Not to take anything away from a very real issue but looking at some of the claims about some of those companies that I'm familiar with still being involved and it would seem its people who hate those companies making up stories (regardless as to if the companies are still involved with workfare or not) - reading some of the comments their descriptions of what they did at a company while "working" there show big discrepancy between what they are claiming and the procedures used to actually do that job at the company.
Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling
- Thread starter CosmicClown
- Start date
Not to take anything away from a very real issue but looking at some of the claims about some of those companies that I'm familiar with still being involved and it would seem its people who hate those companies making up stories (regardless as to if the companies are still involved with workfare or not) - reading some of the comments their descriptions of what they did at a company while "working" there show big discrepancy between what they are claiming and the procedures used to actually do that job at the company.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
Yeah, there maybe some who may post lies on the site to try and discredit a campaign that's having a real effect, I don't think they really hate those companies but infiltrators will post stories for the very effect you have discribed, probably typed on DWP computers but I do accept there may be some with a grudge against these companies, that happens in all walks of life. I hate those companies who are exploiting benefit claiments and we must keep up the pressure to end it.
Work must be rewarded with a pay packet preferably a living wage. Minimum wage is just a joke.
Last edited:
Yeah, there are some who may post lies on the site to try and discredit a campaign that's having a real effect, I don't think they really hate those companies but infiltrators will post stories for the very effect you have discribed, probably typed on DWP computers but I do accept there are some with a grudge against these companies, that happens in all walks of life. I hate those companies who are exploiting benefit claiments and we must keep up the pressure to end it.
You discredit yourself with lies and deliberate misinformation, such as contiunally calling the work program forced labour when the courts have ruled explicitly that it is not. I found this especially hypocritical when you did it in the same post as you appealed to law about another aspect of the ruling...
I don't approve of the work program, but it should be argued against honestly if you want to change it, rather than with lies and hyperbole.
To get paid for my advise and services, you can drop me a payment of £2000 and i'll share it with you.
Why would I enter into a contract blind? share something and maybe it will be worth it?
Arrrgh! Political repression in the 21st century, another arrogant ugly statement.
Context failure, please read the chain of posts before that one.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
What, you mean like Duncan Smith who says it's voluntary? while mandatory work is applied?? Forced unpaid labour end of.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
I see the boycott workfare is having a real effect on some here. lol
I think you need to look up the definition of 'forced'.
Do they have to do it in that if they don't, they will be carried off and made to do it? No. Therefore, not 'forced'.
They may get their benefits stopped, but no one is physically making them to do this work and beating them if they don't.
You calling it forced labour really diminishes what everyone who actually went through forced labour went through.
To be fair, has always been the way the world over. People who are affected either way will get biased and interpret things from a particular point of view.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
Your definition of "forced" is a strange one, isn't that a bit like saying if a gunman holds you at gun point and demands your money, do they have to do it in that if they don't they'll be shot, isn't that a choice??? No of course it isn't just like it isn't a choice for those who will lose their benefit if they refuse to carry out unpaid work. At least being shot would be quicker than starving to death. Therefore, "Forced".
It reminds me of the BNP website, a lot of emotive language and anecdotal claims of victimisation, but nothing in the way of honest and objective facts about the problem. The attitude towards 'the enemy' is very similar as well.
Really? Holding a gun to someone's head is the same as stopping benefits?
Holding a gun = give me money or die
This scheme = work, or you get no benefits and you will have to support yourself.
You don't see a difference?
Given that workers are forced to hand over their property to the state for condtional redistribution, what is unfair about the demand for a little bit of conditionality for the recipients?
Or does your objection to state use of force only apply some of the time?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
Do 30+hrs week below min wage or we will stop you having money to eat, sounds forced to me.
Unless food just miraculously appears in my fridge.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
AHAHAHAHAHA!
It isn't 'we will stop you having money'. It is 'we will stop giving you money'.
Nothing stopping people from looking for a paid job instead of it.
And if I understand correctly, it only happens to people who have already been unemployed for quite some time, so the 'need time to look' excuse wouldn't apply.
It is not forced labour.
Examples of forced labour -
“I was recruited from at a soup kitchen at a park in London. They always target people with drinking problems because we are easier to manipulate are more easy to make bad decisions by believing their lies. They know we will never claim our rights. I was promised between £50 and £70 a day but instead was paid virtually nothing. I was tricked twice. The first time I worked for a month without pay, the second time for two months. I was transported to and from different jobs block-paving driveways. I wanted to leave but the gang who employed me were intimidating and I had heard that other men who had tried to leave were beaten up by the gang. Plus, we were in the middle of the countryside, miles from the nearest town.”
Source - http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/forced_labour.aspx
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,383
- Location
- Darwen
Of course its forced, you either do it or face sanctions, i.e. loss of benefits.
How are you supposed to live if you don't have any money coming in, so therefore you do it because you don't have a choice, hence forced.
I think you should look up forced in a dictionary before you try being clever.
forced
[fawrst, fohrst]
adjective
1.
enforced or compulsory: forced labor.
2.
strained, unnatural, or affected: a forced smile.
3.
subjected to force.
4.
required by circumstances; emergency: a forced landing of an airplane.
Why do you think people are on benefits, because they can't get a job and they don't have any freaking money, and spare me the "omg dole dossers", I'd wager there are more genuine people than there are scroungers on benefits.
Last edited:
You face sanctions, but it doesn't mean that it is the only option. If they were in other paid employment, they would no longer need to do it. No one is stopping them from finding this other paid employment.
"adjective
1.
enforced or compulsory: forced labor."
Do they have a choice in that can they do something else? Yes.
I.e. - not forced.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,383
- Location
- Darwen
What choice do they have pray tell. Do it and get benefits, don't do it and stop eating, having electricity or heating?