Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

Are you a part time worker, low paid worker?

It’s now Day 6 of the week of action – and we must have already topped 35 hours of anti-workfare activity. Shame we can’t stick that down on the form!

Join people in cities across the UK for pickets and creative action, and take part in online action too!

For today’s online action, we will turn our eyes towards the future and step up efforts to get another ‘flagship’ scheme grounded before it even sets sail out of the harbour. Not content with the devastation sanctions are already causing, the DWP and their thinktank friends Policy Exchange have been seeking ideas on how to extend workfare and ‘conditionality’ – let’s call it profiteering, time-wasting, potentially life-sapping harassment – to working claimants when Universal Credit kicks in. And we have this weekend to tell them: don’t even think of it

For full story and your chance to tell them what you think visit Boycott Workfare website.

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/
 
[..]
Capitalism acknowledges the selfish trait and tries to work with it by saying the harder you work, the more you will get whereas communism either completely ignores it or when it does admit it, it deals with by oppression of rights and prison for those that don't comply [..]

Capitalism is essentially the same, just with different masters. The idea that under capitalism you get more by working harder is ludicrous propaganda that's even less believable than the propaganda of communism. Both systems are extremes that could only work as stated if everyone was a saint. Both systems are an inevitable dictatorship or oligarchy and oppressive tyranny either way, capitalism probably more so as there's no need for the tyrants to pretend to be anything else. Indentured servitude would probably be the norm, as that's more profitable for the owners in a more sustainable way than outright slavery, but slavery is perfectly capitalist. Capitalism would probably result in a significant minority of people being slaves and the majority being indentured servants (in order to create a market of consumers, since slaves wouldn't be consumers). Born in a company hospital, educated in a company school, indentured to company employment, paid in company credits to service your never-ending debt with enough left over to buy company food, pay company rent, etc. Most consumables would have course have addictive substances added to them - it's the most profitable way to ensure repeat business and the company legal system wouldn't restrict the company from making a profit, obviously. No other form of law or government, of course, as that's anti-capitalist.

Communism is a simple system trying to work with the complexity of human nature. I really don't get why anyone thinks it's the bees knees when all you have to do is think about for 5 minutes and realise it can never work. It's like me saying wouldn't it be great if people stopped committing crime and they found a solution for world hunger and a cure for AIDs and cancer tomorrow. Sure that would be great but it isn't reality so it's pointless even discussing it.

I see two possible explanations:

1) Some people might think that communism as stated is possible. Of course it isn't, but some people might think it is and therefore think that it's the bee's knees. It is a nice dream - everything run by everyone for the benefit of everyone. Which in reality means everything run by whoever can seize power for the benefit of themselves. Just like capitalism.

2) Some people would want to be the tyrants and think that they can use communism to seize power, which would make it the bee's knees to them.
 
Five Truths About Workfare:

Today is the last day in the week of action. Today we want you to spread these messages, copy and paste into facebook, twitter and anywhere else you like:

Workfare Doesn’t Help Find Work – no scheme does better than the JCP, the Work Programme stops people finding work http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/03/five-things-the-government-wont-tell-you-about-workfare/

Workfare can’t reduce unemployment – With no job creation mechanism, all it can do is change who gets a job, which doesn’t cut unemployment. By threatening paid work, the only thing workfare can do is increase unemployment, except of course in the statistics http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=1659

Workfare Threatens Paid Work – With a steady supply of free labour, companies will obviously cut paid jobs and hours http://www.channel4.com/news/now-asda-is-accused-of-employing-youths-for-no-wage

Work Experience Scheme is workfare – Some sanctions remain and if you refuse, you are threatened with the Mandatory Work Activity scheme instead http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2230

There are sanctions targets – The government was shown to be lying about this in 2011, and it’s been shown to be lying again this week. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/21/jobcentre-set-targets-benefit-sanctions



The fact that the workfare industry’s trade body has felt the need to push out more myths about workfare is a clear sign that what you are doing is making an impact! Keep up the good work and help challenge their lies wherever you find them!

If you’d like to respond to ERSA’s myths directly. You’ll find them on Twitter as @ersa_news and their contact form here.


http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2351#more-2351
 
Holy crap, nipped into Asda today looking at the most expensive bottle of Brandy on the shelf when disaster struck, a bottle accidently fell and smashed, I was so embarrassed I just left the shop without purchasing a single item I just hope I don't accidently go and do it in other workfare retail outlets. Butterfingers, accidents will happen.
Imagine 2.5 million unemployed people becoming accident prone, not to mention sick and disabled people who just can't seem to hold on to objects, mind boggling.
 
Holy crap, nipped into Asda today looking at the most expensive bottle of Brandy on the shelf when disaster struck, a bottle accidently fell and smashed, I was so embarrassed I just left the shop without purchasing a single item I just hope I don't accidently go and do it in other workfare retail outlets. Butterfingers, accidents will happen.
Imagine 2.5 million unemployed people becoming accident prone, not to mention sick and disabled people who just can't seem to hold on to objects, mind boggling.

Imagine 2.5 million unemployed people banned from sources of cheap food.
 
Holy crap, nipped into Asda today looking at the most expensive bottle of Brandy on the shelf when disaster struck, a bottle accidently fell and smashed, I was so embarrassed I just left the shop without purchasing a single item I just hope I don't accidently go and do it in other workfare retail outlets. Butterfingers, accidents will happen.
Imagine 2.5 million unemployed people becoming accident prone, not to mention sick and disabled people who just can't seem to hold on to objects, mind boggling.

Good to see the violent tendancies in the left alive and well. Having failed to win any form of debate, start smashing things. Classic.
 
So...on to the longer term.

Who can people who oppose the blatant harm caused by workfare and the illegal schemes, retroactive laws and lying used to cover it up vote for?

This is a voting issue for me, but so is the Labour party's love of sexism and massive government intrusion into everything and the consequent ending of any idea of privacy (implemented badly and insecurely, of course). So who can I vote for? Liberal Democrats would be closest to my own views, but I've almost always voted for them in the past on principle and it's not really very useful because they're not going to win. In fact, where I live Labour is going to win. They always do.

I voted conservative last time, because I thought they'd be less bad than labour. Now I think they're just differently bad and I'm unsure which is worse.

I can understand why so many people don't bother voting - what's the point? It's like voting for which one of two cows is going to poo on your bed.
 
I think this could go here too;

BBC Scotlandshire said:
British Empire resurrects slavery

In a bold move this week, the UK parliament decided to re-write the law on slavery to make it legal, and also to make it apply retrospectively.

poundlandslave.jpg


Poundland slave pleads for freedom

The Tory/Lib Dem government, led by aspiring village idiot Ian Duncan Smith put the bill through, after a UK court found their workfare programme of forcing people work for nothing had been illegal and the government would have to pay compensation to whingers like Cate Reilly, the geologist miffed at being forced to work in Poundland.

It had been expected that the government would simply accept its policy was illegal and pay compensation, however Ian Duncan Smith laughed off this suggestion. “Don't be so stupid,” he said. “The law is for little people, just as taxes are.

"If you're wealthy or a banker and you do something illegal, you can always expect your friends in government to help out, change the law, for example, or pretend they don't understand it. Jeremy Hunt was terribly good at that with with both Murdoch and the NHS.

"However, if you're a government - at least one unfettered by anything stupid like a constutution - and you do something illegal, there is no problem at all. We are the law, you silly little boy. And if we wish to make that law retrospective, then we shall. Now get back to work you scrounging git, and tidy yourself up."

However, Labour's chief whip and gimp mask operator, Watt Yousoffrin, said “This government has to accept it is not a majority. They cannot just change the law retrospectively and pass it through parliament with no questions asked.

"Not without the support of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and that support cannot be taken for granted. They cannot assume the free Labour party will roll over and be submissive, however much of a sexual kick certain of our MPs might derive from that position. No, the Tories must make some concessions, such as buying us all champagne in Strangers Bar and talking dirty to us later. And also promising to help us push deeply unpopular policies through parliament against folk's democratic wishes when it's our turn to be the dominatrix...erm, I mean, elected government.”

It is not known what concessions the Tories offered, but Labour did not oppose the vote, hence the change in law to allow slavery passed and is now retrospective. Margit Curran, MP for Glasgow refused to be drawn on what had been offered, but said, “Oh, Labour and the Tories work very well in partnership in the governance of the UK.

conlabpals.png


All good pals and jolly good company

"We have frequently worked together to thrust such hard and unpopular ****-ups as the Iraq war and NHS privatisation, onto an unwilling yet powerless public, for example. Frequently aided and abetted by people like your good selves at BBC Scotlandshire and in the media, of course.

"There is nothing new here, nothing to see. Move along now and go back to reporting on how evil those nasty separatists are the way we pay you handsomely to do.”

BBC Scotlandshire did then look for an evil separatist to comment however there didn't appear to be any in the contacts list spreadsheet, so we spoke to Ian Davidson Chairchoob of the Committee for Scottish Affairs Silencing Extremist Rogues Vouchsafing Intelligent Legal Experts instead.

This was because he had actually voted no, rebelling against the Labour whip, along with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens, so is as close to a dangerous radical threat as we could find within the Labour party. He said, “Whit? Ah wis votin' against ma whip wis ah? Ah hudnae realised that. Ah jist saw an Aye and a Naw and it hud tae be Naw because it aye hus to be naw. That's whit we vote, is it no? Ach, am ah in trouble then?”

blanknews.jpg


Media coverage of slavery reintroduction

Rather bizarrely, no major news outlet appears to have reported the retrospective change in the law, and Citivas, the respected legal think tank who had a well written, passionate piece on it, appeared to have had it pulled overnight and replaced with bland place holding text.

BBC Scotlandshire did ask around some of the other news outlets such as the Hootsmon and Herald of Doom but they just laughed and said, “Are you the new intern then? Aye, well, mibbe see you around eh? Not”.

Tommy Sheridan, firebrand and ex leader of Solidarity, who we thought could be relied on for a quote against, was surprisingly positive about the move. “Ah love it”, he said “Retrospectively changing the law is a brilliant idea and the way to go.

"For my manifesto in 2015, I'm going to stand on a ticket of making it illegal to have been a Tory MP and make it retrospective to 1979. All they *******s will see what it's like to be inside for a while then. And my new 'Confederation Of Comrades Keeping Tories Illegal Party' will romp it home, you wait and see and you can stick that in your BBC Scotlandshire...

Editorial Apology

BBC Scotlandshire apologises profusely that this article slipped through onto its pages.

That daft little Nye Eve tit has now been escorted off Atlantic Quay, and security on the BBC Scotlandshire site tightened to prevent such disgusting displays of telling people what's actually happening. As soon as we find a real, paid journalist it will be removed and replaced by a story about Justin Bieber.

www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/
 
So...on to the longer term.

Who can people who oppose the blatant harm caused by workfare and the illegal schemes, retroactive laws and lying used to cover it up vote for?

The SNP, Plaid, Greens, socialists, independent candidates etc?

Something new? Spoil your paper? Protest instead?

The mainstream might have passed many of us by, but there are still alternatives.

This is a voting issue for me, but so is the Labour party's love of sexism and massive government intrusion into everything and the consequent ending of any idea of privacy (implemented badly and insecurely, of course). So who can I vote for? Liberal Democrats would be closest to my own views, but I've almost always voted for them in the past on principle and it's not really very useful because they're not going to win. In fact, where I live Labour is going to win. They always do.

I voted conservative last time, because I thought they'd be less bad than labour. Now I think they're just differently bad and I'm unsure which is worse.

I can understand why so many people don't bother voting - what's the point? It's like voting for which one of two cows is going to poo on your bed.

The mainstream offering is certainly disenfranchising, I totally agree. When people can no longer discern Labour and Tory, and see both as inept and right wing as each other they will move.
 
The SNP, Plaid, Greens, socialists, independent candidates etc?

SNP and Plaid Cymru don't seem to be fielding any candidates in this constituency in England :) Besides, I disagree with them too.

As for the others, it's either pointless voting for them or I disagree with them too strongly or both.

Something new? Spoil your paper? Protest instead?

Spoiling your paper is worse than "acting" on a political issue by clicking on "Like" on something on Facebook. They're both pointless inaction masquerading as action so that people can pretend they've done something, but spoiling your paper is worse because a tiny amount of attention is automatically paid to clicks on Facebook in order to sell data to advertisers.

There is nothing new and they wouldn't get elected if there was. Protest? Slightly better than nothing, but still ineffective.

Maybe I'm just too old to care enough, maybe I'm old enough to have realised it's pointless.

The mainstream might have passed many of us by, but there are still alternatives.

One of which is staying home and masturbating, which will be just as effective in changing national politics.

The mainstream offering is certainly disenfranchising, I totally agree. When people can no longer discern Labour and Tory, and see both as inept and right wing as each other they will move.

I don't think that will happen any time soon, if ever, and if it did then the "replacement" would be more of the same. It's like Pepsi and Coca-Cola - even though they're nearly the same, they're seen as being fundamentally different and have fan bases and advertising budgets to promote that idea.
 
SNP and Plaid Cymru don't seem to be fielding any candidates in this constituency in England :) Besides, I disagree with them too.

As for the others, it's either pointless voting for them or I disagree with them too strongly or both.

You're disenfranchised from politics bar inverted protest voting and the possibility of a good local independent candidate.



Spoiling your paper is worse than "acting" on a political issue by clicking on "Like" on something on Facebook. They're both pointless inaction masquerading as action so that people can pretend they've done something, but spoiling your paper is worse because a tiny amount of attention is automatically paid to clicks on Facebook in order to sell data to advertisers.

I disagree, and I'm not sure I get the comparison, but it would be better if those who were politically aware but marginalised by mainstream / local politics were to spoil their paper accordingly we could possibly get to a point where we could cite a lopsided spectral leaning of the the 'big three' as being at least part of the problem. There's a topic emerging in SC about this at the moment.

There is nothing new and they wouldn't get elected if there was. Protest? Slightly better than nothing, but still ineffective.

It would depend on what your aims are.

Maybe I'm just too old to care enough, maybe I'm old enough to have realised it's pointless.

Sounds a touch defeatist if you ask me honestly, I'm not getting any younger myself but I don't think its pointless. I can buy the limitations of one man, but collaboration is the key to nearly everything in life.



One of which is staying home and masturbating, which will be just as effective in changing national politics.

:D

You are getting quite cynical in your old age! Or is that realism? ;)



I don't think that will happen any time soon, if ever, and if it did then the "replacement" would be more of the same. It's like Pepsi and Coca-Cola - even though they're nearly the same, they're seen as being fundamentally different and have fan bases and advertising budgets to promote that idea.

I think what happened was just down to circumstance, there is a rich vein of socialism in England that is presently untapped. Opportunity will knock.
 
[..]
I disagree, and I'm not sure I get the comparison,

Then I'll try to explain my position a bit better.

Clicking on "like" for a political issue on Facebook does nothing directly useful, but it is counted because everything on Facebook is automatically counted for the purpose of gathering data to sell to advertisters.

Spoiled ballot papers are just ignored.

So both are pointless gestures that some people use to make themselves feel like they're doing something useful, but spoiling a ballot paper is slightly more pointless.

but it would be better if those who were politically aware but marginalised by mainstream / local politics were to spoil their paper accordingly we could possibly get to a point where we could cite a lopsided spectral leaning of the the 'big three' as being at least part of the problem. There's a topic emerging in SC about this at the moment.

You can cite that with or without spoiled ballot papers, which don't matter. Although I suppose it might get leaked to the media if hundreds of thousands of people spoiled their ballot papers in the same way and it might briefly provide some publicity for...for what?

Sounds a touch defeatist if you ask me honestly, I'm not getting any younger myself but I don't think its pointless. I can buy the limitations of one man, but collaboration is the key to nearly everything in life.

You are getting quite cynical in your old age! Or is that realism? ;)

I'm not sure. But I'm cheerful about my cynical defeatism :)

I think what happened was just down to circumstance, there is a rich vein of socialism in England that is presently untapped. Opportunity will knock.

I don't think so. I think it's possible that a political party might at some point in the future attract the target demographic with a different pretence, but I don't think there will be any substance behind it.

People were routinely selling their votes 200 years ago because they rightly thought that it didn't really matter who was elected as all the candidates were essentially the same. The circumstance you refer to is the norm.
 
Good to see the violent tendancies in the left alive and well. Having failed to win any form of debate, start smashing things. Classic.

On the contrary, this debate has already been won, but the fighting has just begun. Accidental breakages isn't smashing things up, or can't you tell the difference, go and have another beer. :D
 
Last edited:
Good to see the violent tendancies in the left alive and well. Having failed to win any form of debate, start smashing things. Classic.

Is this why the right has an interest in ensuring the only working public services are about restraining and preventing the use of physical force. I mean they have the social, economic, etc manipulation and coercion sorted and will quite happily wield those weapons all the time.
 
Then I'll try to explain my position a bit better.

Clicking on "like" for a political issue on Facebook does nothing directly useful, but it is counted because everything on Facebook is automatically counted for the purpose of gathering data to sell to advertisters.

Spoiled ballot papers are just ignored.

So both are pointless gestures that some people use to make themselves feel like they're doing something useful, but spoiling a ballot paper is slightly more pointless.

I can't disagree too much with the 'like' interpertation, I think this is dependent upon your view of how useful a single vote can be and the myriad of issues that can impact on the realisation of a 'useful' vote.

Spoiled papers are not ignored, especially if it becomes a larger problem, they may not impact on the outcome directly but when they hit a certain percentage of the total vote it starts to undermine the democratic outcome.

Spoiling a paper - specifically in a determined campaign - is better than not taking part at all.



You can cite that with or without spoiled ballot papers, which don't matter. Although I suppose it might get leaked to the media if hundreds of thousands of people spoiled their ballot papers in the same way and it might briefly provide some publicity for...for what?

Change. The sort of change you, yourself, seek.



I'm not sure. But I'm cheerful about my cynical defeatism :)

:)



I don't think so. I think it's possible that a political party might at some point in the future attract the target demographic with a different pretence, but I don't think there will be any substance behind it.

People were routinely selling their votes 200 years ago because they rightly thought that it didn't really matter who was elected as all the candidates were essentially the same. The circumstance you refer to is the norm.

I'm not so willing to assume that England will remain Right wing indefinately.

Something will eventually pull the middle ground of politics more the the centre of the spectrum.
 
Back
Top Bottom