The thing is I think it's you who wants to govern what people can and can't volunteer for without there being any need to show whether it's detrimental to them.
So you see nothing wrong with someone going without toilet facilities for 24 hours? Being made to undress and change with no dignity and in public gaze? Or having to sleep on a concrete floor? Just because they're "volunteers"? The vast majority of people who have responded to this scandal via the media, social networks and this forum via several threads have all expressed disgust and outrage, regardless of whether those involved did so through their own free will or not.
Providing toilet facilities, dignity and respect is the foundation of a civilised society.
So you see nothing wrong with someone going without toilet facilities for 24 hours? Being made to undress and change with no dignity and in public gaze? Or having to sleep on a concrete floor? Just because they're "volunteers"? The vast majority of people who have responded to this scandal via the media, social networks and this forum via several threads have all expressed disgust and outrage, regardless of whether those involved did so through their own free will or not.
Providing toilet facilities, dignity and respect is the foundation of a civilised society.
Not just because they were volunteers but because the organisation was crap I would have thought.
Do you or does anybody know whether this company deliberately singled out these people because they were volunteers?
Maybe they treat everybody the same.
And people have been expressing "disgust and outrage" about anything to do with the Jubilee for weeks.
Cheryl Cole has come in for a lot since the concert.
"Scandal", "the cornerstone of a civilised society", just stop with the hyperbole.
Since when do we have laws to protect people from themselves without there being some kind of process of seeing whether people need that protection?
Hell, there's an extremely long thread discussing the overweight teenager that discusses that very thing. Without an order showing she needs protection from herself, she can't be compelled to lose weight by commital to a psych ward.
The thing is I think it's you who wants to govern what people can and can't volunteer for without there being any need to show whether it's detrimental to them.
You have, in your wisdom, decided that you know best. As well as having a morality that everybody should follow and if they don't you can call them names and make snap judgements about them.
Laws are there to protect people from other people and to protect people from themselves by not allowing them to be exploited by other people. Have a look at the vast raft of employment laws that have been fought for, to protect people from exploitation, even if they are volunteers. Health and safety, working hours ( to stop people working themselves into the ground with the connivance of a company) etc , etc. Or are you going to deny that these laws exist or that they have been fought for. Why do you think they are there, they are there to stop companies from exploiting people through coercion eg by promising them payment then renaging on that promise, from dumping people, who are unwaged, under a bridge to sleep. By making people work for 16 hours without a break, to deny people access to a dry area, hot food, toilet breaks and not even pay them for their labours. If you cannot see anything wrong with that then I uphold my opinion of you. Lack of empathy=lack of conscience. If you can live with that , fine, but do not expect me to agree with you. Or even respect your views.
The only reason I can think for your views is that you see the unemployed as somehow less human than " working people".
Laws are there to protect people from other people and to protect people from themselves by not allowing them to be exploited by other people. Have a look at the vast raft of employment laws that have been fought for, to protect people from exploitation, even if they are volunteers. Health and safety, working hours ( to stop people working themselves into the ground with the connivance of a company) etc , etc. Or are you going to deny that these laws exist or that they have been fought for. Why do you think they are there, they are there to stop companies from exploiting people through coercion eg by promising them payment then renaging on that promise, from dumping people, who are unwaged, under a bridge to sleep. By making people work for 16 hours without a break, to deny people access to a dry area, hot food, toilet breaks and not even pay them for their labours. If you cannot see anything wrong with that then I uphold my opinion of you. Lack of empathy=lack of conscience. If you can live with that , fine, but do not expect me to agree with you. Or even respect your views. The only reason I can think for your views is that you see the unemployed as somehow less human than " working people".
"Scandal", "the cornerstone of a civilised society", just stop with the hyperbole.
It's only hyperbole when it doesn't fit an agenda. I bet if we were to replace "Jubilee Stewards" with "Guardian", the word "scandal" would no longer be hyperbole.
"And believe people should chose for themselves what they volunteer to do".
Your turn.
Perhaps you'd like to defend calling a FM a "parasite" and accusing them of "having a personality disorder".
BTW are you a doctor/psychiatrist? If you are you must be very, very good to make such a diognosis over a couple of posts on a forum.
Your talents are obviously being wasted here.
But in this case volunteer wasn't actually the case was it. Volunteers don't need to be threatened with anything or in any way.
Is there somebody else on this thread you are arguing with?
Because it's becoming apparent that you don't want a discussion about anything, you just want to be angry about a product of your fevered imagination.
Where are you getting all this from?
It is entirely self generating.
You seem to be unable to defend your views and have a misunderstanding of how the law works, who it protects and why. Angry, I'm only angry that people can be treated this way with the connivance of our elected, yes elected, representatives. They are elected to represent the interests of all the people of this country and not just whom they deem to represent. As for your views, you have to live with them, not I
Oh dear, another shameful attempt to try and turn anger against Tom Watson MP by declaring him to be anti-Monarchy which is quite blatantly false.
I warned today the Tories and their commentators would turn to desperate measures to smear opponents of exploitation and workfare as "republican" and "anti-Royalist". They have not disappointed.
The same can be seen in this thread too. Derail, divert, attack and falsify the actual process these people went through, all in order to justify the use of JSA claimants for free by a company claiming top dollar payment from the public purse.
Chris Grayling finally admits that this is appalling..somewhat..
The Employment Minister Chris Grayling said it appeared in this particular case people were treated in an "appalling way".
It does look in this particular case that a contractor working with the Work Programme has treated people under their care in an appalling way. Just because somebody is volunteering, it doesn't mean you can treat them badly.
Whether they were getting paid or not, there are certain standards that should be the minimum, basic human rights. This company failed and because of that they should not be allowed to undertake national (or any events) again.
Whether they were getting paid or not, there are certain standards that should be the minimum, basic human rights. This company failed and because of that they should not be allowed to undertake national (or any events) again.
In which case neither should the BBC.
War veterans have joined the criticism of the BBC river pageant coverage, claiming they were made to stand in the rain for more than an hour while waiting to be interviewed.
Yesterday former petty officer Bryan Stockley, 75, who served on Belfast in the Far East, said the shipmates' experience was 'absolutely traumatic'.
The 26 former seamen, all aged between 70 and 90, were summoned to the quarterdeck, where they were left to shiver in the cold while only two were interviewed.
Mr Stockley, from Monmouth, south Wales, said their day was 'completely ruined'. He added: 'It was appallingly inconsiderate to ask people of our age to stand for so long and get so cold.'
Shame on the BBC. Close them down, sack everyone etc etc......
I've made a start on those which might not be applicable in this situation, i.e. a 24 / 48 Hr period of work.
List of human rights
Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:
Right to privacy (Define privacy? A private life? Or a changing room?)
Right to live, exist (I can't see a breach)
Right to have a family (Not applicable)
To own property (Not applicable)
Free Speech (Not applicable)
Safety from violence (Probably applicable)
Equality of both males and females; women's rights (I can't see a breach)
Fair trial (Not applicable)
To be innocent until proven guilty (Not applicable)
To be a citizen of a country (Not applicable)
The right to express his or her sexual orientation (I can't see a breach)
To vote (Not applicable)
To seek asylum if a country treats you badly (Not applicable, if they have a passport)
To think freely (I can't see a breach apart from this apart from being a work situation)
To believe and practice the religion a person wants (Probably applicable if you are a Muslim)
To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group
Health care (medical care) ( (I can't see a breach)
Education (Not applicable unless you count life experience)
To communicate through a language (I can't see a breach)
Not be forced into marriage (Not applicable)
The right to love (I can't see a breach)
The right to work (I can't see a breach)
Now if it had been working hours or breaks, that might be a different matter.
Is this a joke? Because I'm missing the punchline.
The vast majority - royalist or republican - have seen what the individuals have gone through and been disgusted at how these individuals have been treated. Without the need to bring the Queen or patriotism into it.
If it is considered patriotic to be exploited, messed about and stripped of dignity, think I'll launch a raft to a civilised society that gives a damn to people doing work.
See speak-softly's post above yours. No joke at all.
I've made a start on those which might not be applicable in this situation, i.e. a 24 / 48 Hr period of work.
To be honest it might not be human rights in the legal sense but it is just a basic human need to have toilet facilties, privacy when changing and a warm place of rest, to not be expected to camp out in the cold and damp before doing your duty.
There might be some jobs where the above is not physically possible but this occasion was not one of them.
Should we even need a law to afford such things to people, or should it just be a given we treat other people with a bit of respect?
I was at Folkestone at the weekend and they had at least a dozen, that I saw (and used) for their comparatively small crowd.
Privacy when changing?
You would think that with 80 people there someone might have thought of getting a dozen or so people to form an outward facing circle to protect someones privacy?
Not expected to camp out in the cold and damp before duty?
It would be more reasonable to expect an experienced coach firm not to to over-estimate a journey time by two and a half hours or at least stick around for a while if they were early. Then people could have had an extra couple of hours sleep and changed on the coach.
I was at Folkestone at the weekend and they had at least a dozen, that I saw (and used) for their comparatively small crowd.
Privacy when changing?
You would think that with 80 people there someone might have thought of getting a dozen or so people to form an outward facing circle to protect someones privacy?
Not expected to camp out in the cold and damp before duty?
It would be more reasonable to expect an experienced coach firm not to to over-estimate a journey time by two and a half hours or at least stick around for a while if they were early. Then people could have had an extra couple of hours sleep and changed on the coach.
I think they should have been allowed on the coach but did the guys not have sleeping bags with them? I am sure I read somewhere they were told they were allowed to use their sleeping bags. Why would they have sleeping bags if the arrival time was not pre planned?
See speak-softly's post above yours. No joke at all.
So by wanting the right to dignity, toilet facilities and not being exploited, I am republican and attacking the Queen?
Even Chris Grayling, the champion of the work programme, condemned how those stewards were treated. Face it, those right wing commentators who attempted to absurdly turn this issue into a call for patriotism have utterly failed and should do the decent thing by backing down.
I think they should have been allowed on the coach but did the guys not have sleeping bags with them? I am sure I read somewhere they were told they were allowed to use their sleeping bags. Why would they have sleeping bags if the arrival time was not pre planned?
Perhaps for the night after their 14 hour shift ended. When they slept in wet tents.
And the arrival time was planned for 05:30 (the coach company estimate) rather than 03:00.
If they had sleeping bags why couldn't some have used them to change in?
Perhaps for the night after their 14 hour shift ended. When they slept in wet tents.
And the arrival time was planned for 05:30 (the coach company estimate) rather than 03:00.
If they had sleeping bags why couldn't some have used them to change in?
Why could it not just have been better organised in the first place?
There was a serious lack of organisation on the organisers part. Do we really want a disorganised firm running security and marshalling for the biggest event we have ever seen, let alone paying them vast amounts of moeny for the priviledge.
I got better treatment during my stint as a motorsport marshall at small events, than these guys seem to have had.
What? Should I throw in the odd accusation of slavery? :mad:
Or try and work the word parasite into the conversation? :eek:
I might end up the (Inactive Member) Auld Snody if I did that.
Cant you see the future, is being squandered through excessive pessimism. I think it's fair to say we all say some words incorrectly, ye knaa?
regards jack
I have been reading this thread and I ashamed that some people think this is acceptable.
I celebrated Her Majesty this weekend, had a lovely time with my family. I am staunchly Monarchist. But I am also all for looking after one another too. Have some people no compassion at all? Even the most amateur organisation can just about manage to make sure that there are contingency plans should everything not go to plan. What about the Security company taking some responsibility for not ensuring they asked the coach company what time they expected to arrive and to ask the simple question of what time the coach needed to leave London to get back to wherever it was going for its next job. I have only had experience of booking coaches as an amateur, and that would certainly be the first question I would be asking. Just to make sure people were not stranded in the middle of the night in a strange place. What about keeping in contact with the driver via, you know, mobile phone or something, so someone from the Security company could be there to meet the 'volunteers'.
For a professional outfit they are worse than a bunch of amateurs. They obviously won the contract with the proviso they utilised some jobseekers, which I am not opposed to, if it is done professionally and not just not paying staff to enhance profits. And also making sure they uphold a duty of care which every employer has to live by. I am not surprised some of the jobseekers are angry, I would have been bloody petrified being dropped off in the middle of London with nowhere to sleep except under a bridge. For goodness sake simple human kindness would tell you that is no way to treat a fellow human.
Comments
Providing toilet facilities, dignity and respect is the foundation of a civilised society.
Not just because they were volunteers but because the organisation was crap I would have thought.
Do you or does anybody know whether this company deliberately singled out these people because they were volunteers?
Maybe they treat everybody the same.
And people have been expressing "disgust and outrage" about anything to do with the Jubilee for weeks.
Cheryl Cole has come in for a lot since the concert.
"Scandal", "the cornerstone of a civilised society", just stop with the hyperbole.
The only reason I can think for your views is that you see the unemployed as somehow less human than " working people".
that says it all about you and your views
Is there somebody else on this thread you are arguing with?
Because it's becoming apparent that you don't want a discussion about anything, you just want to be angry about a product of your fevered imagination.
Where are you getting all this from?
It is entirely self generating.
But in this case volunteer wasn't actually the case was it. Volunteers don't need to be threatened with anything or in any way.
You seem to be unable to defend your views and have a misunderstanding of how the law works, who it protects and why. Angry, I'm only angry that people can be treated this way with the connivance of our elected, yes elected, representatives. They are elected to represent the interests of all the people of this country and not just whom they deem to represent. As for your views, you have to live with them, not I
The same can be seen in this thread too. Derail, divert, attack and falsify the actual process these people went through, all in order to justify the use of JSA claimants for free by a company claiming top dollar payment from the public purse.
The Employment Minister Chris Grayling said it appeared in this particular case people were treated in an "appalling way".
ITV News - http://www.itv.com/news/london/2012-06-06/call-for-unpaid-jubilee-stewards-investigation/
In which case neither should the BBC.
Shame on the BBC. Close them down, sack everyone etc etc......
Here is a list from Wiki to help.
I've made a start on those which might not be applicable in this situation, i.e. a 24 / 48 Hr period of work.
Now if it had been working hours or breaks, that might be a different matter.
To be honest it might not be human rights in the legal sense but it is just a basic human need to have toilet facilties, privacy when changing and a warm place of rest, to not be expected to camp out in the cold and damp before doing your duty.
There might be some jobs where the above is not physically possible but this occasion was not one of them.
Should we even need a law to afford such things to people, or should it just be a given we treat other people with a bit of respect?
A million people turned out to see the Queen.
And there no toilet facilities available for use?
I was at Folkestone at the weekend and they had at least a dozen, that I saw (and used) for their comparatively small crowd.
Privacy when changing?
You would think that with 80 people there someone might have thought of getting a dozen or so people to form an outward facing circle to protect someones privacy?
Not expected to camp out in the cold and damp before duty?
It would be more reasonable to expect an experienced coach firm not to to over-estimate a journey time by two and a half hours or at least stick around for a while if they were early. Then people could have had an extra couple of hours sleep and changed on the coach.
I think they should have been allowed on the coach but did the guys not have sleeping bags with them? I am sure I read somewhere they were told they were allowed to use their sleeping bags. Why would they have sleeping bags if the arrival time was not pre planned?
Even Chris Grayling, the champion of the work programme, condemned how those stewards were treated. Face it, those right wing commentators who attempted to absurdly turn this issue into a call for patriotism have utterly failed and should do the decent thing by backing down.
Perhaps for the night after their 14 hour shift ended. When they slept in wet tents.
And the arrival time was planned for 05:30 (the coach company estimate) rather than 03:00.
If they had sleeping bags why couldn't some have used them to change in?
Why could it not just have been better organised in the first place?
There was a serious lack of organisation on the organisers part. Do we really want a disorganised firm running security and marshalling for the biggest event we have ever seen, let alone paying them vast amounts of moeny for the priviledge.
I got better treatment during my stint as a motorsport marshall at small events, than these guys seem to have had.
Why not ask the coach company, or the driver, since they seem to have made the biggest cockup?
Try and be a bit more melodramatic nanscombe, your posts lack something without it.
jack
Or try and work the word parasite into the conversation? :eek:
I might end up the (Inactive Member) Auld Snody if I did that.
Cant you see the future, is being squandered through excessive pessimism. I think it's fair to say we all say some words incorrectly, ye knaa?
regards jack
I celebrated Her Majesty this weekend, had a lovely time with my family. I am staunchly Monarchist. But I am also all for looking after one another too. Have some people no compassion at all? Even the most amateur organisation can just about manage to make sure that there are contingency plans should everything not go to plan. What about the Security company taking some responsibility for not ensuring they asked the coach company what time they expected to arrive and to ask the simple question of what time the coach needed to leave London to get back to wherever it was going for its next job. I have only had experience of booking coaches as an amateur, and that would certainly be the first question I would be asking. Just to make sure people were not stranded in the middle of the night in a strange place. What about keeping in contact with the driver via, you know, mobile phone or something, so someone from the Security company could be there to meet the 'volunteers'.
For a professional outfit they are worse than a bunch of amateurs. They obviously won the contract with the proviso they utilised some jobseekers, which I am not opposed to, if it is done professionally and not just not paying staff to enhance profits. And also making sure they uphold a duty of care which every employer has to live by. I am not surprised some of the jobseekers are angry, I would have been bloody petrified being dropped off in the middle of London with nowhere to sleep except under a bridge. For goodness sake simple human kindness would tell you that is no way to treat a fellow human.