Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

Biohazard said:
See, I can't help but think that some people do actually care. Although this was the sort of response I thought that comment may solicit.
Click to expand...

What are you doing about the situation?

To really solve the problem of the poor would require the kind of actions that society would simply find unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
v0n said:
I think you need to go back to the books and come up with something else world owes you good fella. Apart from a brief and short moment in history (settlers, conquest of Wild West, before it turned out they still owe someone something for what the found and established themselves), this whole "world owes me small plot of land" not happened anywhere in western civilisation in the last thousand years. Not in communism, not in socialism, not in feudalism, not in slavery. What you are asking was last time seen among early communes of hunters & gatherers?
Click to expand...

And not even then, as if he had a "better" bit of land than someone else, he would have to fight to keep it.

Nobody and no species has ever had a "right" to live unmolested in any state or form in the entire history of the planet, the right to exist is a constant state of fighting to survive and earning the right to life.
 
Rofflay said:
the world owes any human born into it a living.It owes me a very small plot of land to grow my own food,harvest my own rain water and build shelter to raise a family like humans have had right up until capitalism.
Click to expand...

eDvq0fa.gif
 
estebanrey said:
Well quite. Wasn't James Caan caught out preaching that more jobs should be awarded on merit only for it to be revealed that he's employed both his daughters in high positions in his companies?

We have it where I work too. My team consists of 7 people, one of whom is our boss' boss' daughter. She been there the shortest time and is already on the highest grade you can get for the department, and is constantly being given training that isn't offered to anyone else. Last month they let her employ a couple of temps which she 'managed'.

It's bleeding obvious she is being fast-tracked into management and that when our direct boss retires in 8 years, she'll be head of the queue for that job.
Click to expand...

was James Caan the guy who tried to rip someone off on dragons den? and it must be true because he was no longer on the series after.....
 
Dolph said:
indeed, that is what happens in a meritocracy. but poverty is absolute, not relative.
Click to expand...

No it isn't that simple. Poverty is absolute in a strict sense but it is also relative to the affordability and cost of provision.

I would also argue that whilst reward for success is warranted there is more than one way to reward success. It seems to me you are happy for one side of the argument to be applied but not the other way.

However, saying that I do agree mostly with what you are saying.
 
Xordium said:
No it isn't that simple. Poverty is absolute in a strict sense but it is also relative to the affordability and cost of provision.

I would also argue that whilst reward for success is warranted there is more than one way to reward success. It seems to me you are happy for one side of the argument to be applied but not the other way.

However, saying that I do agree mostly with what you are saying.
Click to expand...

But cost of provision isn't a multiple of the income of others, so you can define an absolute poverty level in terms of having enough to obtain the basics just fine (I would add that the level should not consider poor choices people may make as requiring an increase.
 
Rofflay said:
A cap on minimum and maximum wealth on the entire spawn would be a much fairer and better system instead of a reset.Anything surplus at the top end goes to the bottom end as a top up.


Its not far off what we already have it just lacks the maximum cap.If the spawn of bill gates or carlos slim or the rothchilds can keep using the family wealth to generate profit theres no real knowing how far things could go.If they started buying up land and houses in the recession putting half of thier wealth in how many people would be reliant on thier good will for shelter? And talking about the recession i would bet with thier combined wealth they could start a recession or war anytime they wanted and make a large profit.


Can i have some more sir? ;):p
Click to expand...


maybe you should read up on Mr Gates plans for his inheritance.

also as for the whole plot of land to grow our own.food individually, seriously? one there's not.enough suitable land and more importantly the quality of life if everyone had to spend.most of their time just making sure their but of land was running so they wouldn't starve would be terrible. which would inevitably lead to capitalism reemerging in a matter of Weeks as those with skills quickly begin to trade and barter so they don't have to tend the land.

large industrial farming is the only way to really provide the food we need. just look at when Stalin tried to break the farms down or when Mugabe did. both went from vastly productive to mass starvation and deaths
 
"And once again there is nothing to stop people under 18 from applying for the jobs, possibly even unaware of the true nature of the role. Appallingly, people could even be forced into making an application for these vacancies or face having benefits stopped for up to three years."

"This is not scare-mongering"


right....
 
Scare mongering? No, jobcentre staff have to meet targets to sanction, they'll use any excuse especially round Easter time for their free Easter eggs competitions on who can sanction the most. They know most brainwashed people will just refuse to believe the jobcentre could be so callous. v ^
 
Last edited:
spankingtexan said:
Scare mongering? No, jobcentre staff have to meet targets to sanction, they'll use any excuse especially round Easter time for their free Easter eggs competitions on who can sanction the most.
Click to expand...

Are those Easter Eggs made by people who are FORCED to work in factories FOR NOTHING? It's like one big chain, with the end result being Easter Eggs for those Gubberment lot, it's all starting to unravel
 
Quote

by Anthony Patrick Chigurh

Once again baldy Duncan Smitchz attacks the poorest children, and poorest families in our society, by sticking one huge shaming label on the problem named "poverty" which has been allowed to exist since the dawn of civilisation.

But it is widely accepted and proven, that Civilisations who take care of their poor, sick, disabled, and hungry children are the societies that work best.

Certainly, and by all means, help alcoholics and help drug addictions, give counselling, set up more health centres, open more rehab clinics. But make sure you support these families financially, because they have been let down by multi-generational abuses of Government and also the Wealthy who have always exploited the most vulnerable for means of servitude, or sometimes they use them for nothing more than to mock their way of life, because making ends meet can lead to some sad situations.

Drug addiction and alcoholism does not discriminate when it comes to wealth, nor does family dysfunction, from sexual abuse to domestic violence. All families carry their secrets and shame, but being dirt poor makes that shame harder to hide.

We are all aware that rich and powerful men have brutally sodomised young boys herded from Wales to London some decades ago, and many of these boys are now dead through suicide. The boys were chosen for sex like cuts of meat in a butcher's shop window. Not one boy is compensated. Are these rich and guilty men not sicker and more dysfunctional than a poorer men who drank too much? And are the families of these wealthy paedophiles somehow more functional?

This IDS vitriol is just a further extension of Tory dogma, being reamed across the tabloids and net to make the more wealthy feel better about themselves, and to make the poor suffer more.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/rich-tory-iain-duncan-smith-1568074
 
spankingtexan said:
What about all the children who go hungry due to the irresponsible, unreasonable greedy Governments?
Click to expand...

Why are governments responsible for the choices parents make? No child needs to go hungry in the uk, those that do so suffer because of the activites and choices of their parents, not those of the government.
 
Dolph said:
Why are governments responsible for the choices parents make? No child needs to go hungry in the uk, those that do so suffer because of the activites and choices of their parents, not those of the government.
Click to expand...

Seriously ? :rolleyes: if the parent is unfairly sanctioned by the job centre the child goes hungry, directly on the basis of the governments policies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom