[quote]I think the general idea is to give 'em some sense of purpose and (hopefully) to instill at least a modicum of respect in them for their own community.[/quote]
Hmmm.......respect? I really have doubts about that, Eric. Today's capitalist society -especially it's youth- wouldn't respect the 'down&outs' that have to resort to community service to earn their crust.
As for national service: I actually like the idea if it was reformed and modernised. How about a 2 year national service that's totally voluntary? At least if the recruits are volunteers, you'd be helping kids who want to help themselves. They could learn a trade as well as the basics of being a soldier (with all the discipline and respect that commands). A much better idea than forcing them to 'pick litter' like some bottom-feeding cockroach.
Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Officer Dibble
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
"Some are middle class kids who have grown up too soft because of mummy and daddy pulling their strings and didn?t have a clue how to look after themselves in the real world. "
To right, number 6. They?ve had it handed to them on a plate. Quality schools, universities, gap years, supportive mummies and daddies. Not like us council estate kids, eh? We started with nothing (literately). We've had to duck 'n' dive and move 'n' shake, for our slice of the pie. It's not been handed to us on a plate, like it has the middleclass kids. It seems they still resent us though. We don't know our place you see. They can't understand us being so ungrateful in the face of their social largesse (i.e., benefits, etc). They can't understand that we don't want their fucking charity. Some of us still have some self-respect. What we want is to get our own feet on the rungs of life?s ladder, right? We don't want lifting up it - all we desire is that no one bars our way.
?Seeing as this plan by the tories is aimed at 18-21 yr olds im sure you wouldn't see a problem with these harmless kids being sent to ""boot camps"" also. Or is it just chavs and pikeys you have it in for??
Not at all, number 6. An excellent idea if I might say. Yes, all those Jeremys? and James? would get a right shock at boot camp. The wouldn?t be able to wear their pretentious black berets and pose as spokesmen of the proletariat there ? or the chavs ?n? pikeys would give ?em a right slap ? then nick their iPods! Come on you chavs! Whayhey!
Officer Dibble
To right, number 6. They?ve had it handed to them on a plate. Quality schools, universities, gap years, supportive mummies and daddies. Not like us council estate kids, eh? We started with nothing (literately). We've had to duck 'n' dive and move 'n' shake, for our slice of the pie. It's not been handed to us on a plate, like it has the middleclass kids. It seems they still resent us though. We don't know our place you see. They can't understand us being so ungrateful in the face of their social largesse (i.e., benefits, etc). They can't understand that we don't want their fucking charity. Some of us still have some self-respect. What we want is to get our own feet on the rungs of life?s ladder, right? We don't want lifting up it - all we desire is that no one bars our way.
?Seeing as this plan by the tories is aimed at 18-21 yr olds im sure you wouldn't see a problem with these harmless kids being sent to ""boot camps"" also. Or is it just chavs and pikeys you have it in for??
Not at all, number 6. An excellent idea if I might say. Yes, all those Jeremys? and James? would get a right shock at boot camp. The wouldn?t be able to wear their pretentious black berets and pose as spokesmen of the proletariat there ? or the chavs ?n? pikeys would give ?em a right slap ? then nick their iPods! Come on you chavs! Whayhey!
Officer Dibble
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
Couldn't agree more, Alice. It's just the Tories spouting emotive nonsense to win votes. Stuff like this just encourages large companies to use temporary workers, where they don't have to pay any holiday days and keep wages as low as possible.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Officer Dibble
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
It?s not a new idea, Alice ? Welfare to Work programs have been operational in various US states (and Australia) for a while now.
The problem is that no one has had the political will or backbone to implement them here. If the Labour Party were to implement such a scheme it would immediately alienate their underclass constituency of scroungers and benefit claimants ? who, apart from middleclass luvvies and immigrant communities, are a group of people they still rely on for votes. So they?re in no rush to establish such a scheme here.
But to allay your fears of cheap labour for UK companies and the ensuing distortion of the market, I would suggest perusing the article a little more closely. Particularly the bit where it says -
?If they were still jobless after a year they would be moved to a full-time 12-month community work program.?
So you can chill, Alice. Green Dave has thought of that. These wasters would be put to work in the community ? doing worthwhile stuff, tending the green spaces, keeping the streets clean, etc, etc. Also, I would assume that they would get at least the minimum wage, thus making it worth their while compared with ?job seekers? allowance.
Hey, it?s just struck me- ?job seekers?. Another Orwellian PC term that has been surreptitiously installed in the language. Many of the fuckers who claim this benefit haven?t the slightest intention of seeking ?a job?! So do you reckon Green Dave will also roll back the poncy tide of political correctness that?s driving many citizens to distraction?
Officer Dibble
The problem is that no one has had the political will or backbone to implement them here. If the Labour Party were to implement such a scheme it would immediately alienate their underclass constituency of scroungers and benefit claimants ? who, apart from middleclass luvvies and immigrant communities, are a group of people they still rely on for votes. So they?re in no rush to establish such a scheme here.
But to allay your fears of cheap labour for UK companies and the ensuing distortion of the market, I would suggest perusing the article a little more closely. Particularly the bit where it says -
?If they were still jobless after a year they would be moved to a full-time 12-month community work program.?
So you can chill, Alice. Green Dave has thought of that. These wasters would be put to work in the community ? doing worthwhile stuff, tending the green spaces, keeping the streets clean, etc, etc. Also, I would assume that they would get at least the minimum wage, thus making it worth their while compared with ?job seekers? allowance.
Hey, it?s just struck me- ?job seekers?. Another Orwellian PC term that has been surreptitiously installed in the language. Many of the fuckers who claim this benefit haven?t the slightest intention of seeking ?a job?! So do you reckon Green Dave will also roll back the poncy tide of political correctness that?s driving many citizens to distraction?
Officer Dibble
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
Those put on these schemes won't get an extra penny in benefit. Thats the point,its slave labour designed to make sun and daily mail readers feel better.
-
mrmcfister
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
Fucking well leave me alone...I need mi benefitts othur wize eyd have too wk 4 a livin..cunt..fuck off..cunt bastard cunt...
-
diplodocus
- Posts: 1319
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
''These wasters would be put to work in the community ? doing worthwhile stuff, tending the green spaces, keeping the streets clean, etc, etc''
''Also, I would assume that they would get at least the minimum wage,''
erm, isn't that called finding them a job?
''Also, I would assume that they would get at least the minimum wage,''
erm, isn't that called finding them a job?
we are Leeds.... , and we can still beat the mighty Chester
-
Officer Dibble
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
"Those put on these schemes won't get an extra penny in benefit."
Really? Where does it say that? Have you just made that bit up? I didn't see that.
"Thats the point,its slave labour designed to make sun and daily mail readers feel better."
I fear you may be in danger straying into the realms of hyperbole and hysteria. You don't seem to realise that many of those who will be encouraged back to work will in fact be Sun readers, if indeed they read anything at all. And ?slave labour? is an emotive term that suggests forced labour, which this scheme is clearly not.
But if you don?t like the scheme would you prefer to leave chavs and pikeys hanging round street corners during the day? Do you think that taxpayers should be obliged to fund their lay-about White Lightening swigging lifestyle? Are you a taxpayer?
Officer Dibble
Really? Where does it say that? Have you just made that bit up? I didn't see that.
"Thats the point,its slave labour designed to make sun and daily mail readers feel better."
I fear you may be in danger straying into the realms of hyperbole and hysteria. You don't seem to realise that many of those who will be encouraged back to work will in fact be Sun readers, if indeed they read anything at all. And ?slave labour? is an emotive term that suggests forced labour, which this scheme is clearly not.
But if you don?t like the scheme would you prefer to leave chavs and pikeys hanging round street corners during the day? Do you think that taxpayers should be obliged to fund their lay-about White Lightening swigging lifestyle? Are you a taxpayer?
Officer Dibble