Mike wrote:
In message , Mabon
writes

"Jo Lonergan" wrote in message
...

How long is it since slavery was last legal in the UK?

I don't know, but I remember, not so long ago, that there were
various compulsory schemes forcing unemployed people to carry out
unpaid community work in return for keeping their full benefit
entitlement.

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that. They are,
effectively, being given jobs. I would expect them to be paid at
least the minimum wage though and given paid holidays.

That would be called having a job then eh? And would probably lose them any
entitlement to Council Tax benefits, Housing Benefits, Free prescriptions
etc. If it didn't result in loss of these benefits I'd sign for such a
scheme tomorrow.

"Comfortably Numb" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:
In message , Mabon
writes

"Jo Lonergan" wrote in message
...

How long is it since slavery was last legal in the UK?

I don't know, but I remember, not so long ago, that there were
various compulsory schemes forcing unemployed people to carry out
unpaid community work in return for keeping their full benefit
entitlement.

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that. They are,
effectively, being given jobs. I would expect them to be paid at
least the minimum wage though and given paid holidays.

That would be called having a job then eh? And would probably lose them
any
entitlement to Council Tax benefits, Housing Benefits, Free prescriptions
etc. If it didn't result in loss of these benefits I'd sign for such a
scheme tomorrow.

It doesn't sound so much like slavery now, does it? Just that the schemes I
remember were before the introduction of the minimum wage.

In article ,
says...

[Regarding the issue of rejected asylum seekers being compelled in
future to do community work to earn their keep...]

It would be interesting to have a poll as to who thinks
that life generally has improved in the UK since New Labour
came to power.


I think the answer people would give would depend on a wide variety of
factors, as it would regardless of which party was in power for a series
of terms.

Some measures have improved life for one section of the public, and
others done the same in reverse for the same sections. Or have made no
difference at all to various sections.

Since most people overlap across a variety of situations most people
will probably have become better off on some issues and worse off on
others and pretty much not noticed an appreciable difference overall.

At the same time people move between sections over time too with things
like job promotions, illness and disability, starting a family, kids
flying the nest etc.

The other thing is that people's perceptions can be affected by what
they experience themselves as well as what the statistics and measures
say - sometimes

On the original topic of the thread...

My personal feelings on the situation over asylum seekers (and economic
migrants for that matter) is that the government is giving them a raw
deal. When someone comes into the country fleeing persecution they are
quite likely NOT to have conventional ID, nor much grasp of the language
beyond everyday things like shopping etc. They certainly shouldn't be
expected to know the laws here inside out in order to know about time
limits such as 24-48 hrs for making legal/official asylum applications
etc. Nor, I think, should they be legally prohibited from working
(earning!) to keep themselves and their families if any whilst waiting
for their asylum applications to be processed and/or
departure/deportation. It seems extremely hypocritical when some folk on
one hand complain that the immigrants are 'sponging' off the benefit
system whilst at the same time complaining that they shouldn't be
allowed to work because that would deny 'natives' a job!

Many of those who have the wherewithal (cash/knowledge/initiative) to
get out of an unsafe country and travel to a safe country are already
professionally qualified and could fill (after perhaps some conversion
and language courses) gaps in things like the Health Service, education
etc where we simply don't generate enough people to fill the vacancies
available! Why do we actively 'poach' medical professionals from some
less developed countries, yet deny asylum seekers with the same skills
the opportunity to fill those vacancies when they arrive here? It's
crazy!

As for those who are accused of not stopping in the first 'safe' country
they come to in Europe... how many have come to Britain (rather than say
France, Germany, Spain etc) because they already have family/friends
here rather than in those other countries? And why should the 'safe'
countries bordering the countries being fled from be expected to take
and keep the burden of all those fleeing an 'unsafe' country?

Regarding the issue of community work for rejected asylum seekers, why
not simply do the same for all asylum seekeers (rejected or not) and all
*native* unemployed who claim JSA?

/rant

:-))

In message , Comfortably Numb
writes
Mike wrote:

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that. They are,
effectively, being given jobs. I would expect them to be paid at
least the minimum wage though and given paid holidays.

That would be called having a job then eh?

Exactly. People are unemployed because they can't find work (in theory
anyway). If the Government can find work for them to do, then they can
be employed to do that work.

And would probably lose them any
entitlement to Council Tax benefits, Housing Benefits, Free prescriptions
etc. If it didn't result in loss of these benefits I'd sign for such a
scheme tomorrow.

I not au fait with the benefits rules but I believe the above are
dependent on income and can be claimed by employed and unemployed alike.

--
Mike

"Mabon" wrote

That would be called having a job then eh? And would probably
lose them any entitlement to Council Tax benefits, Housing
Benefits, Free prescriptions etc. If it didn't result in loss of
these benefits I'd sign for such a scheme tomorrow.

It doesn't sound so much like slavery now, does it?

Doesn't it? So if a person is given free housing, food, clothing and some
form of medical treatment, it is nothing like slavery even if they get no
payment for the work they are forced to do and are excluded from living in
the same places as "free" people? If that is the case, then slaves have
never existed.

The scheme is stupid for several reasons. One being that if a person is
forced to do unpaid work against their will, there is no incentive to do a
good job and get promotion etc., and every incentive to deliberately work as
little as possible and cock things up.

--
Cynic

Comfortably Numb wrote:
Mike wrote:
In message , Mabon
writes

"Jo Lonergan" wrote in message
...

How long is it since slavery was last legal in the UK?

I don't know, but I remember, not so long ago, that there were
various compulsory schemes forcing unemployed people to carry out
unpaid community work in return for keeping their full benefit
entitlement.

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that. They are,
effectively, being given jobs. I would expect them to be paid at
least the minimum wage though and given paid holidays.

That would be called having a job then eh? And would probably lose
them any entitlement to Council Tax benefits, Housing Benefits, Free
prescriptions etc. If it didn't result in loss of these benefits I'd
sign for such a scheme tomorrow.

Should have mentioned that I'm not on benefits btw but if I could receive
minimum wage, paid holidays and benefits I'd consider giving up work :-)

Mike wrote:

In message , Comfortably Numb
writes
Mike wrote:

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that. They are,
effectively, being given jobs. I would expect them to be paid at
least the minimum wage though and given paid holidays.

That would be called having a job then eh?

Exactly. People are unemployed because they can't find work (in
theory anyway). If the Government can find work for them to do, then
they can be employed to do that work.

And would probably lose them any
entitlement to Council Tax benefits, Housing Benefits, Free
prescriptions etc. If it didn't result in loss of these benefits I'd
sign for such a scheme tomorrow.

I not au fait with the benefits rules but I believe the above are
dependent on income and can be claimed by employed and unemployed
alike.

Only if you work less than 16 hours a week AFAIA. I work 37.5 hours a week
for little more than minimum wage and I am not entitled to a red cent in
benefits.

If I could get paid minimum wage, receive paid holidays and receive council
tax benefits, housing benefits (help with the mortgage), free prescriptions
and whatever else an unemployed person gets these days then I'd consider
swapping my current council job for the type of "government" job you
outlined. :-)

"Anthony Edwards" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:05:08 +0100, Bloomin Heck
wrote:

It would be interesting to have a poll as to who thinks
that life generally has improved in the UK since New Labour
came to power.

"It's the economy, stupid".

Since 1997, this country has enjoyed its longest period of sustained
economic success and prosperity in living memory (that is almost
entirely the responsibility of Gordon Brown, however New Labour as
a whole will of course take credit for it).

The great majority of the population, and I am slightly ashamed to
admit myself included, will continue to vote for New Labour in general
elections for as long as that remains so. If I were a younger man,
I may be tempted to vote for a different party as a principled protest
against some of New Labour's legislative measures (although I suspect
that a Conservative government under Michael Howard would be
infinitely worse), but at 47 economic stability is more personally
important to me than other considerations.

Interesting view. Of course Gordon has reaped the benefits sown by the
Conservatives, and largely followed conservative economic policy during his
first term. The effects of the sly tax increases are now beginning to show,
the additional spend is not producing proportionate results and, I predict,
that economic stability is about to disappear. A third term of New Labour
will almost certainly demonstrate this conclusively.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Cynic wrote:
"Mabon" wrote

That would be called having a job then eh? And would probably
lose them any entitlement to Council Tax benefits, Housing
Benefits, Free prescriptions etc. If it didn't result in loss of
these benefits I'd sign for such a scheme tomorrow.

It doesn't sound so much like slavery now, does it?

Doesn't it? So if a person is given free housing, food, clothing and
some form of medical treatment, it is nothing like slavery even if
they get no payment for the work they are forced to do and are
excluded from living in the same places as "free" people? If that is
the case, then slaves have never existed.


You missed out the bit about being transported against their will from
their homes to areas they didn't want to be and refused permission to
return. Hardly applicable in this case?

So if a person is given free housing, food, clothing and medical
treatment and nothing is demanded of them, what do you call that.
Utopia?


The scheme is stupid for several reasons. One being that if a person
is forced to do unpaid work against their will, there is no incentive
to do a good job and get promotion etc., and every incentive to
deliberately work as little as possible and cock things up.

Agreed.

--

regards

LFR

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
"Mabon" wrote

That would be called having a job then eh? And would probably
lose them any entitlement to Council Tax benefits, Housing
Benefits, Free prescriptions etc. If it didn't result in loss of
these benefits I'd sign for such a scheme tomorrow.

It doesn't sound so much like slavery now, does it?

Doesn't it? So if a person is given free housing, food, clothing and some
form of medical treatment, it is nothing like slavery even if they get no
payment for the work they are forced to do and are excluded from living in
the same places as "free" people? If that is the case, then slaves have
never existed.

Oh, I think they have, but I believe the modern day slavedrivers have had
many of their bonus incentives removed over the years.
They are no longer allowed to horse-whip, pistol-whip, shoot or otherwise
maim slack workers.

The scheme is stupid for several reasons. One being that if a person is
forced to do unpaid work against their will, there is no incentive to do a
good job and get promotion etc., and every incentive to deliberately work
as
little as possible and cock things up.

A good case for reintroducing the "bonus incentives" then? ;-)