: "Have you done any
work in the last fourteen days which, on balance, taking one thing with
another, bearing in mind that some people are immensely rich whereas you
might not be so rich, you feel you ought to be required to report to me?".
are you, or have you ever been...
...a worker?
Too many people would answer that with "Why should I?".
an easy attitude to internalise in a world where governments
continually undermine freedoms
and introduce ever more irrationalist bureaucracy...
So a group of friends, skilled professionals but many on long-term sick
due to health issues start a limited company in the attempt to form
long-term careers and independent living for those concerned.

And what do we get despite having some actual success, although not
enough to pay anyone more than the bare minimum expenses?

Red tape from state and big business, mainstream media indifference, and
nasty shits on forums like this threatening to report directors for
benefit fraud. Non of us are well off, just honest, hard working folk
trying to better our lot honestly.

Sounds much the same story as 1930s Germany, all very sad :(
abelard
2014-10-17 10:18:36 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:11:56 +0100, andy
Post by andy
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
That is a decision which an official has to make.
ah, the government inquisitor...
..,.whose job it is to decide entitlement (in accordance with a set of
rules known as "the law") and to protect the funds paid in to the
Treasury by a band of people known as "taxpayers".
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
It would be subject to appeal.
who knows how his group/s are registered, if at all....
Post by JNugent
Not for nothing is the question asked: "Have you done any work in the
last fourteen days?".
'i changed the baybee's nappee 138 times...thus i am employed
by the government to raise the next coterie of scrotes....
confusingly i also weigh 138 kilos, sir'
Post by JNugent
It means exactly what is asked, and it does NOT mean: "Have you done any
work in the last fourteen days which, on balance, taking one thing with
another, bearing in mind that some people are immensely rich whereas you
might not be so rich, you feel you ought to be required to report to me?".
are you, or have you ever been...
...a worker?
Too many people would answer that with "Why should I?".
an easy attitude to internalise in a world where governments
continually undermine freedoms
and introduce ever more irrationalist bureaucracy...
So a group of friends, skilled professionals but many on long-term sick
due to health issues start a limited company in the attempt to form
long-term careers and independent living for those concerned.
And what do we get despite having some actual success, although not
enough to pay anyone more than the bare minimum expenses?
Red tape from state and big business, mainstream media indifference, and
nasty shits on forums like this threatening to report directors for
benefit fraud. Non of us are well off, just honest, hard working folk
trying to better our lot honestly.
Sounds much the same story as 1930s Germany, all very sad :(
you seem to have enough knowledge to keep on the right
side of the daft laws...
never mind the cat calls...they're irrelevant as you should well know
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
andy
2014-10-17 10:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:11:56 +0100, andy
Post by andy
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
That is a decision which an official has to make.
ah, the government inquisitor...
..,.whose job it is to decide entitlement (in accordance with a set of
rules known as "the law") and to protect the funds paid in to the
Treasury by a band of people known as "taxpayers".
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
It would be subject to appeal.
who knows how his group/s are registered, if at all....
Post by JNugent
Not for nothing is the question asked: "Have you done any work in the
last fourteen days?".
'i changed the baybee's nappee 138 times...thus i am employed
by the government to raise the next coterie of scrotes....
confusingly i also weigh 138 kilos, sir'
Post by JNugent
It means exactly what is asked, and it does NOT mean: "Have you done any
work in the last fourteen days which, on balance, taking one thing with
another, bearing in mind that some people are immensely rich whereas you
might not be so rich, you feel you ought to be required to report to me?".
are you, or have you ever been...
...a worker?
Too many people would answer that with "Why should I?".
an easy attitude to internalise in a world where governments
continually undermine freedoms
and introduce ever more irrationalist bureaucracy...
So a group of friends, skilled professionals but many on long-term sick
due to health issues start a limited company in the attempt to form
long-term careers and independent living for those concerned.
And what do we get despite having some actual success, although not
enough to pay anyone more than the bare minimum expenses?
Red tape from state and big business, mainstream media indifference, and
nasty shits on forums like this threatening to report directors for
benefit fraud. Non of us are well off, just honest, hard working folk
trying to better our lot honestly.
Sounds much the same story as 1930s Germany, all very sad :(
you seem to have enough knowledge to keep on the right
side of the daft laws...
never mind the cat calls...they're irrelevant as you should well know
thank you for your kind words :)
JNugent
2014-10-17 16:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by andy
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
That is a decision which an official has to make.
ah, the government inquisitor...
..,.whose job it is to decide entitlement (in accordance with a set of
rules known as "the law") and to protect the funds paid in to the
Treasury by a band of people known as "taxpayers".
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
It would be subject to appeal.
who knows how his group/s are registered, if at all....
Post by JNugent
Not for nothing is the question asked: "Have you done any work in the
last fourteen days?".
'i changed the baybee's nappee 138 times...thus i am employed
by the government to raise the next coterie of scrotes....
confusingly i also weigh 138 kilos, sir'
Post by JNugent
It means exactly what is asked, and it does NOT mean: "Have you done any
work in the last fourteen days which, on balance, taking one thing with
another, bearing in mind that some people are immensely rich whereas you
might not be so rich, you feel you ought to be required to report to me?".
are you, or have you ever been...
...a worker?
Too many people would answer that with "Why should I?".
an easy attitude to internalise in a world where governments
continually undermine freedoms
and introduce ever more irrationalist bureaucracy...
So a group of friends, skilled professionals but many on long-term sick
due to health issues start a limited company in the attempt to form
long-term careers and independent living for those concerned.
And what do we get despite having some actual success, although not
enough to pay anyone more than the bare minimum expenses?
Red tape from state and big business, mainstream media indifference, and
nasty shits on forums like this threatening to report directors for
benefit fraud. Non of us are well off, just honest, hard working folk
trying to better our lot honestly.
Sounds much the same story as 1930s Germany, all very sad :(
If what you say is true (and it may well be for all I know), you will
have no difficulty in - or from - reporting all the facts to the DWP.

My earnest advice is that you should do so.

Don't leave it to the DWP to find out (or be informed) about it by other
means: it looks TERRIBLE for you if that happens.
andy
2014-10-18 03:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by andy
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:56:40 +0100, White Spirit
Post by White Spirit
It seems that rather than being idle, Andy is engaging in benefits
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id2.html
'We charge £40 for a call out within a 20 mile radius of Braintree, Essex'
http://www.absolutelymultimedia.co.uk/id3.html
'Typical price is £50 per half day, great deals on whole albums!'
that looks like non-profit to me
That is a decision which an official has to make.
ah, the government inquisitor...
..,.whose job it is to decide entitlement (in accordance with a set of
rules known as "the law") and to protect the funds paid in to the
Treasury by a band of people known as "taxpayers".
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
It would be subject to appeal.
who knows how his group/s are registered, if at all....
Post by JNugent
Not for nothing is the question asked: "Have you done any work in the
last fourteen days?".
'i changed the baybee's nappee 138 times...thus i am employed
by the government to raise the next coterie of scrotes....
confusingly i also weigh 138 kilos, sir'
Post by JNugent
It means exactly what is asked, and it does NOT mean: "Have you done any
work in the last fourteen days which, on balance, taking one thing with
another, bearing in mind that some people are immensely rich whereas you
might not be so rich, you feel you ought to be required to report to me?".
are you, or have you ever been...
...a worker?
Too many people would answer that with "Why should I?".
an easy attitude to internalise in a world where governments
continually undermine freedoms
and introduce ever more irrationalist bureaucracy...
So a group of friends, skilled professionals but many on long-term sick
due to health issues start a limited company in the attempt to form
long-term careers and independent living for those concerned.
And what do we get despite having some actual success, although not
enough to pay anyone more than the bare minimum expenses?
Red tape from state and big business, mainstream media indifference, and
nasty shits on forums like this threatening to report directors for
benefit fraud. Non of us are well off, just honest, hard working folk
trying to better our lot honestly.
Sounds much the same story as 1930s Germany, all very sad :(
If what you say is true (and it may well be for all I know), you will
have no difficulty in - or from - reporting all the facts to the DWP.
My earnest advice is that you should do so.
Don't leave it to the DWP to find out (or be informed) about it by other
means: it looks TERRIBLE for you if that happens.
I follow the advice given, and write to them and my MP about what I'm
doing. All my accounts including bank details are submitted.

There's an issue though I'll raise. We've got a rogue element within our
civil service who follow an agenda that is rather anti-people and
sometimes disturbingly so. That's why I'm not joking about breaking up
the UK into regions and starting again because the corruption I've
encountered is endemic and as far as I can see irreparable.
White Spirit
2014-10-16 08:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:55:29 +0100
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the
minimum wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the
moment), and the rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled
worker would then be able to benefit from social interaction and
job satisfaction in the workplace. In principle, this seems worthy
of further discussion.
The state would also benefit in that there would be some economic
benefit derived from their work and not have to 100% benefits.
Credit where it's due, this is something Andy has suggested more than
once, and at least he's in a position to know a bit more about this
that either a Lord or Miliband.
Andy didn't suggest this for certain disabled workers, where it is
appropriate; he suggested it for everyone, where it is not appropriate.
The reason he suggests it is because he thinks that he should be able
to keep his benefits and anything he earns from working on top of that.
That is known as benefits fraud but a number of scroungers would
prefer to see it become part of the system and call it Citizen's Income.
andy
2014-10-18 03:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by White Spirit
Post by Joe
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:55:29 +0100
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the
minimum wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the
moment), and the rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled
worker would then be able to benefit from social interaction and
job satisfaction in the workplace. In principle, this seems worthy
of further discussion.
The state would also benefit in that there would be some economic
benefit derived from their work and not have to 100% benefits.
Credit where it's due, this is something Andy has suggested more than
once, and at least he's in a position to know a bit more about this
that either a Lord or Miliband.
Andy didn't suggest this for certain disabled workers, where it is
appropriate; he suggested it for everyone, where it is not appropriate.
The reason he suggests it is because he thinks that he should be able
to keep his benefits and anything he earns from working on top of that.
That is known as benefits fraud but a number of scroungers would
prefer to see it become part of the system and call it Citizen's Income.
So someone who lives a very modest life is a "criminal" for simply
trying to make a real career for themselves and their friends/family in
the same boat? Get folk off the sick into productive work that uses
their skills for the benefit of all, which may well save you tax
payments. And not only that, but attempting to do it legally and above
board...

Your argument sounds just a tad 1930s Germany innit?

So, you call me a liar for stating that the views you express on here on
in line with the Nazis? Of course, you may well be quite a nice chap as
our correspondence in private actually hints at, just putting it on a bit.

And we're rather grateful for your work in helping to expose those who
go gleefully along with your attacks, real or not, because it shows
people's true colours, the ugly colours those colours may be.
JNugent
2014-10-18 19:22:14 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by andy
Post by White Spirit
Andy didn't suggest this for certain disabled workers, where it is
appropriate; he suggested it for everyone, where it is not appropriate.
The reason he suggests it is because he thinks that he should be able
to keep his benefits and anything he earns from working on top of that.
That is known as benefits fraud but a number of scroungers would
prefer to see it become part of the system and call it Citizen's Income.
So someone who lives a very modest life is a "criminal" for simply
trying to make a real career for themselves and their friends/family in
the same boat?
No, not at all.

At least, not unless it is done dishonestly (in this context, that means
failing to declare it).

be honest about it, tell the DWP exactly what you've done and exactly
what you've earned, letting them work out entitlement in the light of
what has been honestly declared and no-one can accuse you of dishonesty.

QED
Mel Rowing
2014-10-15 19:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a fringe
meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an hour.
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
On the face of it, this does seem a very cold-hearted thing to say.
It does! But always there are two sides to every tale. Of course H.M.
Loyal Opposition will show indignation and false anger even if privately
they are pleased. Parliament has nothing to do with giving a fair
hearing to an alternative point of view. It's all about tribalism and
spinning the facts so as to promote the electoral prospects of their tribe.

There's nothing in party politics for the honest man.
Post by Ian Jackson
However, follow-up explanations are that he was simply concerned with
the fact that some disabled people are not really capable of
economically doing the minimum wage's worth of work. Unless an employer
is prepared to act as a charity, this means that the chances of some
disabled being employed are be minimal.
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
You aren't going to get Milliband to acknowledge that. He's not going to
miss his chance to have a cup of tea and a Hob Nob with H.M over mere
detail.

Those of us with knowledge in this area though know from everyday
experience that some disabled people can and do work and successfully.
There are others who would be disgusted by the idea and would prefer
these people be stood around as totems to the success of our everywhere
envied nowhere copied welfare state.

Good sense dictates that any person is better off through the dignity of
working. Of course there are some who can't work they are different
cases that are worthy of support.

There are others somewhere in between. It may be the case that they "are
not worth" the same remuneration as an equivalent able bodied worker.
Where this is the case, that same good sense dictates that an employer
should pay them what they are worth and the state make up the
difference. It's a far better value for our welfare budget than paying
them for sitting around doing nothing.

That same good sense should tell us that our firms and businesses exist
to make money as profit rather then serve as an adjunct to the welfare
state. Of course the root of the problem lies in the fact that there
exists a minimum wage. There are some able bodied people who are simply
not worth the money they are said to earn.

Let the market decide who's worth what!
AndyW
2014-10-16 06:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
Which is somewhat ironic as they have closed down a lot of Remploy
factories that employed disabled people to work on subsidised projects.
My sister's Remploy was shut earlier this year turning out a lot of
otherwise unemployable people sit sit on benefits instead of working.
My sister lost access to a lot of her friends, a lot of self respect and
self-worth because now she is an unemployed one armed machinist sitting
at home on the dole.

There was quite a fight to keep the factory open but the tories refused
to support the fight at all. It is interesting to shut down the
factories and then float an idea of effectively running the same scheme.

Andy
Ian Jackson
2014-10-16 07:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by AndyW
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
Which is somewhat ironic as they have closed down a lot of Remploy
factories that employed disabled people to work on subsidised projects.
My sister's Remploy was shut earlier this year turning out a lot of
otherwise unemployable people sit sit on benefits instead of working.
My sister lost access to a lot of her friends, a lot of self respect
and self-worth because now she is an unemployed one armed machinist
sitting at home on the dole.
There was quite a fight to keep the factory open but the tories refused
to support the fight at all. It is interesting to shut down the
factories and then float an idea of effectively running the same scheme.
The closure of the Remploy factories started in 2007 (Labour government
then, of course). It seems that the idea was to re-deploy the workers in
the 'ordinary' workplace. I expect that as more and more factories have
been closed, the whole of the Remploy concept has become increasingly
non-viable. This morning, an LBC radio phoner-in said that the result
has been that a lot of disabled workers are now living totally on
benefits, and watching daytime TV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remploy
--
Ian
AndyW
2014-10-16 08:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
The closure of the Remploy factories started in 2007 (Labour government
then, of course). It seems that the idea was to re-deploy the workers in
the 'ordinary' workplace. I expect that as more and more factories have
been closed, the whole of the Remploy concept has become increasingly
non-viable. This morning, an LBC radio phoner-in said that the result
has been that a lot of disabled workers are now living totally on
benefits, and watching daytime TV.
I can confirm that a lot, probably most, of my sister's colleagues are
still unemployed.
I understand that Remploy was a subsidised business and therefore cost
the state but it gave a lot of people self-respect, a sense of worth, a
social life and kept them active. Now that money has been saved the net
effect is a greater draw on the public purse and an ex-workforce now
sitting isolated with reduced social circle and increasing mental
problems caused by boredom, isolation and lack of motivation.
It seems that government as a whole loves to save pennies even if it
costs pounds.
The strain on the Remploy subsidy budget has been reduced at the cost of
a larger than comparable increase in the benefits budgets.

Andy
Rutterkin
2014-10-16 09:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by AndyW
Post by Ian Jackson
The closure of the Remploy factories started in 2007 (Labour government
then, of course). It seems that the idea was to re-deploy the workers in
the 'ordinary' workplace. I expect that as more and more factories have
been closed, the whole of the Remploy concept has become increasingly
non-viable. This morning, an LBC radio phoner-in said that the result
has been that a lot of disabled workers are now living totally on
benefits, and watching daytime TV.
I can confirm that a lot, probably most, of my sister's colleagues are
still unemployed.
I understand that Remploy was a subsidised business and therefore cost
the state but it gave a lot of people self-respect, a sense of worth, a
social life and kept them active. Now that money has been saved the net
effect is a greater draw on the public purse and an ex-workforce now
sitting isolated with reduced social circle and increasing mental
problems caused by boredom, isolation and lack of motivation.
It seems that government as a whole loves to save pennies even if it
costs pounds.
The strain on the Remploy subsidy budget has been reduced at the cost of
a larger than comparable increase in the benefits budgets.
There's no easy solution. If we are to have an economic environment in
which people with disabilities can perform useful roles at a living
wage, we have to protect that environment from competition from other
environments in which those values are not recognised.

It's the sort of things which could be done at a European level, if the
EU wasn't so infected by corporate rather than individual interests.

The Kippers, like Conservatives and the economic conservatives within
the Labour party would happily kill disabled poor people so that to
increase their profits, and without some degree of protectionism that is
exactly what will happen. The "race to the bottom" kills.
Rutterkin
2014-10-16 09:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by AndyW
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
Which is somewhat ironic as they have closed down a lot of Remploy
factories that employed disabled people to work on subsidised projects.
My sister's Remploy was shut earlier this year turning out a lot of
otherwise unemployable people sit sit on benefits instead of working.
My sister lost access to a lot of her friends, a lot of self respect and
self-worth because now she is an unemployed one armed machinist sitting
at home on the dole.
There was quite a fight to keep the factory open but the tories refused
to support the fight at all. It is interesting to shut down the
factories and then float an idea of effectively running the same scheme.
Tory policies are built around giving more to Tories. Since they are
almost without exception workshy, unemployable parasites, giving them
more someone always means making working people work harder to keep them.
White Spirit
2014-10-16 09:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rutterkin
Tory policies are built around giving more to Tories. Since they are
almost without exception workshy, unemployable parasites, giving them
more someone always means making working people work harder to keep them.
Do grow up. A good number of Tories own businesses that provide people
with work.
Rutterkin
2014-10-16 10:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by White Spirit
Post by Rutterkin
Tory policies are built around giving more to Tories. Since they are
almost without exception workshy, unemployable parasites, giving them
more someone always means making working people work harder to keep them.
Do grow up. A good number of Tories own businesses that provide people
with work.
I don't doubt that some responsible employers support the Tories, but
they are at best misguided. The Tories are above all else a party of
inherited privilege and rentier capitalism, both of which are inimical
to real work.
White Spirit
2014-10-16 10:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rutterkin
Post by White Spirit
Post by Rutterkin
Tory policies are built around giving more to Tories. Since they are
almost without exception workshy, unemployable parasites, giving them
more someone always means making working people work harder to keep them.
Do grow up. A good number of Tories own businesses that provide people
with work.
I don't doubt that some responsible employers support the Tories, but
they are at best misguided. The Tories are above all else a party of
inherited privilege and rentier capitalism, both of which are inimical
to real work.
I would say that the Tories are in favour of genuine Capitalism as that
is what helps the economy. At the very least, for Rentier Capitalism to
be profitable there have to be enough people profiting from work and
production in order to pay rents, whether through land, property or
things like patents.
andy
2014-10-17 10:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by AndyW
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
Which is somewhat ironic as they have closed down a lot of Remploy
factories that employed disabled people to work on subsidised projects.
My sister's Remploy was shut earlier this year turning out a lot of
otherwise unemployable people sit sit on benefits instead of working.
My sister lost access to a lot of her friends, a lot of self respect and
self-worth because now she is an unemployed one armed machinist sitting
at home on the dole.
There was quite a fight to keep the factory open but the tories refused
to support the fight at all. It is interesting to shut down the
factories and then float an idea of effectively running the same scheme.
Andy
Well, myself and some friends started a limited company to find work for
skilled professionals in the IT and media field, a lot of us have been
on long term sick due to health issues.

So far we've had considerable success in what we've achieved, but are
yet to make a profit of the level to pay the directors any more than the
absolute minimum expenses such as petrol costs and so forth, in fact
most of that has to come out of our own pockets.

And guess what some right-wingers on this forum are trying to do for our
efforts?

Report us for "benefit fraud"...

Not all the Tories are deserving of the term "the nasty party", there's
good folk amongst them, and good folk even amongst elements of the royal
family for that matter, such as Prince Charles.

But unfortunately the right-wing here and in the USA too has a nasty and
outright sadistic streak to it.
abelard
2014-10-17 10:20:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:06:58 +0100, andy
Post by andy
Post by AndyW
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
Which is somewhat ironic as they have closed down a lot of Remploy
factories that employed disabled people to work on subsidised projects.
My sister's Remploy was shut earlier this year turning out a lot of
otherwise unemployable people sit sit on benefits instead of working.
My sister lost access to a lot of her friends, a lot of self respect and
self-worth because now she is an unemployed one armed machinist sitting
at home on the dole.
There was quite a fight to keep the factory open but the tories refused
to support the fight at all. It is interesting to shut down the
factories and then float an idea of effectively running the same scheme.
Well, myself and some friends started a limited company to find work for
skilled professionals in the IT and media field, a lot of us have been
on long term sick due to health issues.
So far we've had considerable success in what we've achieved, but are
yet to make a profit of the level to pay the directors any more than the
absolute minimum expenses such as petrol costs and so forth, in fact
most of that has to come out of our own pockets.
And guess what some right-wingers on this forum are trying to do for our
efforts?
Report us for "benefit fraud"...
Not all the Tories are deserving of the term "the nasty party", there's
good folk amongst them, and good folk even amongst elements of the royal
family for that matter, such as Prince Charles.
But unfortunately the right-wing here and in the USA too has a nasty and
outright sadistic streak to it.
the dying embers of puritanism...

the british have been raised to follow orders without and
conscious thought
like most things it has both advantages and drawbacks
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Rutterkin
2014-10-17 10:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by andy
Well, myself and some friends started a limited company to find work for
skilled professionals in the IT and media field, a lot of us have been
on long term sick due to health issues.
So far we've had considerable success in what we've achieved, but are
yet to make a profit of the level to pay the directors any more than the
absolute minimum expenses such as petrol costs and so forth, in fact
most of that has to come out of our own pockets.
And guess what some right-wingers on this forum are trying to do for our
efforts?
Report us for "benefit fraud"...
Of course, that's what spineless authoritarians such as Tories do.
Post by andy
Not all the Tories are deserving of the term "the nasty party",
So few Tories are interested in meritocracy or democracy that "all
Tories are subhuman parasites" is a near enough approximation.
Post by andy
there's
good folk amongst them, and good folk even amongst elements of the royal
family for that matter, such as Prince Charles.
Charles Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? He's one of the alien uber-parasites.
Post by andy
But unfortunately the right-wing here and in the USA too has a nasty and
outright sadistic streak to it.
Most of them have never done a day's real work in their lives, and do
everything they can to make others work for them.
White Spirit
2014-10-16 08:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a fringe
meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an hour.
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
On the face of it, this does seem a very cold-hearted thing to say.
However, follow-up explanations are that he was simply concerned with
the fact that some disabled people are not really capable of
economically doing the minimum wage's worth of work. Unless an employer
is prepared to act as a charity, this means that the chances of some
disabled being employed are be minimal.
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
It's a form of Citizen's Income for the disabled, which a number of the
Leftists who criticise Freud have been calling for.

Trust 'Judith' to misinterpret what was said rather than bothering to
get the truth.
Rutterkin
2014-10-16 08:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
It's nonsensical. *Someone* has to pay to keep disabled people alive.
The minimum wage isn't even enough for physically and mentally fit
people to live on without also taking money from taxpayers to bribe
landlords and, effectively, exempting them from the council tax. Who
will make up the additional shortfall? Taxpayers again, while employers
continue to profit for hiring disabled people?

Imagine the situation if people with (presumably nominated) disabilities
were exempted from the minimum wage. Employers could preferentially hire
disabled people because they were cheaper. Employers would hire people
who were able at their work but try to have them designated disabled in
order to pay them less.

It is far better than employers carry the can. If employers can't pay a
*living* wage, they should not operate at all, and work for themselves
rather than exploit the people who do real work.
abelard
2014-10-16 10:33:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:45:09 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by Ian Jackson
What he was then suggesting was that a solution could be that the
disabled person might be employed, but get paid less than the minimum
wage by the employer (which would be illegal at the moment), and the
rest topped up as a state benefit. The disabled worker would then be
able to benefit from social interaction and job satisfaction in the
workplace. In principle, this seems worthy of further discussion.
It's nonsensical. *Someone* has to pay to keep disabled people alive.
The minimum wage isn't even enough for physically and mentally fit
people to live on without also taking money from taxpayers to bribe
landlords and, effectively, exempting them from the council tax. Who
will make up the additional shortfall? Taxpayers again, while employers
continue to profit for hiring disabled people?
Imagine the situation if people with (presumably nominated) disabilities
were exempted from the minimum wage. Employers could preferentially hire
disabled people because they were cheaper. Employers would hire people
who were able at their work but try to have them designated disabled in
order to pay them less.
It is far better than employers carry the can. If employers can't pay a
*living* wage, they should not operate at all, and work for themselves
rather than exploit the people who do real work.
remploy was set up by fascist 'new' labour...and it was pulled down
by fascist 'new' labour....

the ridiculous dogmatism of the left then assembled 'the minimum
wage act' in their pursuit of 'equality'

a minimum wage act stops the poor from competing for jobs against
the members of the party of union special privilege...
whether those poor are the inexperienced young, the 'disabled',
the less intelligent or even those of other 'races'....matters
not to the fascist cultists...

there is no way out, aside from a free market and a citizen's wage...

fascist 'new' labour hate the free market, in fact they hate anything
that pongs of freedom in any form...
simply because freedom loosens centralised dictatorial government
control...

a free market or a citizen's wage act directly against the interests
of fascist 'new' labour or any other socialist creed...

the disable and the poor are untidy...and therefore cannot exist
in the puritan world of 'new' labour
so, they are removed from the scrolls of reality...
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Rutterkin
2014-10-16 10:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
a minimum wage act stops the poor from competing for jobs against
the members of the party of union special privilege...
Wage labourers cannot "compete" with any privileged class.
Post by abelard
whether those poor are the inexperienced young, the 'disabled',
the less intelligent or even those of other 'races'....matters
not to the fascist cultists...
there is no way out, aside from a free market and a citizen's wage...
There can be no free market wherever there is private property.
abelard
2014-10-16 10:57:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:54:50 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
a minimum wage act stops the poor from competing for jobs against
the members of the party of union special privilege...
Wage labourers cannot "compete" with any privileged class.
Post by abelard
whether those poor are the inexperienced young, the 'disabled',
the less intelligent or even those of other 'races'....matters
not to the fascist cultists...
there is no way out, aside from a free market and a citizen's wage...
There can be no free market wherever there is private property.
slogans are not analysis my boy...
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Rutterkin
2014-10-16 11:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:54:50 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
There can be no free market wherever there is private property.
slogans are not analysis my boy...
It is simple, naked truth.
abelard
2014-10-16 11:12:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:10:00 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:54:50 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
There can be no free market wherever there is private property.
slogans are not analysis my boy...
It is simple, naked truth.
it's simple nekd sloganeering..
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Alex Heney
2014-10-15 20:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a fringe
meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an hour.
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
But not nearly as nasty as somebody who picks up only that silly
headline, and tries to pretend that is all there is to it.

You are *far* nastier than anybody I know of in the Tory party.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Patience is a virtue, it's just not one of my better virtues
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
Mel Rowing
2014-10-15 21:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Judith
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
But not nearly as nasty as somebody who picks up only that silly
headline, and tries to pretend that is all there is to it.
You are *far* nastier than anybody I know of in the Tory party.
What do you expect from a man who pretends to be a woman because he has
no balls?
Alex Heney
2014-10-16 21:25:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:24:50 +0100, Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Alex Heney
Post by Judith
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
But not nearly as nasty as somebody who picks up only that silly
headline, and tries to pretend that is all there is to it.
You are *far* nastier than anybody I know of in the Tory party.
What do you expect from a man who pretends to be a woman because he has
no balls?
I neither know nor care which gender Judith may be.

When I use gender specific pronouns in responding, I use whichever is
appropriate to the chosen name, assuming it is a normal
gender-specific name. So I will continue to refer to Judith as "her".

I must admit though, the way she posts all her nastiness as innuendo
rather than ever saying anything outright does seem more likely to be
a female trait than male (but only a bit more likely).

But I seem to have touched a nerve with her in the above :)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Fact is solidified opinion
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
Let It Be
2014-10-16 23:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Heney
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:24:50 +0100, Mel Rowing
Post by Mel Rowing
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:50:23 +0100, Judith
Post by Judith
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
But not nearly as nasty as somebody who picks up only that silly
headline, and tries to pretend that is all there is to it.
You are *far* nastier than anybody I know of in the Tory party.
What do you expect from a man who pretends to be a woman because he
has no balls?
I neither know nor care which gender Judith may be.
When I use gender specific pronouns in responding, I use whichever is
appropriate to the chosen name, assuming it is a normal
gender-specific name. So I will continue to refer to Judith as "her".
I must admit though, the way she posts all her nastiness as innuendo
rather than ever saying anything outright does seem more likely to be
a female trait than male (but only a bit more likely).
But I seem to have touched a nerve with her in the above :)
Yes she [he] does have a fair knowledge of the good old fashioned Anglo
Saxon Alex - along with an above average amount of nievety. LOL
The Todal
2014-10-16 08:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a fringe
meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an hour.
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
To be fair, I think Lord Freud mis-spoke. He spoke off-message. He
thought he could invent policy on the hoof, without conferring with
those who actually had studied the topic.

I don't believe that Cameron, the father of a disabled child, would have
condoned those views for much more than a moment. I find it more
troubling that he deliberately chose to repeal some health and safety
regulations so as to make it easier for employers to use defective
equipment without fear of being found liable in the civil courts.
John
2014-10-16 10:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
To be fair, I think Lord Freud mis-spoke. He spoke off-message.
I seem to recall Gordon Brown getting slated for the content of a private
conversation.

John.
abelard
2014-10-16 10:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Judith
It would seem that Lord Freud (The Welfare Reform Minister) told a fringe
meeting at the recent Tory conference that some disabled people are "not worth"
the minimum wage.
He suggested that some disabled people could be paid as low as £2 an hour.
They really are a very, very Nasty party.
To be fair, I think Lord Freud mis-spoke.
he spoke correctly...unfortunately milipede is lying again...
and the votes of the idiocracy are needed in the coming election...
Post by The Todal
He spoke off-message. He
thought he could invent policy on the hoof, without conferring with
those who actually had studied the topic.
I don't believe that Cameron, the father of a disabled child, would have
condoned those views for much more than a moment. I find it more
troubling that he deliberately chose to repeal some health and safety
regulations so as to make it easier for employers to use defective
equipment without fear of being found liable in the civil courts.
facts don't matter to socialists...why are you being honest?

are you deliberately trying to confuse issues again, like your
claims to be a holocaust survivor?
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
The Todal
2014-10-16 12:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
I don't believe that Cameron, the father of a disabled child, would have
condoned those views for much more than a moment. I find it more
troubling that he deliberately chose to repeal some health and safety
regulations so as to make it easier for employers to use defective
equipment without fear of being found liable in the civil courts.
facts don't matter to socialists...why are you being honest?
Eh? You agree with me? Or not?
Post by abelard
are you deliberately trying to confuse issues again, like your
claims to be a holocaust survivor?
I have never claimed to be a holocaust survivor and I resent that remark.
abelard
2014-10-16 13:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
I don't believe that Cameron, the father of a disabled child, would have
condoned those views for much more than a moment. I find it more
troubling that he deliberately chose to repeal some health and safety
regulations so as to make it easier for employers to use defective
equipment without fear of being found liable in the civil courts.
facts don't matter to socialists...why are you being honest?
Eh? You agree with me? Or not?
Post by abelard
are you deliberately trying to confuse issues again, like your
claims to be a holocaust survivor?
I have never claimed to be a holocaust survivor and I resent that remark.
yes you have by descent...

but that's more like the toady we know and respect
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
The Todal
2014-10-16 14:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
I don't believe that Cameron, the father of a disabled child, would have
condoned those views for much more than a moment. I find it more
troubling that he deliberately chose to repeal some health and safety
regulations so as to make it easier for employers to use defective
equipment without fear of being found liable in the civil courts.
facts don't matter to socialists...why are you being honest?
Eh? You agree with me? Or not?
Post by abelard
are you deliberately trying to confuse issues again, like your
claims to be a holocaust survivor?
I have never claimed to be a holocaust survivor and I resent that remark.
yes you have by descent...
but that's more like the toady we know and respect
By descent? Bollocks.

I have pointed out that I lost relatives in the holocaust, indeed in
Auschwitz. I would regard it as beneath contempt to say that on the
strength of that I am a holocaust survivor or victim.
abelard
2014-10-16 14:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
I don't believe that Cameron, the father of a disabled child, would have
condoned those views for much more than a moment. I find it more
troubling that he deliberately chose to repeal some health and safety
regulations so as to make it easier for employers to use defective
equipment without fear of being found liable in the civil courts.
facts don't matter to socialists...why are you being honest?
Eh? You agree with me? Or not?
Post by abelard
are you deliberately trying to confuse issues again, like your
claims to be a holocaust survivor?
I have never claimed to be a holocaust survivor and I resent that remark.
yes you have by descent...
but that's more like the toady we know and respect
By descent? Bollocks.
I have pointed out that I lost relatives in the holocaust, indeed in
Auschwitz. I would regard it as beneath contempt to say that on the
strength of that I am a holocaust survivor or victim.
your dubious claims are not convincing...

meanwhile, even you could not be descended from a vacuum...

probably
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Big Les Wade
2014-10-16 15:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
To be fair, I think Lord Freud mis-spoke. He spoke off-message. He
thought he could invent policy on the hoof, without conferring with
those who actually had studied the topic.
What he did was tell a Tory councillor at a fringe meeting at
Conservative Party conference that he understood the suggestion and
would discuss it with colleagues after the conference.

The question is whether politicians should be permitted to do that, or
whether they should reply to every policy suggestion from a member of
the public with "I'm not interested in your ideas, you miserable pleb,
now FOAD."

Everyone with any sense knows that what Freud said (and what his
interlocutor suggested) was a perfectly reasonable idea. One can agree
with it or disagree with it as a practical policy, no doubt it would
have drawbacks as well as benefits, but it isn't "nasty", it's got a
sensible and indeed benign motivation behind it.

The problem is just that there is an industry that specialises in
portraying such reasonable comments as evil or misguided, for political
purposes. Exactly the same thing has happened in the Judy Finnigan
affair.

The industry has always existed, of course. But it has become the more
successful as the people who write the newspapers have become as
gullible and stupid as those who read them.
--
Les
Ian Jackson
2014-10-16 19:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by The Todal
To be fair, I think Lord Freud mis-spoke. He spoke off-message. He
thought he could invent policy on the hoof, without conferring with
those who actually had studied the topic.
What he did was tell a Tory councillor at a fringe meeting at
Conservative Party conference that he understood the suggestion and
would discuss it with colleagues after the conference.
The question is whether politicians should be permitted to do that, or
whether they should reply to every policy suggestion from a member of
the public with "I'm not interested in your ideas, you miserable pleb,
now FOAD."
Everyone with any sense knows that what Freud said (and what his
interlocutor suggested) was a perfectly reasonable idea. One can agree
with it or disagree with it as a practical policy, no doubt it would
have drawbacks as well as benefits, but it isn't "nasty", it's got a
sensible and indeed benign motivation behind it.
The problem is just that there is an industry that specialises in
portraying such reasonable comments as evil or misguided, for political
purposes. Exactly the same thing has happened in the Judy Finnigan
affair.
The industry has always existed, of course. But it has become the more
successful as the people who write the newspapers have become as
gullible and stupid as those who read them.
As well as Nick Ferrari's LBC 7am spot (in which he really shit-stirred
and rabble-roused, and slated Lord Freud to the point of being
slanderous), the topic was also picked up in James Whale's section,
which followed.

He took exactly the opposite view to Nick Ferrari, and repeatedly (and
rightly) pointed out that Freud had NOT said that all disabled workers
were either 'worth less' or 'worthless' (or both), and therefore should
get low pay. Despite this, a whole string of phone-in callers were
absolutely hell-bent on demanding Freud's guts for garters.

As Paul Simon's words say in 'The Boxer'.
"A man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest".
--
Ian
John
2014-10-16 23:27:00 UTC
Permalink
What he did was tell a Tory councillor at a fringe meeting at Conservative
Party conference that he understood the suggestion and would discuss it
with colleagues after the conference.
What he should have said was that the "minimum wage" was just that - the
absolute minimum any human being should be paid for working in this country.
It should not be the normal rate of pay, but the absolute minimum and if
some people are worth more than others then they should be paid above that
rate.

Even that bafoon Boris Johnson concedes that the minimum wage is too low and
that employers should at least pay the "living wage", which is only a few
bob more see:

http://www.livingwage.org.uk/

As it is the minimum wage is only tenable because a significant number of
people earning it are subsidised by various working credits - in effect a
hidden subsidy to business.

John.
Rutterkin
2014-10-17 05:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/
As it is the minimum wage is only tenable because a significant number of
people earning it are subsidised by various working credits - in effect a
hidden subsidy to business.
It's pure greed by employers. They want more than they can earn
themselves, so they demand that either workers be made to work harder
for them or taxpayers give them what they want through subsidies.

Some employers need to be sent to labour camps.
Joe
2014-10-17 08:58:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:27:00 +0100
Post by John
As it is the minimum wage is only tenable because a significant
number of people earning it are subsidised by various working credits
- in effect a hidden subsidy to business.
It's not very well hidden, we all knew what Gordon was up to when he
did it.
--
Joe
John
2014-10-17 09:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
It's not very well hidden, we all knew what Gordon was up to when he
did it.
It doesn't matter who did it, it's still there 4+ years after the Nasties
came to power. So, however you look at it, both the Nasties and the New
Tories are responsible for the minimum wage - an incentive to business to
pay low wages.

That still doesn't negate my earlier point that it should be the absolute
minimum level at which people are remunerated, not some level below which
disabled people should be paid to work.

John.
abelard
2014-10-17 09:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Joe
It's not very well hidden, we all knew what Gordon was up to when he
did it.
It doesn't matter who did it, it's still there 4+ years after the Nasties
came to power. So, however you look at it, both the Nasties and the New
Tories are responsible for the minimum wage - an incentive to business to
pay low wages.
That still doesn't negate my earlier point that it should be the absolute
minimum level at which people are remunerated, not some level below which
disabled people should be paid to work.
you are posting economic drivel...

and you are agreeing that some are able to earn more than others...
and some less...
the discussion was about people who can earn next to nothing...eg
putting two pieces of a remembrance day poppy together or
sweeping a floor that doesn't need sweeping...
these are people, often with the intelligence of a young child
the discussion was primarily about mental disablement...though
there are also few productive jobs that can be done by paraplegics
unless they have specialties like hawkin

the discussion included how some minimum wage was to be paid
by subsidies...
such a system was already in place by fascist 'new' labour
and had been since the 1940s..it was already being destroyed
by brown the clown when cameron took over...complete
what a chaotic economy...
mencap has also been promoting that approach...until they
saw an opening after milipede's lies

as usual, milipede is lying for political advantage..it's a standard
pattern with him...produce some obscure lie..and then watch the
lie unravel over the next few days


meanwhile, a minimum wage stops the poor competing with the
featherbedded union shirkers...

it stops the disabled from competing for jobs...it stops women
competing...it stops the poor from competing...it stops ethnic
minorities from competing...it stops the young from competing

the way to stop problem is a citizen's wage...not lying as socialists
always do...about the economic power of the less capable
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/citizens_wage.php
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
John
2014-10-17 14:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
meanwhile, a minimum wage stops the poor competing with the
featherbedded union shirkers...
Doesn't stop Boris the Bafoon saying employers should pay more than the
minimum wage.

John.
Ian Jackson
2014-10-17 14:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by abelard
meanwhile, a minimum wage stops the poor competing with the
featherbedded union shirkers...
Doesn't stop Boris the Bafoon saying employers should pay more than the
minimum wage.
Which would you prefer?

Boris the Bafoon saying employers should pay more than the minimum wage?

Boris the Bafoon saying employers should pay the minimum wage?

Boris the Bafoon saying employers should pay less than the minimum wage?
--
Ian
abelard
2014-10-17 16:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by abelard
meanwhile, a minimum wage stops the poor competing with the
featherbedded union shirkers...
Doesn't stop Boris the Bafoon saying employers should pay more than the
minimum wage.
as you say, he's a buffoon

like milipede, he's say what gets him attention or votes...
he's just far brighter than milipede
fine as london mayor, but he also should not get near
serious power
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Let It Be
2014-10-17 23:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by John
Post by abelard
meanwhile, a minimum wage stops the poor competing with the
featherbedded union shirkers...
Doesn't stop Boris the Bafoon saying employers should pay more than
the minimum wage.
as you say, he's a buffoon
like milipede, he's say what gets him attention or votes...
he's just far brighter than milipede
fine as london mayor, but he also should not get near
serious power
A typical Tory then!
Rutterkin
2014-10-17 14:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
meanwhile, a minimum wage stops the poor competing with the
featherbedded union shirkers...
No, rents and living costs inflated by greedy rentiers does that.
Post by abelard
it stops the disabled from competing for jobs...
No, rentier greed does that.
Post by abelard
it stops women competing...
Rentier greed.
Post by abelard
it stops the poor from competing...
Rentier greed.
Post by abelard
it stops ethnic minorities from competing...
Rentier greed.
Post by abelard
it stops the young from competing
Rentier greed.
Post by abelard
the way to stop problem is a citizen's wage...not lying as
socialists always do...about the economic power of the less capable
A citizen's wage will never be enough. It also needs rent controls and
regulation of basic living costs.
abelard
2014-10-17 16:54:09 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:57:28 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
meanwhile, a minimum wage stops the poor competing with the
featherbedded union shirkers...
No, rents and living costs inflated by greedy rentiers does that.
Post by abelard
it stops the disabled from competing for jobs...
No, rentier greed does that.
Post by abelard
it stops women competing...
Rentier greed.
Post by abelard
it stops the poor from competing...
Rentier greed.
Post by abelard
it stops ethnic minorities from competing...
Rentier greed.
Post by abelard
it stops the young from competing
Rentier greed.
Post by abelard
the way to stop problem is a citizen's wage...not lying as
socialists always do...about the economic power of the less capable
A citizen's wage will never be enough. It also needs rent controls and
regulation of basic living costs.
slogans are still not enough...

housing allowances should be stopped..rentiers will
just raise rents to what ever level the dole will pay
if you're going to keep raising the population, you'll
have to sell starter units to the young...it won't work
unless you build 100s of thousands...

the sane route is to get rid of all but basic planning laws...
eg sufficient parking and insulation...
the middle class may well fight that...and they tend to vote
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Rutterkin
2014-10-17 17:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:57:28 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
the way to stop problem is a citizen's wage...not lying as
socialists always do...about the economic power of the less capable
A citizen's wage will never be enough. It also needs rent controls and
regulation of basic living costs.
slogans are still not enough...
housing allowances should be stopped..rentiers will
just raise rents to what ever level the dole will pay
There will be no need to pay subsidies to private landlords if the rents
they charged were regulated. Better still, limit the number of
properties which private landlords can "own".
Post by abelard
if you're going to keep raising the population, you'll
have to sell starter units to the young...it won't work
unless you build 100s of thousands...
Rising population is the brontosaurus in the room. Every time the
population of a Western country looks as though it might be stabilising,
its politicians panic and encourage immigration because their economic
models are built on perpetual (and unsustainable) growth (and false
promises).
Post by abelard
the sane route is to get rid of all but basic planning laws...
eg sufficient parking and insulation...
I'd go along with that. British planning laws could almost have been
written to encourage a housing bubble. I'll also add that real democracy
would make people more accountable to one another, and better able to
curtail irresponsible behaviour.
Post by abelard
the middle class may well fight that...and they tend to vote
The results from the site I mentioned in "Grn 26 Lab 20 LDP 17 Con 15"
suggests that most people think very differently (and more sensibly)
than the way they vote.
abelard
2014-10-18 12:47:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:29:36 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:57:28 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
the way to stop problem is a citizen's wage...not lying as
socialists always do...about the economic power of the less capable
A citizen's wage will never be enough. It also needs rent controls and
regulation of basic living costs.
slogans are still not enough...
housing allowances should be stopped..rentiers will
just raise rents to what ever level the dole will pay
There will be no need to pay subsidies to private landlords if the rents
they charged were regulated. Better still, limit the number of
properties which private landlords can "own".
like any market interference...
controlled rents cause many unintended consequences..almost all bad

a housing allowance/element within the dole/citizen's-wage allows the
dole takers to decide where they can afford to live...
it also incentivises them to cooperate or to self build
a housing allowance just incentivises rentiers to set their rents
to gobble it up...
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
if you're going to keep raising the population, you'll
have to sell starter units to the young...it won't work
unless you build 100s of thousands...
Rising population is the brontosaurus in the room. Every time the
population of a Western country looks as though it might be stabilising,
its politicians panic and encourage immigration because their economic
models are built on perpetual (and unsustainable) growth (and false
promises).
this is what fnl is anticipating...hoping for

p. 20 pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf
"England’s population is projected to grow by 7.2 million over the
next twenty years thanks to high birth rates, increased life
expectancies and continued net inwards-migration."

cameron is of course seeking ways to control the numbers
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
the sane route is to get rid of all but basic planning laws...
eg sufficient parking and insulation...
I'd go along with that. British planning laws could almost have been
written to encourage a housing bubble. I'll also add that real democracy
would make people more accountable to one another, and better able to
curtail irresponsible behaviour.
p46, pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf
"Introduced in 2012, Neighbourhood Plans allow communities to prepare
a development plan for their area which takes into account the local
council’s assessment of housing and other development needs
in the area. All of the Neighbourhood Plans taken through to
referendum so far have resulted in overwhelming votes in favour even
where they propose significant growth. As of June 2014, 860 areas had
been designated as neighbourhood plan areas across 57% of local
authority areas. Of the 17 plans that had been through referendum all
had been approved with an average of 87% yes vote.


note, local referendums...no socialist party will ever shift power
to the people
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
the middle class may well fight that...and they tend to vote
The results from the site I mentioned in "Grn 26 Lab 20 LDP 17 Con 15"
suggests that most people think very differently (and more sensibly)
than the way they vote.
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Rutterkin
2014-10-18 14:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:29:36 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
There will be no need to pay subsidies to private landlords if the rents
they charged were regulated. Better still, limit the number of
properties which private landlords can "own".
like any market interference...
controlled rents cause many unintended consequences..almost all bad
Fixing a maximum level of rent is no different from fixing a welfare cap
or a tax ceiling. Most European countries regulate their private housing
markets far more strictly, and in favour of tenants, than Britain.
Post by abelard
a housing allowance/element within the dole/citizen's-wage allows the
dole takers to decide where they can afford to live...
it also incentivises them to cooperate or to self build
It can only do that if those options are available and realistic.
Post by abelard
a housing allowance just incentivises rentiers to set their rents
to gobble it up...
Without effective ways of seizing empty properties (without
compensation), rentiers are very likely to keep them empty. The housing
allowance as you call it has already been reduced and rents are still
rising.
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
Rising population is the brontosaurus in the room. Every time the
population of a Western country looks as though it might be stabilising,
its politicians panic and encourage immigration because their economic
models are built on perpetual (and unsustainable) growth (and false
promises).
this is what fnl is anticipating...hoping for
p. 20 pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf
"England’s population is projected to grow by 7.2 million over the
next twenty years thanks to high birth rates, increased life
expectancies and continued net inwards-migration."
cameron is of course seeking ways to control the numbers
He is failing, dismally. And doing nothing about the illegal immigrants
who number at least 1,000,000 and who some believe may number 2,000,000.
Post by abelard
p46, pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf
"Introduced in 2012, Neighbourhood Plans allow communities to prepare
a development plan for their area which takes into account the local
council’s assessment of housing and other development needs
in the area. All of the Neighbourhood Plans taken through to
referendum so far have resulted in overwhelming votes in favour even
where they propose significant growth. As of June 2014, 860 areas had
been designated as neighbourhood plan areas across 57% of local
authority areas. Of the 17 plans that had been through referendum all
had been approved with an average of 87% yes vote.
note, local referendums...no socialist party will ever shift power
to the people
No party of any kind will. One they have power, the lobbyists for
landowners, builders, rentiers and banks will offer bribes and the
politicians will take the bribes. If power was given back to the people
through referendums, politicians' most lucrative earner would go.

The Lyons report looks interesting.
abelard
2014-10-18 18:00:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:02:57 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:29:36 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
There will be no need to pay subsidies to private landlords if the rents
they charged were regulated. Better still, limit the number of
properties which private landlords can "own".
like any market interference...
controlled rents cause many unintended consequences..almost all bad
Fixing a maximum level of rent is no different from fixing a welfare cap
or a tax ceiling.
yes it is...one is how much a market can compare...
the other is dole out of taxes
Post by Rutterkin
Most European countries regulate their private housing
markets far more strictly, and in favour of tenants, than Britain.
and it makes a deleterious effect on employment and
the letting market
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
a housing allowance/element within the dole/citizen's-wage allows the
dole takers to decide where they can afford to live...
it also incentivises them to cooperate or to self build
It can only do that if those options are available and realistic.
it's a lot cheaper to rent in whitby or scumthorpe
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
a housing allowance just incentivises rentiers to set their rents
to gobble it up...
Without effective ways of seizing empty properties (without
compensation), rentiers are very likely to keep them empty. The housing
allowance as you call it has already been reduced and rents are still
rising.
it is only one factor...the fnl depression has left
unit building unusually low...so has open door immigration...
so has ever rising divorce rates....so does planning

you continue to want central government edicts instead of
working markets
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
Rising population is the brontosaurus in the room. Every time the
population of a Western country looks as though it might be stabilising,
its politicians panic and encourage immigration because their economic
models are built on perpetual (and unsustainable) growth (and false
promises).
this is what fnl is anticipating...hoping for
p. 20 pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf
"England’s population is projected to grow by 7.2 million over the
next twenty years thanks to high birth rates, increased life
expectancies and continued net inwards-migration."
cameron is of course seeking ways to control the numbers
He is failing, dismally. And doing nothing about the illegal immigrants
who number at least 1,000,000 and who some believe may number 2,000,000.
of course he is failing to some degree after bliar milipede and
the clown's open door...

he is however stopping some of the abuses which he can
presently control and is working on the open door
problem....

his very success with the economy is working as a fly
trap all over the eussr
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
p46, pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf
"Introduced in 2012, Neighbourhood Plans allow communities to prepare
a development plan for their area which takes into account the local
council’s assessment of housing and other development needs
in the area. All of the Neighbourhood Plans taken through to
referendum so far have resulted in overwhelming votes in favour even
where they propose significant growth. As of June 2014, 860 areas had
been designated as neighbourhood plan areas across 57% of local
authority areas. Of the 17 plans that had been through referendum all
had been approved with an average of 87% yes vote.
note, local referendums...no socialist party will ever shift power
to the people
No party of any kind will.
there is only one party that won't
Post by Rutterkin
One they have power, the lobbyists for
landowners, builders, rentiers and banks will offer bribes and the
politicians will take the bribes.
it is the job of serious governments to control/limit corruption
Post by Rutterkin
If power was given back to the people
through referendums, politicians' most lucrative earner would go.
the tories are also moving to open primaries
Post by Rutterkin
The Lyons report looks interesting.
i've only processed 1/3rd so far...

you could always comment on(some of?) it in detail
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Rutterkin
2014-10-19 05:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:02:57 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Fixing a maximum level of rent is no different from fixing a welfare cap
or a tax ceiling.
yes it is...one is how much a market can compare...
the other is dole out of taxes
All are means of taking wealth from some and giving it to others. In the
case of landlords, the wealth is unearned.
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
Most European countries regulate their private housing
markets far more strictly, and in favour of tenants, than Britain.
and it makes a deleterious effect on employment and
the letting market
The "letting market" is part of a disease which should be eradicated.
Post by abelard
you continue to want central government edicts instead of
working markets
I prefer real democracy.
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
note, local referendums...no socialist party will ever shift power
to the people
No party of any kind will.
there is only one party that won't
"All who gain power are afraid to lose it." (Chancellor Palpatine)

No political party will give up power.
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
One they have power, the lobbyists for
landowners, builders, rentiers and banks will offer bribes and the
politicians will take the bribes.
it is the job of serious governments to control/limit corruption
It should be the job of governments to carry out the wishes of the
people, not merely to help a hereditary ruling class to perpetuate
itself at the cost of the majority.
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
If power was given back to the people
through referendums, politicians' most lucrative earner would go.
the tories are also moving to open primaries
Referendums and recalls would be better.
abelard
2014-10-19 09:17:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 06:03:46 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:02:57 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Fixing a maximum level of rent is no different from fixing a welfare cap
or a tax ceiling.
yes it is...one is how much a market can compare...
the other is dole out of taxes
All are means of taking wealth from some and giving it to others. In the
case of landlords, the wealth is unearned.
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
Most European countries regulate their private housing
markets far more strictly, and in favour of tenants, than Britain.
and it makes a deleterious effect on employment and
the letting market
The "letting market" is part of a disease which should be eradicated.
Post by abelard
you continue to want central government edicts instead of
working markets
I prefer real democracy.
central edicts are not 'democracy

what you appear to want in reality, is mob rule

preferably mob rule with your rules!
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
note, local referendums...no socialist party will ever shift power
to the people
No party of any kind will.
there is only one party that won't
"All who gain power are afraid to lose it." (Chancellor Palpatine)
No political party will give up power.
rubbish...it's a nice slogan but clearly you have never
held real power...
delegation is at the heart of sane rule, it means trusting
the judgments of others
it means knowing that micro management is incompetence

as a typical sheep, you want rules for every occasion...
the real(of which you seem very fearful) world is messy...

that is why 'capitalism' works...while socialism just produces
chaos and damage...
'capitalism' is the result on millions of people making their own
decisions...and that resulting in (mostly) sane outcomes...

where the outcomes are not sane...as in monopoly capitalism
or fraud...it is up to governments to limit those dysfunctions
by monopoly commissions and by criminal law
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
One they have power, the lobbyists for
landowners, builders, rentiers and banks will offer bribes and the
politicians will take the bribes.
it is the job of serious governments to control/limit corruption
It should be the job of governments to carry out the wishes of the
people, not merely to help a hereditary ruling class to perpetuate
itself at the cost of the majority.
'the people' do not have 'wishes'...only individuals have wishes...

your slogans are no sane replacement for analysis and thought
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
Post by Rutterkin
If power was given back to the people
through referendums, politicians' most lucrative earner would go.
the tories are also moving to open primaries
Referendums and recalls would be better.
translated into rutterise...you want referendums and recalls more
than you want primaries...

1)you have still dodged giving any account of how recalls would
work without causing constant referendums/votes for defeated
votes..
2)tories are already putting some local referendums into actions...
it is always better to run small scale experiments before trying
to introduce grand designs
3)many votes can only be advisory/explorative, because the
average sheep simply has no idea of the complexities of
many issues when applies to millions...
example...look at nurses trying to get more...without any
concern or knowledge for who and how more would be paid..
or by whom
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Bill
2014-10-18 20:27:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:02:57 +0100, Rutterkin
Post by Rutterkin
Post by abelard
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf
"England’s population is projected to grow by 7.2 million over the
next twenty years thanks to high birth rates, increased life
expectancies and continued net inwards-migration."
cameron is of course seeking ways to control the numbers
He is failing, dismally. And doing nothing about the illegal immigrants
who number at least 1,000,000 and who some believe may number 2,000,000.
Cite please.

If one in thirty of the population was an illegal immigrant they'd be
far more noticeable than they are, especially as they'd be cropping up
in hospitals with no entitlement to treatment all the time.

Even if it was your lower figure they'd be showing up far more than
they are.

That they're not gives you, as always, the lie.
Joe
2014-10-18 21:28:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:27:55 +0100
Post by Bill
If one in thirty of the population was an illegal immigrant they'd be
far more noticeable than they are, especially as they'd be cropping up
in hospitals with no entitlement to treatment all the time.
Even if it was your lower figure they'd be showing up far more than
they are.
That they're not gives you, as always, the lie.
With all due respect, illegal immigrants look exactly the same as legal
ones, and some of them look like natives.

How would they be 'noticeable'? We only spot one occasionally when an
employer gets checked, and that doesn't happen often. HMRC prefers
going after the self-employed, some of whom are not completely honest
in their expense claims.

Who maintains the records of how many illegal immigrants are here?
--
Joe
Bill
2014-10-18 22:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:27:55 +0100
Post by Bill
If one in thirty of the population was an illegal immigrant they'd be
far more noticeable than they are, especially as they'd be cropping up
in hospitals with no entitlement to treatment all the time.
Even if it was your lower figure they'd be showing up far more than
they are.
That they're not gives you, as always, the lie.
With all due respect, illegal immigrants look exactly the same as legal
ones, and some of them look like natives.
How would they be 'noticeable'? We only spot one occasionally when an
employer gets checked, and that doesn't happen often. HMRC prefers
going after the self-employed, some of whom are not completely honest
in their expense claims.
Because they get sick and have motor vehicle and industrial accidents
at much the same rate as all the rest of us.

The NHS is a remarkable organisation and it knows when it has someone
within its grasp who is not entitled to treatment. It will probably
treat them, but the records remain and should enable us to project a
reasonable estimate of the numbers of illegal immigrants there are in
the country.

It just doesn't turn up nearly enough illegal immigrants for those
figures to be anywhere near accurate.
abelard
2014-10-18 22:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:27:55 +0100
Post by Bill
If one in thirty of the population was an illegal immigrant they'd be
far more noticeable than they are, especially as they'd be cropping up
in hospitals with no entitlement to treatment all the time.
Even if it was your lower figure they'd be showing up far more than
they are.
That they're not gives you, as always, the lie.
With all due respect, illegal immigrants look exactly the same as legal
ones, and some of them look like natives.
How would they be 'noticeable'? We only spot one occasionally when an
employer gets checked, and that doesn't happen often. HMRC prefers
going after the self-employed, some of whom are not completely honest
in their expense claims.
Who maintains the records of how many illegal immigrants are here?
in france, you can't get 'free' medical services without a swipe card

in britain, my impression is the medics give out charity(funded by
the taxpayers) as part of their medical ethics!
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Bill
2014-10-18 23:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:27:55 +0100
Post by Bill
If one in thirty of the population was an illegal immigrant they'd be
far more noticeable than they are, especially as they'd be cropping up
in hospitals with no entitlement to treatment all the time.
Even if it was your lower figure they'd be showing up far more than
they are.
That they're not gives you, as always, the lie.
With all due respect, illegal immigrants look exactly the same as legal
ones, and some of them look like natives.
How would they be 'noticeable'? We only spot one occasionally when an
employer gets checked, and that doesn't happen often. HMRC prefers
going after the self-employed, some of whom are not completely honest
in their expense claims.
Who maintains the records of how many illegal immigrants are here?
in france, you can't get 'free' medical services without a swipe card
in britain, my impression is the medics give out charity(funded by
the taxpayers) as part of their medical ethics!
As usual you're making a fool of yourself.

Every NHS patient has a paper trail, everyone is fully aware of the
great stack of papers that follows them around on their every step
through the NHS.

If there's no file then questions get asked and patients get asked to
prove their entitlement to free medical care. Everyone in the UK has
a National Insurance number AND an NHS number. Very few people born
here ever needs to know their NHS number, but they most certainly do
exist.

And what's more every immigrant I know, and I know plenty, always
reports that on their first visit to an NHS hospital or GP surgery
they get asked to produce proof of their entitlement to free medical
care.

If illegals were, as claimed, over 3% of the population we'd be
seeing far more of them in our hospitals, and we're not doing so.

Or do you think that the sweepings of the gutters of Kabul and
Mogadishu display a level of good health strikingly above that of the
normal UK population?
abelard
2014-10-19 09:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:27:55 +0100
Post by Bill
If one in thirty of the population was an illegal immigrant they'd be
far more noticeable than they are, especially as they'd be cropping up
in hospitals with no entitlement to treatment all the time.
Even if it was your lower figure they'd be showing up far more than
they are.
That they're not gives you, as always, the lie.
With all due respect, illegal immigrants look exactly the same as legal
ones, and some of them look like natives.
How would they be 'noticeable'? We only spot one occasionally when an
employer gets checked, and that doesn't happen often. HMRC prefers
going after the self-employed, some of whom are not completely honest
in their expense claims.
Who maintains the records of how many illegal immigrants are here?
in france, you can't get 'free' medical services without a swipe card
in britain, my impression is the medics give out charity(funded by
the taxpayers) as part of their medical ethics!
As usual you're making a fool of yourself.
Every NHS patient has a paper trail, everyone is fully aware of the
great stack of papers that follows them around on their every step
through the NHS.
If there's no file then questions get asked and patients get asked to
prove their entitlement to free medical care. Everyone in the UK has
a National Insurance number AND an NHS number. Very few people born
here ever needs to know their NHS number, but they most certainly do
exist.
And what's more every immigrant I know, and I know plenty, always
reports that on their first visit to an NHS hospital or GP surgery
they get asked to produce proof of their entitlement to free medical
care.
If illegals were, as claimed, over 3% of the population we'd be
seeing far more of them in our hospitals, and we're not doing so.
Or do you think that the sweepings of the gutters of Kabul and
Mogadishu display a level of good health strikingly above that of the
normal UK population?
in your usual mindless manner, you are once more confusing
bureaucratic rules with the real world and real life
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
JNugent
2014-10-17 16:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
What he did was tell a Tory councillor at a fringe meeting at Conservative
Party conference that he understood the suggestion and would discuss it
with colleagues after the conference.
What he should have said was that the "minimum wage" was just that - the
absolute minimum any human being should be paid for working in this country.
It should not be the normal rate of pay, but the absolute minimum and if
some people are worth more than others then they should be paid above that
rate.
That last bit doesn't make sense.

The function of a minimum wage (let's say it's £6 an hour) is that all
workers whose output is worth £6 an hour OR LESS are entitled to be paid
£6 an hour.

Your sentence seems to say that the minimum wage is relevant only to the
to the worker whose output is worth least and that everyone else should
get more than the minimum.
Post by John
Even that bafoon Boris Johnson concedes that the minimum wage is too low and
that employers should at least pay the "living wage", which is only a few
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/
That's gibberish.

If you "think" that the MW rate is too low, you should campaign to have
it increased.
Post by John
As it is the minimum wage is only tenable because a significant number of
people earning it are subsidised by various working credits - in effect a
hidden subsidy to business.
Wrong.

This has been explained too many times to bore you with it again in
detail, but briefly, not every worker has the same objective "needs". A
single person living with parents and working for minimum wage may well
not be entitled to any social security benefits on top (for obvious
reasons).

There is no subsidy in respect of such a worker. It automatically
follows that if the same employer also employs a family man with a wife
and six children (whose "needs" are proportionately greater than those
of the single person described above) on the same wages, the benefits
paid to that worker are not a subsidy to the employer.

The benefit could only be that if the employer had a duty to pay more
wages to the family man. But he doesn't have any such duty. See whether
you can work out why. It's fairly obvious.
Loading...