Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

Dolph said:
Have you got a valid news source for the claim or just a highly biased pressure site?
Click to expand...
Anything anti is always going to be biased then in your eyes?

Just because its on a site that is biased against doesn't mean the information isn't credible.

It's already happened to me and a few mates, been made redundant only to find that we have been replaced by people on these schemes.
 
Dolph said:
and if you read the page, you will see they are taken fron the readers comments on the guardian, not from published and verified news stories...
Click to expand...

So you'd take a stance that these people have made up these stories? or that because it's on the boycott webby that it's now not true?
 
esoteric said:
So you'd take a stance that these people have made up these stories? or that because it's on the boycott webby that it's now not true?
Click to expand...

I am taking the stance that these are unverified claims reported on a site with a clear agenda and as such should be treated with both caution and skeptism as the are anecdotal evidence recieved via a secondary source with a stated bias.

I would treat a collection of pro-workfare anecdotes collated by a site such as conservative home in exactly the same way.
 
Dolph said:
I am taking the stance that these are unverified claims reported on a site with a clear agenda and as such should be treated with both caution and skeptism as the are anecdotal evidence recieved via a secondary source with a stated bias.
Click to expand...
........or........ they don't support my opinion so I'm going to use 20 words where 5 will do to try and wangle my way out of it.
 
Eeeeeethan said:
They don't support his opinion so they are clearly fake/biased.
Click to expand...

So should I believe everything on David Icke's website?

It's no different to UKUNCUT, a lot of what they put out is complete rubbish, or rather they cherry pick and twist facts to suit their agenda. And here is the irony, you are accusing Dolph of ignoring evidence that doesn't suit his view whilst quoting from a website built from that principle. Afterall, where is their 'positive stories' section?
 
Last edited:
Eeeeeethan said:
........or........ they don't support my opinion so I'm going to use 20 words where 5 will do to try and wangle my way out of it.
Click to expand...

See my edit and gain some understanding ;)

Or alternatively, just continue to lack in displaying any form of critical thinking in your posts.
 
Poundland have pulled out of the scheme and will be creating their own scheme purely voluntary now.
 
Dolph said:
I have no problem with those who don't want to take part. all they need to do is stop taking money from the taxpayer and they will instantly be free of all obligations like this...
.
Click to expand...

When were you last on the dole, if ever?

When you first sign on you are asked to sign a contract, on this contract are your obligations NOT ONE includes 'Must do mandatory unpaid work for 30 hours a week after a certain amount of time'

What advisors were doing were forcing people (Through threat of sanction) to sign another contract (under the pretense that its for your own good) which gives them the right to make you attend these programmes, I KNOW, I EXPERIENCED IT I was on the dole for 12 months up until 6 months ago, they threatened me with sanctions if I did not sign this contract, even though upon further research I realized I was well within my rights to NOT sign it and my jsa would not be affected, it's about shifting numbers around to these people and I'm pretty sure these advisors probably get commision depending on how many numbers they shift where.

TO RECEIVE JSA YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO WORK FOR FREE, END OF.
 
I think first thing they should do is make it illegal to employ volunteer workforce who are on job seekers allowance. Poundland, corporations, public facilities or otherwise. So far it only gives people impression it's ok to ef around all day long in a museum, library or BBC while taxpayers pay for it. If there is a true need for someone to make coffees for senior staff in TV studios, art galleries etc, let them employ some youngster and pay them wage. That's also how this very story started as well.
 
CosmicClown said:
When were you last on the dole, if ever?

When you first sign on you are asked to sign a contract, on this contract are your obligations NOT ONE includes 'Must do mandatory unpaid work for 30 hours a week after a certain amount of time'

What advisors were doing were forcing people (Through threat of sanction) to sign another contract (under the pretense that its for your own good) which gives them the right to make you attend these programmes, I KNOW, I EXPERIENCED IT I was on the dole for 12 months up until 6 months ago, they threatened me with sanctions if I did not sign this contract, even though upon further research I realized I was well within my rights to NOT sign it and my jsa would not be affected, it's about shifting numbers around to these people and I'm pretty sure these advisors probably get commision depending on how many numbers they shift where.

TO RECEIVE JSA YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO WORK FOR FREE, END OF.
Click to expand...

I have never been on JSA, when I was out of work I went and took a job at McDonalds rather than claim.

However, you are reiterating the judgement, which is fine for the past, but I would not expect this to continue as the regulations have already been amended.
 
v0n said:
I think first thing they should do is make it illegal to employ volunteer workforce who are on job seekers allowance. Poundland, corporations, public facilities or otherwise. So far it only gives people impression it's ok to ef around all day long in a museum, library or BBC while taxpayers pay for it. If there is a true need for someone to make coffees for senior staff in TV studios, art galleries etc, let them employ some youngster and pay them wage. That's also how this very story started as well.
Click to expand...

What about charity workers? Should the old people who work in Scope have their pensions docked?
 
Hostile17 said:
Poundland have pulled out of the scheme and will be creating their own scheme purely voluntary now.
Click to expand...

I Just think that you have to question the whole validity of the "Workfare" debacle. If you are not even prepared to publish a list of employers that are participating in a national government backed scheme. Does that not strike anyone as being just odd. Surely if the companies who signed up to the scheme thought they were doing there bit for the countries recovery would they not want to take advantage of that publicity and sing it from the rafters??

Instead their names are hidden from us. Is that possibly because they think they are doing something morally bankrupt in taking advantage unpaid labour from some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/09/mandatory-work-activity-names-witheld

Not so very long ago Mr Cameron's much touted "Big Society" was endorsing the merits of people playing their part in the "Big Society" by contributing their time and effort into local issues. IE volunteering your time to do something useful. So now I'm confused in one breath volunteering is a good an sensible thing to do, but if you happen to be on JSA it's actually better if you don't volunteer and work for free in poundland, which is next to useless, unless of course Poundland are making a few quid out of it at your expense.

You could also ask yourself the question why a government would ask people to volunteer their time for nothing anyway. Are you contributing to society? Or are they passing the buck??

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, views on the "Big Society" and he's far more intellectual than I. (From the middle of last year)
"The archbishop of Canterbury has denounced David Cameron's "big society", saying that it comes across as aspirational waffle that was "designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable

A perception that the government is failing to prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable as it pursues growth has spread since the chancellor, George Osborne's, decision to end the top 50p rate of tax on incomes of more than £150,000 a year in his March budget.

But it is his suggestion that the big society – Cameron's personal vision of a more active civic society – is seen by people as a deliberate cover for plans to shrink the state that will be most controversial. On Saturday night, Cameron revealed he was considering scrapping most of the £1.8bn in housing benefits paid to 380,000 under-25s, worth an average of £90 a week, forcing them to support themselves or live with their parents. He also told the Mail on Sunday he might stop the £70-a-week dole money for the unemployed who refuse to try hard to find work or produce a CV

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom