Thought Green Dave's approach was to hug the Chavs 'n' Pikey's?
I actually think this could be a good idea, it won't be at all easy despite the pretense / media presentation and it was something I suggested ages ago but instead of learning and being selective for just the 'kids' everyone on benefit and capable of work should be doing work for their local council.
The trouble I can see with it is that most of what Green Dave is targeting is the disruptive influence in the community.
Sending them to special places to learn could just add another tier of problems.
Those disruptive at school are often later disruptive outside of it. There is nothing to stop them, especially if forced, from being the same disruptive influence in this system.
Losing their benefits could simply lead to more crime.
Worse it could lead to those who have finally got away from the disruptive influence being put back in it.
It could even be extremely disruptive to the entire education system if it gives the option that being a student makes you exempt.
Go to college and fuck about and still get paid or go to 'forced learning' its not rocket science to work out what the majority would chose.
It will be a headliner and vote winner for Green Dave but it needs to be seriously looked at with any escape closes and knock on effects dealt with.
Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys ? Work For Benefits
randyandy wrote:
> It will be a headliner and vote winner for Green Dave but it
> needs to be seriously looked at with any escape closes and
> knock on effects dealt with.
>
That should have been escape clauses closed and knock on effects dealt with.
> It will be a headliner and vote winner for Green Dave but it
> needs to be seriously looked at with any escape closes and
> knock on effects dealt with.
>
That should have been escape clauses closed and knock on effects dealt with.
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys – Work For Benefits
Flat_Eric wrote:
> In fact we have that here in the Fatherland too ("Zivildienst"
> = "Civilian Service"), it's offered as an alternative to the
> Forces for conscientious objectors and those who for those who
> for one reason or another can't go to the military (medical
> reasons etc.)
Not quite.
It's not a National Service in Germany, it's specifically military service. Thus "civilian service" is for conscientious objectors only - those who are deemed medically unfit for military service won't have to do anything at all.
> In fact we have that here in the Fatherland too ("Zivildienst"
> = "Civilian Service"), it's offered as an alternative to the
> Forces for conscientious objectors and those who for those who
> for one reason or another can't go to the military (medical
> reasons etc.)
Not quite.
It's not a National Service in Germany, it's specifically military service. Thus "civilian service" is for conscientious objectors only - those who are deemed medically unfit for military service won't have to do anything at all.
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Chavs 'n' Pikeys – Work For Benefits
Officer Dibble wrote:
> Sounds like a top plan to me. What does the panel think?
Sounds rather populist to me. The kind of thing that would cost a hell of a lot to enforce properly, and I doubt there is that much commitment behind it all.
It's the sort of policy parties adapt to be seeing to do something. A completely different policy of that kind of populist ilk was set up last year by the government: new postgraduate university students (from outside the EU) need to have their research proposals vetted and cleared by some Whitehall spooks, in order to stop anyone from pariah states to be trained in the UK in the art of killing people. The regulations are so ineffective you can drive a bus through and the whole thing creates an enormous (and costly) admin overhead for postgraduate admissions, but the whole point of it is: the government is seen doing something about terrorism.
> Sounds like a top plan to me. What does the panel think?
Sounds rather populist to me. The kind of thing that would cost a hell of a lot to enforce properly, and I doubt there is that much commitment behind it all.
It's the sort of policy parties adapt to be seeing to do something. A completely different policy of that kind of populist ilk was set up last year by the government: new postgraduate university students (from outside the EU) need to have their research proposals vetted and cleared by some Whitehall spooks, in order to stop anyone from pariah states to be trained in the UK in the art of killing people. The regulations are so ineffective you can drive a bus through and the whole thing creates an enormous (and costly) admin overhead for postgraduate admissions, but the whole point of it is: the government is seen doing something about terrorism.