New Rules Come In Today For The Jobless

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:09 pm

28th April 2014

Again - this will cost more, but if it helps, it's great news!

Long-term unemployed people will have their benefits cut unless they visit a Job Centre every day, work for free or undertake training, under new rules which have now come into effect.

The rules will apply to anyone who has not found a job after two years on the existing Work Programme scheme.

The government says the new scheme - called Help to Work - is "absolutely not" intended to punish jobless people.

Those who fail to take part could lose jobless benefits for fixed periods.

Jobseeker's allowance (JSA) can be suspended for four weeks for their first failure, then 13 weeks for a second failure.

It is thought the new rules will affect 200,000 people.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said: "Everyone with the ability to work should be given the support and opportunity to do so.

"The previous system wrote too many people off, which was a huge waste of potential for those individuals as well as for their families and the country as a whole."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27177767

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:13 pm

Good, although two years is quite a long time to be dossing around.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Good, although two years is quite a long time to be dossing around.

I agree - the rules are to help the jobless, so why don't they start immediately?

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:56 pm

Good afternoon Folks.

I'll believe it when I see it.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:58 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Good, although two years is quite a long time to be dossing around.

I agree - the rules are to help the jobless, so why don't they start immediately?

I suppose they could give people a couple of weeks to get a new job, but after that they should make them do something, otherwise they might become a bit lazy. ::D::

by Fluffyx Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:08 pm

I'm in two minds about this.

I think it would help those who have not been able to get a job from a self esteem point of view to just get out and about.

However the whole thing is a bit demeaning.

And it does sort of suggest that people in receipt of benefits are somehow workshy scroungers which is a negative stereotype to reinforce and an inaccurate one.Many people simply can't get a job because there are no jobs about and try all day to obtain a job.This voluntary work will eat into active jobseeking time and for no reward.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:10 pm

FluffyBunny wrote:I'm in two minds about this.

I think it would help those who have not been able to get a job from a self esteem point of view to just get out and about.

However the whole thing is a bit demeaning.

And it does sort of suggest that people in receipt of benefits are somehow workshy scroungers which is a negative stereotype to reinforce and an inaccurate one.Many people simply can't get a job because there are no jobs about and try all day to obtain a job.This voluntary work will eat into active jobseeking time and for no reward.

It only looks that way because it's new.

If this was the norm, then... errrm it would be the norm, wouldn't it - and therefore acceptable.

Taking benefits full stop was seen as demeaning years ago.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:07 pm

it if comes into force it will be the best thing o happen to this country in decades

by Fluffyx Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:37 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
FluffyBunny wrote:I'm in two minds about this.

I think it would help those who have not been able to get a job from a self esteem point of view to just get out and about.

However the whole thing is a bit demeaning.

And it does sort of suggest that people in receipt of benefits are somehow workshy scroungers which is a negative stereotype to reinforce and an inaccurate one.Many people simply can't get a job because there are no jobs about and try all day to obtain a job.This voluntary work will eat into active jobseeking time and for no reward.

It only looks that way because it's new.

If this was the norm, then... errrm it would be the norm, wouldn't it - and therefore acceptable.

Taking benefits full stop was seen as demeaning years ago.

I think a distinction should be made with this rule.If people are actively seeking work then they should not be forced to do voluntary work aswell.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:47 pm

FluffyBunny wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

It only looks that way because it's new.

If this was the norm, then... errrm it would be the norm, wouldn't it - and therefore acceptable.

Taking benefits full stop was seen as demeaning years ago.

I think a distinction should be made with this rule.If people are actively seeking work then they should not be forced to do voluntary work aswell.

All people on JSA should be actively seeking work, so it's not possible to make a distinction.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:04 pm

We had a state in the U.S. try something like this -- I believe it was Massachusetts -- as an experiment that ran several years. It cost more money up-front because welfare recipients were being trained, at no expense to them, in job skills, but what they found was it ended up costing less in the long run because so many of the people found work and got off welfare.

It was a huge success that right-wing politicians immediately did away with, going back to the old, more expensive way of doing things, because their voters were outraged at the notion of people getting free job training.

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:44 pm

A brilliant idea, something i have been trailing for years and been called from a pillar to a post and so RW.

Ben am surprised the RW didn't take to it in the US.

by Fluffyx Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
FluffyBunny wrote:

I think a distinction should be made with this rule.If people are actively seeking work then they should not be forced to do voluntary work aswell.

All people on JSA should be actively seeking work, so it's not possible to make a distinction.

Well if people can prove they are actively seeking employment why should they be made to do unpaid work that will cut into their time seeking PAID work?

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:39 pm

FluffyBunny wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

All people on JSA should be actively seeking work, so it's not possible to make a distinction.

Well if people can prove they are actively seeking employment why should they be made to do unpaid work that will cut into their time seeking PAID work?

People with full time jobs manage to apply for other jobs without spending all day on it.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Good, although two years is quite a long time to be dossing around.

Except of course you are wrong...in your thought rather than your facts

2 years out of work IS wrong...but rarely is it a choice...

lets see if the rabid right can actually solve the conundrum that THEIR policies have caused

(bear in mind that nu liebour was R/W too...it continued and compounded thatchers failure)

SO to the R/W Massive unemployment is a GOOD thing...it forces down wages and conditions, and generally is a terrorist tactic to suppress the working class.
liebour extended this because its also a GOOD thing to have a dependant electorate.

then it was made even better by the availability of easily exploited labour from abroad.

So their mega rich pals benefited.
and as a bonus they now have a pool of unemployed etc who they can demonise, thus keeping the attention of the sheeple fixed on THEM...rather than the politicos sick policies.

THE problem You see ragga, is that there are 8 people for every job.....so EVEN IF you filled up every job going...THE BULK OF THE PROBLEM remains....
how do you expect folks to get jobs...when DESPITE ALL the R/W propaganda.....those jobs simply DONT exist???

The truth is that the politicos WANT high unemployment, or their paymasters will get cross with them

there IS a better way......but we are run by self serving cowards...

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:00 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Good, although two years is quite a long time to be dossing around.
Except of course you are wrong...in your thought rather than your facts

2 years out of work IS wrong...but rarely is it a choice...

lets see if the rabid right can actually solve the conundrum that THEIR policies have caused

(bear in mind that nu liebour was R/W too...it continued and compounded thatchers failure)

SO to the R/W Massive unemployment is a GOOD thing...it forces down wages and conditions, and generally is a terrorist tactic to suppress the working class.
liebour extended this because its also a GOOD thing to have a dependant electorate.

then it was made even better by the availability of easily exploited labour from abroad.

So their mega rich pals benefited.
and as a bonus they now have a pool of unemployed etc who they can demonise, thus keeping the attention of the sheeple fixed on THEM...rather than the politicos sick policies.

THE problem You see ragga, is that there are 8 people for every job.....so EVEN IF you filled up every job going...THE BULK OF THE PROBLEM remains....
how do you expect folks to get jobs...when DESPITE ALL the R/W propaganda.....those jobs simply DONT exist???

The truth is that the politicos WANT high unemployment, or their paymasters will get cross with them

there IS a better way......but we are run by self serving cowards...

That's not necessarily 8 people per individual job though, so that's a bit misleading. Even if it's not, so much for those who say that British people avoid work that immigrants will do. Either there are jobs or there aren't. However, many people I know manage to get new jobs.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:03 pm

what you have to ask ragga is...are those jobs the folks you know get, merely "revolving doors"

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:21 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:what you have to ask ragga is...are those jobs the folks you know get, merely "revolving doors"

You mean temporary? No - unless they want a temporary job. I just don't think that it should take two years to get a job.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:what you have to ask ragga is...are those jobs the folks you know get, merely "revolving doors"

You mean temporary? No - unless they want a temporary job. I just don't think that it should take two years to get a job.

neither do I ragga, but the solution to that is MORE jobs....simples....

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:40 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean temporary? No - unless they want a temporary job. I just don't think that it should take two years to get a job.
neither do I ragga, but the solution to that is MORE jobs....simples....

Well I don't know. I've never had any real trouble getting a job tbh, and they have trouble recruiting at the place where I work.

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:40 pm

Ladies and Genrtlemen

Surely it is far better for the " Common man " and the word is used with discretion............... i. e as opposed to those that have an inherent trust fund...... to be out of the house in the public domain mixing and acquiring any skill that is open to them as well as the socialising, discussing monetary problems and realising they are far from alone as opposed to sitting indoors with Sky on 24 /7 on anti depressants costing the NHS hundreds £ minimum per year.

Helping others is the best form of therapy.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:42 pm

gerber wrote:Ladies and Genrtlemen

Surely it is far better for the " Common man " and the word is used with discretion............... i. e as opposed to those that have an inherent trust fund...... to be out of the house in the public domain mixing and acquiring any skill that is open to them as well as the socialising, discussing monetary problems and realising they are far from alone as opposed to sitting indoors with Sky on 24 /7 on anti depressants costing the NHS hundreds £ minimum per year.

Helping others is the best form of therapy.

I completely agree. It's very bad for people to be dependent on the State and to sit around doing nothing. Of course some people love it and have no intention of getting a job, but many people get into a state of apathy very quickly.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:59 pm

I have one possible difficulty with this.

A town which is 10 miles away from the jobcentre (its own was closed years ago)

Return transport is £5 minimum.

There are villages further away with increased transport costs.

However at the very least you are looking at claimants having to spend one third of their income on attending a job centre daily.

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:15 pm

sphinx wrote:I have one possible difficulty with this.

A town which is 10 miles away from the jobcentre (its own was closed years ago)

Return transport is £5 minimum.

There are villages further away with increased transport costs.

However at the very least you are looking at claimants having to spend one third of their income on attending a job centre daily.

I am sure, in fact positive in our Liberal - lets all be nice society that a mini bus or other motorized transportation will be available without incurring any extra strenuous walking say to a bus stop, for the personal use of the impoverished ( A claim they make themselves ), in order they can sufficiently ensure their neighborly duties are carried out without any extra expenditure on their own personal purse.

Imagine if dear Uncle Norman was still chomping at the bit, bicycles would be provided......And why not..... we are supposed to be going Green as a nation !

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:18 pm

gerber wrote:
sphinx wrote:I have one possible difficulty with this.

A town which is 10 miles away from the jobcentre (its own was closed years ago)

Return transport is £5 minimum.

There are villages further away with increased transport costs.

However at the very least you are looking at claimants having to spend one third of their income on attending a job centre daily.

I am sure, in fact positive in our Liberal - lets all be nice society that a mini bus or other motorized transportation will be available without incurring any extra strenuous walking say to a bus stop, for the personal use of the impoverished ( A claim they make themselves ), in order they can sufficiently ensure their neighborly duties are carried out without any extra expenditure on their own personal purse.

Imagine if dear Uncle Norman was still chomping at the bit, bicycles would be provided......And why not..... we are supposed to be going Green as a nation !

you really HAVE swallowed the R/W lies havnt you gerber......
either that or you really DONT know many folks on JSA

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:22 pm

Well maybe this is a good time to improve public transport and make it cheaper - for everyone's sake. Laughing

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:24 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
gerber wrote:

I am sure, in fact positive in our Liberal - lets all be nice society that a mini bus or other motorized transportation will be available without incurring any extra strenuous walking say to a bus stop, for the personal use of the impoverished ( A claim they make themselves ), in order they can sufficiently ensure their neighborly duties are carried out without any extra expenditure on their own personal purse.

Imagine if dear Uncle Norman was still chomping at the bit, bicycles would be provided......And why not..... we are supposed to be going Green as a nation !

you really HAVE swallowed the R/W lies havnt you gerber......
either that or you really DONT know many folks on JSA

I have not swallowed anything.............. And have been down and out, known JSA and also seen a Phoenix rise.

My Grandmother ended up in the workhouse due to the very early demise of my Grandfather who was a professional but then no hand outs, lost the large hose and everything., my Father was at work at fourteen, an expert in rabbits and died quite a happy and undebt ridden professional.

We have gone full circle.......... Work hard and get on. Nobody deserves anything 'cause nobody gives anything.....or is it the other way round ?

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Well maybe this is a good time to improve public transport and make it cheaper - for everyone's sake.

A bus would be good after six pm......

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:27 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
gerber wrote:

I am sure, in fact positive in our Liberal - lets all be nice society that a mini bus or other motorized transportation will be available without incurring any extra strenuous walking say to a bus stop, for the personal use of the impoverished ( A claim they make themselves ), in order they can sufficiently ensure their neighborly duties are carried out without any extra expenditure on their own personal purse.

Imagine if dear Uncle Norman was still chomping at the bit, bicycles would be provided......And why not..... we are supposed to be going Green as a nation !

you really HAVE swallowed the R/W lies havnt you gerber......
either that or you really DONT know many folks on JSA

You aren't LW though. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:27 pm

gerber wrote:
sphinx wrote:I have one possible difficulty with this.

A town which is 10 miles away from the jobcentre (its own was closed years ago)

Return transport is £5 minimum.

There are villages further away with increased transport costs.

However at the very least you are looking at claimants having to spend one third of their income on attending a job centre daily.

I am sure, in fact positive in our Liberal - lets all be nice society that a mini bus or other motorized transportation will be available without incurring any extra strenuous walking say to a bus stop, for the personal use of the impoverished ( A claim they make themselves ), in order they can sufficiently ensure their neighborly duties are carried out without any extra expenditure on their own personal purse.

Imagine if dear Uncle Norman was still chomping at the bit, bicycles would be provided......And why not..... we are supposed to be going Green as a nation !

I was not asking for a sarcastic come back.

I am not denying that there are some scroungers who do undoubtedly deserve a kick up the ass - however there are more genuine cases than there are scroungers.

What exactly is gained by having people spending a third of their income travelling to a job centre every day if it does not result in them getting a job?

I mean it is a town of 17000 and has no job centre - now they expect people to travel 20 miles a day for what? To prove they are looking for work?

I would lay money on it that there are areas where the distance between population centre and nearest job centre is even further and travel even more challenging - 10 miles is seen as distance around here.

I have no problem with schemes to get people working I do have problems when those schemes become box ticking exercises - and this has all the signs of becoming just such.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:29 pm

gerber wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

you really HAVE swallowed the R/W lies havnt you gerber......
either that or you really DONT know many folks on JSA

I have not swallowed anything.............. And have been down and out, known JSA and also seen a Phoenix rise.

My Grandmother ended up in the workhouse due to the very early demise of my Grandfather who was a professional but then no hand outs, lost the large hose and everything., my Father was at work at fourteen, an expert in rabbits and died quite a happy and undebt ridden professional.

We have gone full circle.......... Work hard and get on. Nobody deserves anything 'cause nobody gives anything.....or is it the other way round ?

agreed...BUT firstly we are "supposed " to be more...um....well this IS 2014 not 1066 and the point being made is....it is WRONG to expect those on below subsistance level benefits to incurr even MORE costs ..in order to comply with a (largely pointless and purely media pandering) excercise.

I would actually imagine that they will be able to reclaim the travel costs incurred....

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:39 pm

Catman wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

you really HAVE swallowed the R/W lies havnt you gerber......
either that or you really DONT know many folks on JSA

You aren't LW though.

Timothy.................. Failed again.............. And being sarcastic to boot.... Apparantly. Me and you are on a win win..... I win you win..... got it partner I loose all the blasted time..... ::D:: We

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:39 pm

Catman wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

you really HAVE swallowed the R/W lies havnt you gerber......
either that or you really DONT know many folks on JSA

You aren't LW though.

Timothy.................. Failed again.............. And being sarcastic to boot.... Apparantly. Me and you are on a win win..... I win you win..... got it partner I loose all the blasted time..... ::D:: We must work at it !!

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:45 pm

gerber wrote:
Catman wrote:

You aren't LW though.

Timothy.................. Failed again.............. And being sarcastic to boot.... Apparantly. Me and you are on a win win..... I win you win..... got it partner I loose all the blasted time..... ::D:: We must work at it !!

It wasn't that long ago that you were being very homophobic, and i can remember that one.

If you treat people with a bit of respect, don't try to judge them for all of the time, then that respect will be returned.

Wink

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:49 pm

Catman wrote:
gerber wrote:

Timothy.................. Failed again.............. And being sarcastic to boot.... Apparantly. Me and you are on a win win..... I win you win..... got it partner I loose all the blasted time..... ::D:: We must work at it !!

It wasn't that long ago that you were being very homophobic, and i can remember that one.

If you treat people with a bit of respect, don't try to judge them for all of the time, then that respect will be returned.

Feel free to share and discuss anything you're interested in, but please note that members who consistently hijack threads to steer them toward discussions of their favorite "pet" topics may be asked to leave. You can view our rules here.

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:50 pm

Not homophobia crap again. Can't we have one thread where it's not discussed?

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:50 pm

Catman wrote:
gerber wrote:

Timothy.................. Failed again.............. And being sarcastic to boot.... Apparantly. Me and you are on a win win..... I win you win..... got it partner I loose all the blasted time..... ::D:: We must work at it !!

It wasn't that long ago that you were being very homophobic, and i can remember that one.

If you treat people with a bit of respect, don't try to judge them for all of the time, then that respect will be returned.

I am homophobic................. i am anti Cats - being allergic................. I am anti anyone who can't speak English properly and that includes Welsh and Scottish and I must now add Cornish......

I love dogs......

I am also the most ardent hater of umbrellas............. I hate rain lol

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Not homophobia crap again. Can't we have one thread where it's not discussed?

It' s Monday

Has to be discussed.

Do you like Spam fritters.................... I detest them lol.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:54 pm

gerber wrote:
Catman wrote:

It wasn't that long ago that you were being very homophobic, and i can remember that one.

If you treat people with a bit of respect, don't try to judge them for all of the time, then that respect will be returned.

I am homophobic................. i am anti Cats - being allergic................. I am anti anyone who can't speak English properly and that includes Welsh and Scottish and I must now add Cornish......

I love dogs......

I am also the most ardent hater of umbrellas............. I hate rain lol

couldnt agree more...what is it with cities and umbrellas....you cant walk around any sizeable city on a rainy day without some maniac truing to pke your eyes out with one of those fiendish contraptions...and as for kids umbrellas...nasty ball pokeing items.....AGGGHHHHHHHH...Get this you city wussiues.....umbrellas are unnecessay and an invention of satan....

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:56 pm

sphinx wrote:
gerber wrote:

I am sure, in fact positive in our Liberal - lets all be nice society that a mini bus or other motorized transportation will be available without incurring any extra strenuous walking say to a bus stop, for the personal use of the impoverished ( A claim they make themselves ), in order they can sufficiently ensure their neighborly duties are carried out without any extra expenditure on their own personal purse.

Imagine if dear Uncle Norman was still chomping at the bit, bicycles would be provided......And why not..... we are supposed to be going Green as a nation !

I was not asking for a sarcastic come back.

I am not denying that there are some scroungers who do undoubtedly deserve a kick up the ass - however there are more genuine cases than there are scroungers.

What exactly is gained by having people spending a third of their income travelling to a job centre every day if it does not result in them getting a job?

I mean it is a town of 17000 and has no job centre - now they expect people to travel 20 miles a day for what? To prove they are looking for work?

I would lay money on it that there are areas where the distance between population centre and nearest job centre is even further and travel even more challenging - 10 miles is seen as distance around here.

I have no problem with schemes to get people working I do have problems when those schemes become box ticking exercises - and this has all the signs of becoming just such.

The thing is that a lot of people want to live in villages when they have children - more healthy and all that, but when those children grow up they need to find a job and there they are out in the sticks. I suggest that parents save money so that they can pay for the grown children to go and rent somewhere in a town where there are actually job prospects. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:57 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
gerber wrote:

I am homophobic................. i am anti Cats - being allergic................. I am anti anyone who can't speak English properly and that includes Welsh and Scottish and I must now add Cornish......

I love dogs......

I am also the most ardent hater of umbrellas............. I hate rain lol

couldnt agree more...what is it with cities and umbrellas....you cant walk around any sizeable city on a rainy day without some maniac truing to pke your eyes out with one of those fiendish contraptions...and as for kids umbrellas...nasty ball pokeing items.....AGGGHHHHHHHH...Get this you city wussiues.....umbrellas are unnecessay and an invention of satan....

Well if someone could design some stylish raincoats with hoods, we wouldn't need umbrellas!

Sorry - off topic. Laughing

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

couldnt agree more...what is it with cities and umbrellas....you cant walk around any sizeable city on a rainy day without some maniac truing to pke your eyes out with one of those fiendish contraptions...and as for kids umbrellas...nasty ball pokeing items.....AGGGHHHHHHHH...Get this you city wussiues.....umbrellas are unnecessay and an invention of satan....

Well if someone could design some stylish raincoats with hoods, we wouldn't need umbrellas!

Sorry - off topic.

Paddington Bear had the most magnificent rainmac and stupendous hat. He had no need for an umbrella nor come to think of it a picnic hamper. Maybe he was the most perfect Bear.

back to topic...

What was it ?

by Raggamuffin Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:08 pm

gerber wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if someone could design some stylish raincoats with hoods, we wouldn't need umbrellas!

Sorry - off topic.

Paddington Bear had the most magnificent rainmac and stupendous hat. He had no need for an umbrella nor come to think of it a picnic hamper. Maybe he was the most perfect Bear.

back to topic...

What was it ?

The difficulty of village dwellers going to job centres, or of those who live in towns where the job centre has closed down. Razz

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
gerber wrote:

Paddington Bear had the most magnificent rainmac and stupendous hat. He had no need for an umbrella nor come to think of it a picnic hamper. Maybe he was the most perfect Bear.

back to topic...

What was it ?

The difficulty of village dwellers going to job centres, or of those who live in towns where the job centre has closed down.

Ah yes !!

They can still do much work around said village on a " Voluntary " basis without going on a bus. Rubbish to be removed, grass to be mown maybe the youth shelter to be degraffeteed.....

As an ex parish Councillor I have done all and more for nothing and worked.......

maybe helping with the Scouts etc putting their knowledge to use for another generation....., shopping for the elderly to the butchers etc.................... taking out and putting back rubbish bis, something the elderly and ill have difficultly with

basically the things I used to have to do when young and was expected to do in the last Century...... Courtesy is free and most welcome. Typically English.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I was not asking for a sarcastic come back.

I am not denying that there are some scroungers who do undoubtedly deserve a kick up the ass - however there are more genuine cases than there are scroungers.

What exactly is gained by having people spending a third of their income travelling to a job centre every day if it does not result in them getting a job?

I mean it is a town of 17000 and has no job centre - now they expect people to travel 20 miles a day for what? To prove they are looking for work?

I would lay money on it that there are areas where the distance between population centre and nearest job centre is even further and travel even more challenging - 10 miles is seen as distance around here.

I have no problem with schemes to get people working I do have problems when those schemes become box ticking exercises - and this has all the signs of becoming just such.

The thing is that a lot of people want to live in villages when they have children - more healthy and all that, but when those children grow up they need to find a job and there they are out in the sticks. I suggest that parents save money so that they can pay for the grown children to go and rent somewhere in a town where there are actually job prospects.

Actually its not the youngsters who have the real problems because they can and generally do move - the real problems fall on those parents whose partner has just left them and the child(ren) - if they have not got a car. The vagaries of public transport often mean that buses run before school starts for the benefit of secondary school pupils at lunch time, and then after secondary school finishes. If a single parent has say a 6 year old and 8 year old they can easily live a mile from school, have to drop the children off and pick them up, while being faced with buses that run too early for drop off and too late for pick up. Their transport costs will be well in excess of £5 a day. Even a car does not necessarily improve costs massively when tax, insurance and maintenance is taken into account (take that from one who is skilled in bangernomics) although obviously it makes timing visiting the job centre 10 miles away once a day a piece of piss.

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I was not asking for a sarcastic come back.

I am not denying that there are some scroungers who do undoubtedly deserve a kick up the ass - however there are more genuine cases than there are scroungers.

What exactly is gained by having people spending a third of their income travelling to a job centre every day if it does not result in them getting a job?

I mean it is a town of 17000 and has no job centre - now they expect people to travel 20 miles a day for what? To prove they are looking for work?

I would lay money on it that there are areas where the distance between population centre and nearest job centre is even further and travel even more challenging - 10 miles is seen as distance around here.

I have no problem with schemes to get people working I do have problems when those schemes become box ticking exercises - and this has all the signs of becoming just such.

The thing is that a lot of people want to live in villages when they have children - more healthy and all that, but when those children grow up they need to find a job and there they are out in the sticks. I suggest that parents save money so that they can pay for the grown children to go and rent somewhere in a town where there are actually job prospects.

I like the idea of HS2 really!

lol!

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:27 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The thing is that a lot of people want to live in villages when they have children - more healthy and all that, but when those children grow up they need to find a job and there they are out in the sticks. I suggest that parents save money so that they can pay for the grown children to go and rent somewhere in a town where there are actually job prospects.

I like the idea of HS2 really!

Not of course that you will ever use it

by gerber Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:30 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The thing is that a lot of people want to live in villages when they have children - more healthy and all that, but when those children grow up they need to find a job and there they are out in the sticks. I suggest that parents save money so that they can pay for the grown children to go and rent somewhere in a town where there are actually job prospects.

I like the idea of HS2 really!

So am I correct in saying the route will Be no where near where you live and have no impact..... :\\:[:

you Butterfly you.....

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:31 pm

Catman wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The thing is that a lot of people want to live in villages when they have children - more healthy and all that, but when those children grow up they need to find a job and there they are out in the sticks. I suggest that parents save money so that they can pay for the grown children to go and rent somewhere in a town where there are actually job prospects.

I like the idea of HS2 really!

Something that fails economic tests and which evidence of other areas with similar links indicates will not make half as much difference as is claimed while it undoubtedly will upset numerous peoples lives and destroy countryside?

Of course you would like it Rolling Eyes

by Guest Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:33 pm

gerber wrote:
Catman wrote:

I like the idea of HS2 really!

So am I correct in saying the route will Be no where near where you live and have no impact..... :\\:[:

you Butterfly you.....

No it won't be!

But won't it add to the economy, if rich business men and women, can travel to London a bit quicker?

Fuck the Shires!

Razz

by Sponsored content