Theresa May says Britain will be 'poorer' and public services 'weaker' without EU workers

by eddie Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:04 pm

First topic message reminder :

PM: Britain will be 'poorer' without EU workers
MPs debate Brexit Bill amendments
PM will refuse to offer a compromise to rebel Tory MPs
May hosts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Number 10 expects to win Wednesday's crunch vote
Government will not back any of the amendments
UK travellers could face higher roaming charges post Brexit
Theresa May has insisted that she will be able to get an "early agreement" on the rights of EU citizens living in Britain, as she sought to ease the concerns of rebel Tory MPs.

The Prime Minister said Britain would be "poorer" and public services "weaker" without the contribution of EU workers and that guaranteeing their rights would be a "priority" during the Brexit negotiations.

Speaking in the Commons this afternoon, Mrs May warned potential rebel MPs they will be "obstructing" the will of the people if they vote to amend the Brexit Bill.

She told MPs this afternoon that the "general view" from EU leaders during the summit in Valletta last week was that the UK and EU need to reach an agreement that applies equally to citizens of both parties.

This means that Britain taking a unilateral decision to guarantee EU nationals' status is "not the right way forward", she said.

She told MPs: I have every expectation from the good will I have seen that it will be possible to get an early agreement on this matter to give people the reassurance that they need.

"I have said before, EU citizens living in the UK make a vital contribution to our economy and our society and without them we would be poorer and our public services weaker.

"So we will make securing the reciprocal agreement that will guarantee their status a priority as soon as the negotiations begin, and I want to see this agreed as soon as possible because that is in everyone's interests."

Number 10 expects to win the crunch vote to trigger the formal exit of the EU on Wednesday, despite suggestions that as many as a dozen Tories could rebel and join with other parties to vote for "wrecking" amendments.

The changes MPs are demanding include protection for EU citizens and a vote on the final Brexit deal before it has been agreed.

Speaking this afternoon, Mrs May warned pro-Remain Tories against backing amendments seeking to ensure Parliament gets a say on the "endgame" if Brexit negotiations collapse without a deal.

The Bill is returning to the Commons today for a further three days of debate during committee stage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/brexit-debate-article-50-bill-live/

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:13 pm

What hours can I work?

First things first: you have to know your rights. You might be willing to work every available hour and start seriously saving some cash, but it’s equally important to know exactly what you’re entitled to. What’s more, you need to make sure your employer is similarly aware.

In terms of hours, it’s broken down by the following:
Term time

For 15 to 16-year-olds, you can work 12 hours a week (maximum)
Of this 12 hours, a maximum of two hours on school days and Sundays
A maximum of eight hours on a Saturday

School holidays

For 15 to 16-year-olds, you can work 35 hours a week (maximum)
A maximum of eight hours on a Saturdays and weekdays
A maximum of two hours on a Sunday

For 16 to 17-year-olds, you can work 40 hours per week, a maximum of eight hours per day. Legally you cannot work more than this (even if you want to).

https://www.reed.co.uk/career-advice/jobs-for-16-year-olds/

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:13 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I do believe it Thor....you can learn a lot listening to live TV and radio debates, plus just listening to what local people say.

So are you saying the call centre jobs for UK companies are advertised in the UK....even when they are based in Mumbai?

Then you are very gullible if you believe something without evidence
What is wrong with UK companies having centers in other countries, just like we have foreign owned companies with branches here?

I'm not gullible but you do refuse to believe evidence that often foreign workers are favoured over Brits....with the Brits not even being given the opportunity to apply.
The fact that many jobs are advertised in Polish when the vacancies are for English to be written and spoken.... the bonus the employer will get if he hires an immigrant over a Brit..... UK companies basing lots of work in far flung places..... EU workers accepting low wages and conditions....all factors in ensuring many people here cant get jobs they would be very capable of doing given the chance.

Off out....laters. x

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:13 pm

Look, if young people can legally leave school when they're 16, why are there now further rules imposed on them whereby they must continue in further education or training, whether they work or not? If they're old enough to leave school, they're old enough to work without strings attached. Does it have to be an official apprenticeship or can they just get a full time job which involves training - like most jobs really?

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Look, if young people can legally leave school when they're 16, why are there now further rules imposed on them whereby they must continue in further education or training, whether they work or not? If they're old enough to leave school, they're old enough to work without strings attached. Does it have to be an official apprenticeship or can they just get a full time job which involves training - like most jobs really?

That I am not sure on, I would have to research further, but lets take a reality check here
Any job related training is going to be far better, than anything they learn in school.
This is ensuring many youngsters, will have real job qualifications, that start them on the road in their working life. Its easing them into work.
I think its a good scheme.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:17 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Then you are very gullible if you believe something without evidence
What is wrong with UK companies having centers in other countries, just like we have foreign owned companies with branches here?

I'm not gullible but you do refuse to believe evidence that often foreign workers are favoured over Brits....with the Brits not even being given the opportunity to apply.
The fact that many jobs are advertised in Polish when the vacancies are for English to be written and spoken.... the bonus the employer will get if he hires an immigrant over a Brit..... UK companies basing lots of work in far flung places..... EU workers accepting low wages and conditions....all factors in ensuring many people here cant get jobs they would be very capable of doing given the chance.

Off out....laters. x

What evidence?

I am still waiting for you to present any

Again a job should be open to anyone, which includes people abroad

Why are people so obsessed over who can apply for jobs?

Laters

x

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:22 pm

Thorin wrote:
What hours can I work?

First things first: you have to know your rights. You might be willing to work every available hour and start seriously saving some cash, but it’s equally important to know exactly what you’re entitled to. What’s more, you need to make sure your employer is similarly aware.

In terms of hours, it’s broken down by the following:
Term time

For 15 to 16-year-olds, you can work 12 hours a week (maximum)

Of this 12 hours, a maximum of two hours on school days and Sundays

A maximum of eight hours on a Saturday

School holidays

For 15 to 16-year-olds, you can work 35 hours a week (maximum)

A maximum of eight hours on a Saturdays and weekdays

A maximum of two hours on a Sunday

For 16 to 17-year-olds, you can work 40 hours per week, a maximum of eight hours per day. Legally you cannot work more than this (even if you want to).

https://www.reed.co.uk/career-advice/jobs-for-16-year-olds/

That article is outdated.
Going by the rates of pay it applied in 2014.
The law has changed since then.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:26 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:
What hours can I work?

First things first: you have to know your rights. You might be willing to work every available hour and start seriously saving some cash, but it’s equally important to know exactly what you’re entitled to. What’s more, you need to make sure your employer is similarly aware.

In terms of hours, it’s broken down by the following:
Term time

For 15 to 16-year-olds, you can work 12 hours a week (maximum)

Of this 12 hours, a maximum of two hours on school days and Sundays

A maximum of eight hours on a Saturday

School holidays

For 15 to 16-year-olds, you can work 35 hours a week (maximum)

A maximum of eight hours on a Saturdays and weekdays

A maximum of two hours on a Sunday

For 16 to 17-year-olds, you can work 40 hours per week, a maximum of eight hours per day. Legally you cannot work more than this (even if you want to).

https://www.reed.co.uk/career-advice/jobs-for-16-year-olds/

That article is outdated.
Going by the rates of pay it applied in 2014.
The law has changed since then.

No its not out of date

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:27 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Rubbish....by the time they are legally entitled to work full time without still keeping up education they have been left behind by the kids who stayed full time in college or the kids that managed to find an apprenticeship at 16..

Everything you said was pure gibberish
Wow, so now you are saying that families should not care for their children and that the Governement should step in because now you claim its a hardship?
WTF?
My parents at no stage thought it was hardship and were poor. We were grateful for everything they did for us, because they placed us first and never expected anything from others. There was no such thing then when I grew up as housing benefits. They knew it was their responsibility, as they made the choice to have so many children. Sorry, but how dare you place the burden on the Government for where people decide to have children.

No they can again get full time work
They also get further job related training far better than any qualification they will obtain in school

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:28 pm

Children can only start full-time work once they've reached the minimum school leaving age - they can then work up to a maximum of 40 hours a week. Once someone reaches 16, you may need to pay them through PAYE . Once someone reaches 18, adult employment rights and rules then apply.25 Oct 2016

Child employment - GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:37 pm

Right, I have things to do, so catch you all later

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:48 pm

Thorin wrote:Children can only start full-time work once they've reached the minimum school leaving age - they can then work up to a maximum of 40 hours a week. Once someone reaches 16, you may need to pay them through PAYE . Once someone reaches 18, adult employment rights and rules then apply.25 Oct 2016

Child employment - GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

The first link you posted was out of date Thor...the minimum wage on that link applied in 2014.
The link above is the updated one....and it also states very clearly that...

In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:51 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:Children can only start full-time work once they've reached the minimum school leaving age - they can then work up to a maximum of 40 hours a week. Once someone reaches 16, you may need to pay them through PAYE . Once someone reaches 18, adult employment rights and rules then apply.25 Oct 2016

Child employment - GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

The first link you posted was out of date Thor...the minimum wage on that link applied in 2014.
The link above is the updated one....and it also states very clearly that...

In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18.

No its not out of date as this Government link is from last year

They may well have to be in education or training, but they can still work full time

40 hours a week, just as students can work full time hours

Has this point sunk in yet?

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:56 pm

Thorin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Everything you said was pure gibberish
Wow, so now you are saying that families should not care for their children and that the Governement should step in because now you claim its a hardship?
WTF?
My parents at no stage thought it was hardship and were poor. We were grateful for everything they did for us, because they placed us first and never expected anything from others. There was no such thing then when I grew up as housing benefits. They knew it was their responsibility, as they made the choice to have so many children. Sorry, but how dare you place the burden on the Government for where people decide to have children.

No they can again get full time work
They also get further job related training far better than any qualification they will obtain in school

You are deliberately twisting what I am writing.

Of course families should care for their children, I pointed out that in the past when 16 year olds were ALLOWED to work full time after leaving education (in my day it was 15) it was a great help to poorer families.

Now they cannot. If the youngster is not benefiting from the extra 2 years at college or school they are still unable to get a full time paid job unless its an apprenticeship.

We are going round in circles now...you are cherry picking what I am saying and then twisting it.

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:01 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

The first link you posted was out of date Thor...the minimum wage on that link applied in 2014.
The link above is the updated one....and it also states very clearly that...

In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18.

No its not out of date as this Government link is from last year

They may well have to be in education or training, but they can still work full time

40 hours a week, just as students can work full time hours

Has this point sunk in yet?

.... are we playing my fonts bigger than your font... tongue

Right...listen, I will say this only once (more)
The first link you posted was out of date.
The second link was not, and included the ALL IMPORTANT info that a person cannot work full time unless its an apprenticship OR they also carry on with their education.

That's it in a nutshell...thank you.
Over and out. x

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:02 pm

Syl wrote:

You are deliberately twisting what I am writing.

Of course families should care for their children, I pointed out that in the past when 16 year olds were ALLOWED to work full time after leaving education (in my day it was 15) it was a great help to poorer families.

Now they cannot. If the youngster is not benefiting from the extra 2 years at college or school they are still unable to get a full time paid job unless its an apprenticeship.

We are going round in circles now...you are cherry picking what I am saying and then twisting it.

I am not twisting anything, You claim that parents have top face hardship for making the choice to have children and that the Government should shoulder the burden when they reach 16 and not 18, because you want to pass off responsibility. 16 year olds as seen can still work full time when leaving school. What they get now is the added benefit, of actual training in work qualifications. Helping set them up to be employed when they turn 18. There are many people with full time jobs who attend college at night and you seem to think 16-18 year old's should get a free pass in life. Everyone has to work and study and those under 18 its no different, but they should still work full timer and if they are actually positive will grasp these opportunities.

Dont dare give me any crap this is hard, they only have themselves to blame if they are not driven to succeed if they have parents that smother them.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:03 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

No its not out of date as this Government link is from last year

They may well have to be in education or training, but they can still work full time

40 hours a week, just as students can work full time hours

Has this point sunk in yet?

.... are we playing my fonts bigger than your font...

Right...listen, I will say this only once (more)
The first link you posted was out of date.
The second link was not, and included the ALL IMPORTANT info that a person cannot work full time unless its an apprenticship OR they also carry on with their education.

That's it in a nutshell...thank you.
Over and out. x

So they can still work full time

Fucking hell you are being dense today Syl

Razz

x

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:05 pm

So what happens if a young person is working full time, and doing part-time further education, and then drops out of that? Does he/she have to give up the full time job or what?

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So what happens if a young person is working full time, and doing part-time further education, and then drops out of that? Does he/she have to give up the full time job or what?

Repercussions, like any contract.
This about their future, so why would they want to drop out unless they are lazy?
How many employers would then want to employ someone who quit.
Its trying to teach children to be responsible and they should be when it comes to the real world Rags.

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:12 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So what happens if a young person is working full time, and doing part-time further education, and then drops out of that? Does he/she have to give up the full time job or what?

Repercussions, like any contract.
This about their future, so why would they want to drop out unless they are lazy?
How many employers would then want to employ someone who quit.
Its trying to teach children to be responsible and they should be when it comes to the real world Rags.

They're hardly lazy if they're working full time. Maybe they don't think the course they're doing is useful, or maybe they're too tired to carry on with it.

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So what happens if a young person is working full time, and doing part-time further education, and then drops out of that? Does he/she have to give up the full time job or what?

Legally....yes.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Repercussions, like any contract.
This about their future, so why would they want to drop out unless they are lazy?
How many employers would then want to employ someone who quit.
Its trying to teach children to be responsible and they should be when it comes to the real world Rags.

They're hardly lazy if they're working full time. Maybe they don't think the course they're doing is useful, or maybe they're too tired to carry on with it.

To quit is being lazy and also resignation, a sign of defeat
At most its for two years
If its not useful, then they can change to another one.
There is nothing stopping them doing that.
This is about proving you are committed to achieving.
Again what sort of attitude are you showing to employers if you quit at the first difficulties?

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:24 pm

Some youngsters have a lot more about them than others....we are not all made equal.
The ones who for whatever reason cant or wont carry on in full education, even if they do find a low skilled job (assuming they have not all been taken by foreigners) may find it hard to work full time AND carry on in an education system they couldn't wait to leave in the first place.

Ultimately you are driving young people onto benefits as soon as they are old enough to get them.
Bad for them bad for society.

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:26 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:Also Syl, have just researched your claims on Costa coffe and Butlins, after you said them.
I find nothing to back your claim, they only advertise abroad

Butlins will obviously deny they didn't advertise here, but there was an outcry from locals that they had bee waiting for vacancies to be advertised....and the vacancies were filled from overseas workers before locals had a chance to apply.
Same with Costa coffee, I cant find a link but there was news coverage on radio and TV at the time.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2013-03-03/butlins-recruiting-abroad-for-minehead-jobs/

These quotes are interesting to.

"British recruitment websites are specifically targeting Eastern Europeans when thousands of Britons are struggling to find work themselves.
The jobs advertised on indeed.com include an English speaking nurse and hotel staff, while jobs are also being posted in Polish on Polish websites."

Quote from the Telegraph....

"UK firms are given as much as £1,000 as a bonus for taking on the foreign workers."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/612310/British-recruiters-advertise-jobs-abroad-Polish-workers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10205511/UK-jobs-being-advertised-across-the-EU-at-taxpayers-expense-it-emerges.html

http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/27/800000-british-jobs-advertised-to-foreign-workers-in-the-eu-3900683/

The £1000 paid to companies from eu for every foreign eu person they employ is true... and the person themselves can also claim a similar amount too for 'relocation' costs...

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:26 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They're hardly lazy if they're working full time. Maybe they don't think the course they're doing is useful, or maybe they're too tired to carry on with it.

To quit is being lazy and also resignation, a sign of defeat
At most its for two years
If its not useful, then they can change to another one.
There is nothing stopping them doing that.
This is about proving you are committed to achieving.
Again what sort of attitude are you showing to employers if you quit at the first difficulties?

So what? It's not against the law to be lazy or to quit something. Anyway, I'm talking about the legality of them carrying on working. It seems stupid to sack someone because they gave up their college course. They might be brilliant at their job.

You accused TD,YK of believing in a system of Totalitarianism, but it seems to be you who's in favour of it.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:32 pm

Syl wrote:Some youngsters have a lot more about them than others....we are not all made equal.
The ones who for whatever reason cant or wont carry on in full education, even if they do find a low skilled job (assuming they have not all been taken by foreigners) may find it hard to work full time AND carry on in an education system they couldn't wait to leave in the first place.

Ultimately you are driving young people onto benefits as soon as they are old enough to get them.
Bad for them bad for society.

Sorry but I have zero sympathy if they find it hard to do full time hours.
I remember when my father left the army and did two jobs, because he knew he had to care for his family.
He would get up early in the morning and go work in the bakery, come home grab a couple of hours sleep and then go work at the Post office. He even then always found time to talk and play with us. He was committed and driven to look after his family. He placed all of us before himself. When he left home at 14, he went and worked in Canada, and sent half his money home to his parents. He was not smothered by his mum, who sent him off to work in Canada. She taught him how to be responsible.

If kids today think this is hard, then they have been mollycoddled. The parents have failed to raise them as responsible people. Ones that want to do their part. Not think the world should look after them. What sort of message are you sending to the youth of today Syl? To say they should not strive and be proud they can achieve for themselves? Or do you pander and encourage them to quit at the first sign of defeat? Seriously, what are we teaching children today? To be quitters? That is okay to rely on others and not look after ourselves? This initiative is actually ensuring they have a better chance in the employment world. What needs to change is the ethos of some parents and the youth, that the world is not there to support them. That they also have to play their part.

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:33 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
The uk govts job is to look after the best interests of the uk people.

Foreigners should not be let into the country to do jobs that we have uk people here willing and able to do.

That amounts to 2.283 million jobs.
So you want to now be prejudiced towards people even coming to work here, even though Brits can work abroad.
You poorly trying to enforce your prejudice views again on people
Again we have equality as he main frame for employment in the UK
You though wish to destroy that with prejudice and allow for a situation where its then possible that the person chosen is not the best candidate.

Our young people and other unskilled uk workers need full access to the unskilled jobs here in uk, and their opportunities need to be protected from unskilled foreigners being allowed into our country to take these jobs and thereby having a detrimental effect on the life chances of those uk citizens.

We need proper controls and limits and a skills list like in australia where only foreigners with the skills needed to fill jobs where there aren't enough uk workers available here with the necessary skills.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

To quit is being lazy and also resignation, a sign of defeat
At most its for two years
If its not useful, then they can change to another one.
There is nothing stopping them doing that.
This is about proving you are committed to achieving.
Again what sort of attitude are you showing to employers if you quit at the first difficulties?

So what? It's not against the law to be lazy or to quit something. Anyway, I'm talking about the legality of them carrying on working. It seems stupid to sack someone because they gave up their college course. They might be brilliant at their job.

You accused TD,YK of believing in a system of Totalitarianism, but it seems to be you who's in favour of it.

So you are defending a lazy ethos and one of irresponsibility?
Its not against the law to quit, but again as this is the chance to prove to future employers, this is their moment to prove how valuable they would be to perspective employers
Show me where I am being totalitarian in my views
I stated contract.
I expect an apology, if you cannot back up your poor accusation

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

That amounts to 2.283 million jobs.
So you want to now be prejudiced towards people even coming to work here, even though Brits can work abroad.
You poorly trying to enforce your prejudice views again on people
Again we have equality as he main frame for employment in the UK
You though wish to destroy that with prejudice and allow for a situation where its then possible that the person chosen is not the best candidate.

Our young people and other unskilled uk workers need full access to the unskilled jobs here in uk, and their opportunities need to be protected from unskilled foreigners being allowed into our country to take these jobs and thereby having a detrimental effect on the life chances of those uk citizens.

We need proper controls and limits and a skills list like in australia where only foreigners with the skills needed to fill jobs where there aren't enough uk workers available here with the necessary skills.

1) They have access to unskilled jobs and can apply for them just like anyone else.

2) So protecting them, means forcing employers to discriminate

3) Based on this an employer is faced with not being able to hire someone foreign with a good reference on time keeping and attendance for example. He is then forced to employ someone with a bog standard reference. That they worked at a previous company.

You see Tommy, I know two HR Managers and they tell me often that those British born are poor at attendance and time keeping in unskilled work. Those foreign born are not. Now this is hearsay, but I have seen this in the company I work for. The reality is, there is and has been a culture of benefits, that started under Labour and will take years to change. As some people simple have no wish or interest to work. Of course there is many more that want to, but British born people give themselves a bad name with their attendance and time keeping. Not only that they think the work is beneath them and that the world owes them a favour

Again a job should be open to anyone and the best candidate chosen

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:45 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So what? It's not against the law to be lazy or to quit something. Anyway, I'm talking about the legality of them carrying on working. It seems stupid to sack someone because they gave up their college course. They might be brilliant at their job.

You accused TD,YK of believing in a system of Totalitarianism, but it seems to be you who's in favour of it.

So you are defending a lazy ethos and one of irresponsibility?
Its not against the law to quit, but again as this is the chance to prove to future employers, this is their moment to prove how valuable they would be to perspective employers
Show me where I am being totalitarian in my views
I stated contract.
I expect an apology, if you cannot back up your poor accusation

You're in favour of making a young person do something they might not want to do. It's not up to the Government or you to tell anyone how they should live their life. You will get no apology.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you are defending a lazy ethos and one of irresponsibility?
Its not against the law to quit, but again as this is the chance to prove to future employers, this is their moment to prove how valuable they would be to perspective employers
Show me where I am being totalitarian in my views
I stated contract.
I expect an apology, if you cannot back up your poor accusation

You're in favour of making a young person do something they might not want to do. It's not up to the Government or you to tell anyone how they should live their life. You will get no apology.

Wrong, where did I say they should be forced to do anything?
I never did
You owe me an apology
I only spoke of them quitting and possible repercussions to this via a contract, as all employers have.
Next you will be telling me children should just bunk off school.
Its not up to the Government to support those who have no ethos to help themselves.
Why should he Government help those who do not want to help themselves?
You just show exactly what is wrong with society today, those that are takers, thinking the world has to give to them. When they never did anything to pay for the education they received. Thinking the world should look after them, without them doing anything to contribute

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:07 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:Some youngsters have a lot more about them than others....we are not all made equal.
The ones who for whatever reason cant or wont carry on in full education, even if they do find a low skilled job (assuming they have not all been taken by foreigners) may find it hard to work full time AND carry on in an education system they couldn't wait to leave in the first place.

Ultimately you are driving young people onto benefits as soon as they are old enough to get them.
Bad for them bad for society.

Sorry but I have zero sympathy if they find it hard to do full time hours.
I remember when my father left the army and did two jobs, because he knew he had to care for his family.
He would get up early in the morning and go work in the bakery, come home grab a couple of hours sleep and then go work at the Post office. He even then always found time to talk and play with us. He was committed and driven to look after his family. He placed all of us before himself. When he left home at 14, he went and worked in Canada, and sent half his money home to his parents. He was not smothered by his mum, who sent him off to work in Canada. She taught him how to be responsible.

If kids today think this is hard, then they have been mollycoddled. The parents have failed to raise them as responsible people. Ones that want to do their part. Not think the world should look after them. What sort of message are you sending to the youth of today Syl? To say they should not strive and be proud they can achieve for themselves? Or do you pander and encourage them to quit at the first sign of defeat? Seriously, what are we teaching children today? To be quitters? That is okay to rely on others and not look after ourselves? This initiative is actually ensuring they have a better chance in the employment world. What needs to change is the ethos of some parents and the youth, that the world is not there to support them. That they also have to play their part.

The way I see it is many 16 year old would be willing to work full time, but if they have no interest in furthering their school education its putting obstacle in their way from the start.

Your dad sounds like a fine hard working man Thor, my mum worked 3 cleaning jobs to bring 2 girls up single handedly (pre benefit culture)....but whereas some people will do everything they can to be independent others might need help.

Denying kids the chance to work full time and earn a wage unless they stay in education is not helping the less academic, its hindering them for an added 2 years.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:11 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Sorry but I have zero sympathy if they find it hard to do full time hours.
I remember when my father left the army and did two jobs, because he knew he had to care for his family.
He would get up early in the morning and go work in the bakery, come home grab a couple of hours sleep and then go work at the Post office. He even then always found time to talk and play with us. He was committed and driven to look after his family. He placed all of us before himself. When he left home at 14, he went and worked in Canada, and sent half his money home to his parents. He was not smothered by his mum, who sent him off to work in Canada. She taught him how to be responsible.

If kids today think this is hard, then they have been mollycoddled. The parents have failed to raise them as responsible people. Ones that want to do their part. Not think the world should look after them. What sort of message are you sending to the youth of today Syl? To say they should not strive and be proud they can achieve for themselves? Or do you pander and encourage them to quit at the first sign of defeat? Seriously, what are we teaching children today? To be quitters? That is okay to rely on others and not look after ourselves? This initiative is actually ensuring they have a better chance in the employment world. What needs to change is the ethos of some parents and the youth, that the world is not there to support them. That they also have to play their part.

The way I see it is many 16 year old would be willing to work full time, but if they have no interest in furthering their school education its putting obstacle in their way from the start.

Your dad sounds like a fine hard working man Thor, my mum worked 3 cleaning jobs to bring 2 girls up single handedly (pre benefit culture)....but whereas some people will do everything they can to be independent others might need help.

Denying kids the chance to work full time and earn a wage unless they stay in education is not helping the less academic, its hindering them for an added 2 years.

How is it putting an obstacle in the way, when its going to benefit them in getting employment?

For goodness sake, they are not being denied the opportunity to do full time work. It just means they have to also continue to study. Whether that be through a college or through an employer. Its there to benefit them.
This still gives them plenty of money in their pocket and also the ability to start paying some rent to their parents, as they should. Learning good responsible values.

This is the problem, kids today, think they should have a free ride and not pay back to society, for what it has given to them. An opportunity to succeed, but many do not want that and expect everything on a plate.

Stop making excuses for them and the only hindrance is the negative views you are giving them

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:11 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Our young people and other unskilled uk workers need full access to the unskilled jobs here in uk, and their opportunities need to be protected from unskilled foreigners being allowed into our country to take these jobs and thereby having a detrimental effect on the life chances of those uk citizens.

We need proper controls and limits and a skills list like in australia where only foreigners with the skills needed to fill jobs where there aren't enough uk workers available here with the necessary skills.

1) They have access to unskilled jobs and can apply for them just like anyone else.

2) So protecting them, means forcing employers to discriminate

3) Based on this an employer is faced with not being able to hire someone foreign with a good reference on time keeping and attendance for example. He is then forced to employ someone with a bog standard reference. That they worked at a previous company.

You see Tommy, I know two HR Managers and they tell me often that those British born are poor at attendance and time keeping in unskilled work. Those foreign born are not. Now this is hearsay, but I have seen this in the company I work for. The reality is, there is and has been a culture of benefits, that started under Labour and will take years to change. As some people simple have no wish or interest to work. Of course there is many more that want to, but British born people give themselves a bad name with their attendance and time keeping. Not only that they think the work is beneath them and that the world owes them a favour

Again a job should be open to anyone and the best candidate chosen

The uk govts job is to look after uk citizens... preventing unskilled foreigners from being able to come here and take the jobs that would otherwise have gone to uk citizens is not discrimination, but doing their job as govt!!!

In fact it is discrimination against uk workers when employers here can neglect their responsibility to look after/employ the local uk workforce in the area that they operate in... and complete business madness to look to employ foreigners instead where this results in a higher local unemployment level among population and which will result in higher taxes for them as workers/businesses too to pay for the increased benefits bills... plus the increase in numbers of people here drives up costs of living which makes their business costs of operation rise, as well as making them less competetitive, it also drives up demand for higher wage rates among their employees!!!

It is economic madness!!!

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:15 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

The way I see it is many 16 year old would be willing to work full time, but if they have no interest in furthering their school education its putting obstacle in their way from the start.

Your dad sounds like a fine hard working man Thor, my mum worked 3 cleaning jobs to bring 2 girls up single handedly (pre benefit culture)....but whereas some people will do everything they can to be independent others might need help.

Denying kids the chance to work full time and earn a wage unless they stay in education is not helping the less academic, its hindering them for an added 2 years.

How is it putting an obstacle in the way, when its going to benefit them in getting employment?

For goodness sake, they are not being denied the opportunity to do full time work. It just means they have to also continue to study. Whether that be through a college or through an employer. Its there to benefit them.
This still gives them plenty of money in their pocket and also the ability to start paying some rent to their parents, as they should. Learning good responsible values.

This is the problem, kids today, think they should have a free ride and not pay back to society, for what it has given to them. An opportunity to succeed, but many do not want that and expect everything on a plate.

Stop making excuses for them and the only hindrance is the negative views you are giving them

Who's making excuses?
I am saying give kids who want to leave education in order to work full time encouragement.
There are plenty who would prefer to sit on their arses all day....they are the ones who are lazy and mollycoddled.

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:16 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're in favour of making a young person do something they might not want to do. It's not up to the Government or you to tell anyone how they should live their life. You will get no apology.

Wrong, where did I say they should be forced to do anything?
I never did
You owe me an apology
I only spoke of them quitting and possible repercussions to this via a contract, as all employers have.
Next you will be telling me children should just bunk off school.
Its not up to the Government to support those who have no ethos to help themselves.
Why should he Government help those who do not want to help themselves?
You just show exactly what is wrong with society today, those that are takers, thinking the world has to give to them. When they never did anything to pay for the education they received. Thinking the world should look after them, without them doing anything to contribute

You appear to be in favour of the "rule" that they have to continue with education or undertake training even if they get a full time job. That rule is forcing them to do something they might not want to do.

Who says they're not helping themselves? If they can get a full time job and stick to it, they're helping themselves obviously.

The rest of your post makes no sense as I never mention "takers" or the world looking after them.

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:17 pm

Green from me Syl for your post above...

This enforcement of 'training' on the youth is just another bureaucratic/regulatory/cost burden, and makes them less employable!

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:18 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) They have access to unskilled jobs and can apply for them just like anyone else.

2) So protecting them, means forcing employers to discriminate

3) Based on this an employer is faced with not being able to hire someone foreign with a good reference on time keeping and attendance for example. He is then forced to employ someone with a bog standard reference. That they worked at a previous company.

You see Tommy, I know two HR Managers and they tell me often that those British born are poor at attendance and time keeping in unskilled work. Those foreign born are not. Now this is hearsay, but I have seen this in the company I work for. The reality is, there is and has been a culture of benefits, that started under Labour and will take years to change. As some people simple have no wish or interest to work. Of course there is many more that want to, but British born people give themselves a bad name with their attendance and time keeping. Not only that they think the work is beneath them and that the world owes them a favour

Again a job should be open to anyone and the best candidate chosen

The uk govts job is to look after uk citizens... preventing unskilled foreigners from being able to come here and take the jobs that would otherwise have gone to uk citizens is not discrimination, but doing their job as govt!!!

In fact it is discrimination against uk workers when employers here can neglect their responsibility to look after/employ the local uk workforce in the area that they operate in... and complete business madness to look to employ foreigners instead where this results in a higher local unemployment level among population and which will result in higher taxes for them as workers/businesses too to pay for the increased benefits bills... plus the increase in numbers of people here drives up costs of living which makes their business costs of operation rise, as well as making them less competetitive, it also drives up demand for higher wage rates among their employees!!!

It is economic madness!!!

Wrong

1) The Governments jobs is to ensure equality, which means foreign born citizens, migrants, immigrants, refugees and those British born. Your view is to favour one other all the rest.

That is falling down the road to apartheid.

2) Nobody is taking anyone's Job. You seem to wrongly think because someone is born here, that this job should be theirs. Not based on their ability, but geography. Its about as dumb as it gets. Many companies are foreign and if they took your attitude, they would not have their branches here or want to do business with a nation that elevates its own citizens above anyone else. As it would cease to be one governed by secular values. You do not champion other nations denying Brits from going for jobs abroad, but think its acceptable to discriminate based on geography.

3) How is it discrimination to place people born here above those foreign? That is not equality, but inequality.
You are wishing to make some people here with more rights than others. That is discrimination.

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:18 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

The way I see it is many 16 year old would be willing to work full time, but if they have no interest in furthering their school education its putting obstacle in their way from the start.

Your dad sounds like a fine hard working man Thor, my mum worked 3 cleaning jobs to bring 2 girls up single handedly (pre benefit culture)....but whereas some people will do everything they can to be independent others might need help.

Denying kids the chance to work full time and earn a wage unless they stay in education is not helping the less academic, its hindering them for an added 2 years.

How is it putting an obstacle in the way, when its going to benefit them in getting employment?

For goodness sake, they are not being denied the opportunity to do full time work. It just means they have to also continue to study. Whether that be through a college or through an employer. Its there to benefit them.
This still gives them plenty of money in their pocket and also the ability to start paying some rent to their parents, as they should. Learning good responsible values.

This is the problem, kids today, think they should have a free ride and not pay back to society, for what it has given to them. An opportunity to succeed, but many do not want that and expect everything on a plate.

Stop making excuses for them and the only hindrance is the negative views you are giving them

They can pay rent from the money they earn in a full-time job! I don't know why you think that a full-time job is a "free ride".

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:19 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

How is it putting an obstacle in the way, when its going to benefit them in getting employment?

For goodness sake, they are not being denied the opportunity to do full time work. It just means they have to also continue to study. Whether that be through a college or through an employer. Its there to benefit them.
This still gives them plenty of money in their pocket and also the ability to start paying some rent to their parents, as they should. Learning good responsible values.

This is the problem, kids today, think they should have a free ride and not pay back to society, for what it has given to them. An opportunity to succeed, but many do not want that and expect everything on a plate.

Stop making excuses for them and the only hindrance is the negative views you are giving them
Who's making excuses?
I am saying give kids who want to leave education in order to work full time encouragement.
There are plenty who would prefer to sit on their arses all day....they are the ones who are lazy and mollycoddled.

So yet more bullshit
How are they not being encouraged to work, by doing only two years that will benefit them with employment?

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Green from me Syl for your post above...

This enforcement of 'training' on the youth is just another bureaucratic/regulatory/cost burden, and makes them less employable!

Thank you Tommy.
I also agree with a lot of what you have said throughout this thread.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Wrong, where did I say they should be forced to do anything?
I never did
You owe me an apology
I only spoke of them quitting and possible repercussions to this via a contract, as all employers have.
Next you will be telling me children should just bunk off school.
Its not up to the Government to support those who have no ethos to help themselves.
Why should he Government help those who do not want to help themselves?
You just show exactly what is wrong with society today, those that are takers, thinking the world has to give to them. When they never did anything to pay for the education they received. Thinking the world should look after them, without them doing anything to contribute

You appear to be in favour of the "rule" that they have to continue with education or undertake training even if they get a full time job. That rule is forcing them to do something they might not want to do.

Who says they're not helping themselves? If they can get a full time job and stick to it, they're helping themselves obviously.

The rest of your post makes no sense as I never mention "takers" or the world looking after them.

Appear?

Point one) Education is compulsory. Agree or disagree?

Point Two) If they have extended this to help more children get into employment. Agree or Disagree?

Point Three? If they are required to continue to study whilst working, like many people do, ie those training to be a doctor, then there is no excuse for those 16-18 to do the same. Agree or disagree

You owe me an apology

Or as seen, you have no humility

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:22 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:
Who's making excuses?
I am saying give kids who want to leave education in order to work full time encouragement.
There are plenty who would prefer to sit on their arses all day....they are the ones who are lazy and mollycoddled.

So yet more bullshit
How are they not being encouraged to work, by doing only two years that will benefit them with employment?

They don't NEED help with employment if they find a job they can do.
Even if its low skilled and low paid, its a rung in the ladder, giving them a damn site more experience than they will ever get being forced to carry on in an education system that they don't want to be in.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:23 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

How is it putting an obstacle in the way, when its going to benefit them in getting employment?

For goodness sake, they are not being denied the opportunity to do full time work. It just means they have to also continue to study. Whether that be through a college or through an employer. Its there to benefit them.
This still gives them plenty of money in their pocket and also the ability to start paying some rent to their parents, as they should. Learning good responsible values.

This is the problem, kids today, think they should have a free ride and not pay back to society, for what it has given to them. An opportunity to succeed, but many do not want that and expect everything on a plate.

Stop making excuses for them and the only hindrance is the negative views you are giving them

They can pay rent from the money they earn in a full-time job! I don't know why you think that a full-time job is a "free ride".

Yes they can pay rent, I did, when I came back home for two years at my parents.

I never said a full time job is a free ride, there upbringing certainly is.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:24 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Green from me Syl for your post above...

This enforcement of 'training' on the youth is just another bureaucratic/regulatory/cost burden, and makes them less employable!

Thank you Tommy.
I also agree with a lot of what you have said throughout this thread.

So you agree with introducing an apartheid system that favours people born here over those foreign born?

Explain that to me?

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:25 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So yet more bullshit
How are they not being encouraged to work, by doing only two years that will benefit them with employment?

They don't NEED help with employment if they find a job they can do.
Even if its low skilled and low paid, its a rung in the ladder, giving them a damn site more experience than they will ever get being forced to carry on in an education system that they don't want to be in.

Yes they do need help, when they are 18 and finish the scheme, to then progress to better their income
I have never seen such a poor defense of children to be irresponsible

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:27 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You appear to be in favour of the "rule" that they have to continue with education or undertake training even if they get a full time job. That rule is forcing them to do something they might not want to do.

Who says they're not helping themselves? If they can get a full time job and stick to it, they're helping themselves obviously.

The rest of your post makes no sense as I never mention "takers" or the world looking after them.

Appear?

Point one) Education is compulsory. Agree or disagree?

Point Two) If they have extended this to help more children get into employment. Agree or Disagree?

Point Three? If they are required to continue to study whilst working, like many people do, ie those training to be a doctor, then there is no excuse for those 16-18 to do the same. Agree or disagree

You owe me an apology

Or as seen, you have no humility

Going to school is compulsory until someone is 16.

I have absolutely nothing against young people doing further education, I'm just saying they shouldn't be forced to to do so if they prefer to get a job with no further studying or training.

Training to be a doctor isn't at all the same thing.

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:28 pm

This is a good quick moving debate, I don't think anyone need apologise for speaking their mind, its the way a debate should go on a forum imo.

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:28 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They can pay rent from the money they earn in a full-time job! I don't know why you think that a full-time job is a "free ride".

Yes they can pay rent, I did, when I came back home for two years at my parents.

I never said a full time job is a free ride, there upbringing certainly is.

So your post made no sense then.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Appear?

Point one) Education is compulsory. Agree or disagree?

Point Two) If they have extended this to help more children get into employment. Agree or Disagree?

Point Three? If they are required to continue to study whilst working, like many people do, ie those training to be a doctor, then there is no excuse for those 16-18 to do the same. Agree or disagree

You owe me an apology

Or as seen, you have no humility

Going to school is compulsory until someone is 16.

I have absolutely nothing against young people doing further education, I'm just saying they shouldn't be forced to to do so if they prefer to get a job with no further studying or training.

Training to be a doctor isn't at all the same thing.

So you think they should not be forced to attend school as children.
That is what you are saying. They are not adults until they are 18.
Now if you want to bring down the classification of adulthood to 16 that is a different but similar argument.
Training to be a doctor requires an ethos to succeed and commitment.
If now the law states that those not adult have to do further education whilst working or studying, then its clears its to benefit them.

You failed to answer my questions and apologize

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:32 pm

Syl wrote:This is a good quick moving debate, I don't think anyone need apologise for speaking their mind, its the way a debate should go on a forum imo.

Rags made a false accusation which she failed to back up Syl

I have every right to easily refute and have fun watching her struggle

Laughing

by Sponsored content