Options

Could the Unemployed Help with the Flood Relief

135

Comments

  • Options
    jenziejenzie Posts: 20,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yeah, but according to the tabloids a third of unemployed are convicted criminals. With a recent criminal record.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8979769/Third-of-unemployed-are-convicted-criminals.html

    So public perception of how law abiding the unemployed are is not likely to high.

    GRADE A BULL FECES
  • Options
    Ed R.MarleyEd R.Marley Posts: 9,214
    Forum Member
    WindWalker wrote: »
    Are some people really using the misfortune and misery of others to have a pop at the unemployed now? Why the need to single out any particular demographic in times of crisis?

    They're Tories - what do you expect?

    They'd do anything to have a pop at the unfortunate.
  • Options
    razorboyrazorboy Posts: 5,831
    Forum Member
    If you believed one in three unemployed people are criminals with a recent criminal record would you honestly want the unemployed coming to help you a resident in a relatively affluent low crime area where there are empty properties and there already have been reports of looting?

    and more to the point would you want to employ them. A government wanting to help people into work would go out of its way to boost up those who are unemployed or in similar circumstances/

    No-one is denying that there are a few rotten apples in any section of society but the vast majority are decent law abiding people who want to do the right thing. There are even a few honest bankers.
  • Options
    kippehkippeh Posts: 6,655
    Forum Member
    jenzie wrote: »
    and what's stopping them then?

    Jeremy Kyle
  • Options
    Andy2Andy2 Posts: 11,951
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Could the Unemployed Help with the Flood Relief?
    Oh blimey, can you imagine the kerfuffle? Out would come the students, the Clergy, the usual suspects, all shouting and carping about 'slave labour' and 'workhouses'. Probably death-camps too.
  • Options
    karapote monkeykarapote monkey Posts: 3,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    People should help because they want to, not forced to because they don't have a job.
  • Options
    FrankieFixerFrankieFixer Posts: 11,530
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What would the soldiers be doing if they weren't there helping?
  • Options
    razorboyrazorboy Posts: 5,831
    Forum Member
    People should help because they want to, not forced to because they don't have a job.

    There is wisdom in the old saying that one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men
  • Options
    James2001James2001 Posts: 73,982
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    Are some people really using the misfortune and misery of others to have a pop at the unemployed now? Why the need to single out any particular demographic in times of crisis?

    Did you ever expect any less from the DS rightie collective? The unemployed are sub-human in their eyes.
  • Options
    CSJBCSJB Posts: 6,188
    Forum Member
    I said the people in the wealthy areas effected might not be keen. What opinion do you think they might have of the unemployed in these Tory safe seats where the most popular paper is the DailyMail and on TV they see programs like benefit street, on benefits and proud, saints and scroungers, and TV dramas like shameless, etc.

    As for being unemployed does not make you a criminal. That's true but being a criminal makes you more likely to be unemployed and the make up of the rioter looters in 2011 was disproportionately people on benefits at 40%.

    I for one would not want the cast of Benefits Street turning up in my area to help with any flooding.

    If only 40% were on benefits doesn't that mean that the majority of rioters were employed people ?

    Yeah, but according to the tabloids a third of unemployed are convicted criminals. With a recent criminal record.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8979769/Third-of-unemployed-are-convicted-criminals.html

    So public perception of how law abiding the unemployed are is not likely to high.

    So 33% of unemployed people have a criminal record, are you aware that 26% of all uk working age adults have a criminal record ?
    I don't think a 7% difference is worth labelling an entire group of people criminals, do you ?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CSJB wrote: »
    If only 40% were on benefits doesn't that mean that the majority of rioters were employed people ?
    If all the rioters were working age, the number on benefits should have been 14% (there are 38.4 million working age people and 5.5 million are on out of work benefits) instead it was 40% that is those on out of work benefits were just under three times more likely to be rioters than those not on out of work benefits.
    CSJB wrote: »
    So 33% of unemployed people have a criminal record, are you aware that 26% of all uk working age adults have a criminal record ?
    I don't think a 7% difference is worth labelling an entire group of people criminals, do you ?
    There are 38.4 million working age people in the UK and according to the Police Crime Database 9.2 million have a criminal that's 24%.

    That would make someone on JSA 1.375x more likely to be a criminal than someone not on JSA. But, the tabloid claim is recent criminal record, so if those with a non recent criminal record were included the figure would be higher.

    Anyhow my point was one of public opinion of the unemployed due to how they are depicted in the media. Public opinion is low according to attitude surveys and especially low amongst those who vote Conservative.
  • Options
    CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CSJB wrote: »
    So 33% of unemployed people have a criminal record, are you aware that 26% of all uk working age adults have a criminal record ?
    I don't think a 7% difference is worth labelling an entire group of people criminals, do you ?
    obviously I dont support branding unemployed as criminals, and this is yet another example of the governments current anti unemployment stance, back firing on the very people it claims to want to help.

    1/3 of a group being criminals does seem high, when viewed in isolation, but that 26% stat makes it alot less of a big deal.
  • Options
    Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I very much suspect they already are, in fact I'd say it's more than highly likely they already are.

    You won't get anything in the press praising them though.
  • Options
    OLD HIPPY GUYOLD HIPPY GUY Posts: 28,199
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So, some people seem to think that those who have been singled out deamonised scapegoated for all that's wrong with our economy, the "work-shy" the "feckless" the "scroungers" the "something for nothing brigade" the members of "the benefits culture"
    Be they unemployed, sick, disabled, even IN low paid employment, Should they need to depend on any kind of benefit at all, They all 'deserve' whatever hardship, scorn, and hatred comes their way, according to this government and the overwhelming majority of it's supporters and voters,
    The very people who will quite often sneer at those facing hardship and devastation indeed, even those facing the loss of the home they love and all the stress and heartbreak that entails, if they happen to be spare room criminals, "tough" they will often say, when the 'poors' complain about being forced to use food banks,
    "we have a huge debt problem, cuts have to be made, it's tough for everyone why, we've had to cancel one of our holidays this year"
    THEY support and voted for a government that said cuts to welfare and public services will have to be made, "fine" they said, won't really have any impact on ME, only on those Labour voting scrounging Oiks, 'public services' what, like libraries and swimming pools, and care homes for 'poor' old people? Pha!! Cry me a river,

    No one mentioned cuts to the environmental agencies and the possible Consequences of such cuts, and now that those particular chickens have come home to roost, Out goes the call to get those poors those detested scroungers who have been bearing the brunt of their parties hate and blame campaign for the past three and a half years, to get down here to the Tory heartlands and help protect OUR homes, property and belongings,
    Strange that I don't recall such a suggestion when parts of the north east were being flooded,..... What? you didn't know we had been having floods up here too? Why would you? it's north of London,
    message from oop north, sorry that you are experiencing hardship, it's sad and you have my deepest sympathy, but, cuts have to be made, best advice I can give is to do as we've been told to do and, SUCK IT UP,
  • Options
    Uncle FesterUncle Fester Posts: 15,357
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What?
    Instead of sandbags...:D

    Ooh you are awful , but I like you :D
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So, some people seem to think that those who have been singled out deamonised scapegoated for all that's wrong with our economy, the "work-shy" the "feckless" the "scroungers" the "something for nothing brigade" the members of "the benefits culture"
    Be they unemployed, sick, disabled, even IN low paid employment, Should they need to depend on any kind of benefit at all, They all 'deserve' whatever hardship, scorn, and hatred comes their way, according to this government and the overwhelming majority of it's supporters and voters,
    The very people who will quite often sneer at those facing hardship and devastation indeed, even those facing the loss of the home they love and all the stress and heartbreak that entails, if they happen to be spare room criminals, "tough" they will often say, when the 'poors' complain about being forced to use food banks,
    "we have a huge debt problem, cuts have to be made, it's tough for everyone why, we've had to cancel one of our holidays this year"
    THEY support and voted for a government that said cuts to welfare and public services will have to be made, "fine" they said, won't really have any impact on ME, only on those Labour voting scrounging Oiks, 'public services' what, like libraries and swimming pools, and care homes for 'poor' old people? Pha!! Cry me a river,

    No one mentioned cuts to the environmental agencies and the possible Consequences of such cuts, and now that those particular chickens have come home to roost, Out goes the call to get those poors those detested scroungers who have been bearing the brunt of their parties hate and blame campaign for the past three and a half years, to get down here to the Tory heartlands and help protect OUR homes, property and belongings,
    Strange that I don't recall such a suggestion when parts of the north east were being flooded,..... What? you didn't know we had been having floods up here too? Why would you? it's north of London,
    message from oop north, sorry that you are experiencing hardship, it's sad and you have my deepest sympathy, but, cuts have to be made, best advice I can give is to do as we've been told to do and, SUCK IT UP,

    Bravo! Says it all really.
  • Options
    Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Could we use them instead of sandbags?
  • Options
    gulliverfoylegulliverfoyle Posts: 6,318
    Forum Member
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    Could we use them instead of sandbags?

    white dee could be used if the thames barrier fails ;-)
  • Options
    MeercamMeercam Posts: 1,020
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    Could we use them instead of sandbags?

    Yes. I've seen many of them absorb huge amounts of liquid in my local pub.
    They can do it all day as well!
  • Options
    Gary_LandyFanGary_LandyFan Posts: 3,824
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Meercam wrote: »
    Yes. I've seen many of them absorb huge amounts of liquid in my local pub.
    They can do it all day as well!

    We should send the right wingers to deal with the faeces, since they eat up any sh!t...
  • Options
    TardisSteveTardisSteve Posts: 8,077
    Forum Member
    Meercam wrote: »
    Yes. I've seen many of them absorb huge amounts of liquid in my local pub.
    They can do it all day as well!

    Hey troll, how did you know they were unemployed, did they have it branded on their forehead
  • Options
    TardisSteveTardisSteve Posts: 8,077
    Forum Member
    We should send the right wingers to deal with the faeces, since they eat up any sh!t...

    Meercam is full of it already :D
  • Options
    gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Meercam wrote: »
    Yes. I've seen many of them absorb huge amounts of liquid in my local pub.
    They can do it all day as well!

    You should be happy at least they're keeping your local pub open, more than can be said of pubs around here, where unemployment is very high.
  • Options
    skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That would be slave labour if they were made to work more than a day a week.

    Besides if your on JSA you need to spend your time skilling yourself up, applying and interviewing.

    Maybe these people in their Surrey homes should pay people a living wage

    Not everyone in Surrey is a wealthy company owner, not all company owners are wealthy anyway and apart from that why should the people of Surrey pay those on JSA a living wage ?
  • Options
    deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What about unemployed people in areas without flooding? The problem with these work for welfare schemes is the tax payers are no better off as they are still paying JSA. In fact they pay more due to the cost of hiring supervisors at full pay, training and health and safety.
Sign In or Register to comment.