egafd.com

I wouldn't pay them at all. If I were the government, then I'd make unpaid hard labour a part of the sentence. It'd kill two birds with one stone. There wouldn't be any need of migrant labour because of the exploitation of the criminals of our own society.

That's always been my main argument about such jobs as well, the "survival wages" whilst the boss is raking it in.

LOL !laugh!

A Security Guard paid ?5.50 ph ? WHERE ?

The last time I was working as a Security Guard, I was being paid ?6.80 ph.

But yes, you need to be on good wages, or work you bollox off for a minimum of 12 hours per day x 6 days per week

You obviously have had no dealings with the Central Office of Statistics, have no idea of how the census figures are compiled, nor have you a grasp on reality if you think your "figures" are accurate.

If your "figures" were anywhere near the truth, the country would have a disastrous housing shortage, public services would have ceased to function and the public purse would be in such deficit, from all the "spongers" that had been let in, that no-one would be getting any benefit.

Where you are right is that, from the early 1980s that Thatcher woman, in a bid to reduce the hostility her first term had engendered, decided to massage the unemployment figures by changing the method of counting the unemployed. Her second term saw a widening of the massaging and Major followed the trend.

Had John Smith lived, Labour would have gone back to the old system, having complained bitterly about false figures for nearly 13 years. When he died and Blair crawled from beneath Thatcher's skirts dressed as "New Labour" and he won the election, the system was retained.

The worst offenders are Temp Agencies.

Here's a case for you, from 1998:

I was working as a Temp while on the summer holidays from College, I was working as a Data Administrator for a well known Package Delivery company. Their own wages were about ?9.00 - ?14.00 per hour, dependant on skills & specific job. Well, I was paid ?6.80 per hour via the Temp Agency, yet the Company themselves were paying the Temp Agency (just for me working there) ?17.50 per hour. WTF were the Agency doing to warrant that much payment, over & above the actual pay I got for the work I performed for the company ?

Bubo wrote:

> That's always been my main argument about such jobs as well,
> the "survival wages" whilst the boss is raking it in.

Mysteryman wrote:

> You obviously have had no dealings with the Central Office of
> Statistics, have no idea of how the census figures are
> compiled, nor have you a grasp on reality if you think your
> "figures" are accurate.

> If your "figures" were anywhere near the truth, the country
> would have a disastrous housing shortage, public services would
> have ceased to function and the public purse would be in such
> deficit, from all the "spongers" that had been let in, that
> no-one would be getting any benefit.

No, I don't profess to know, or understand, how they work the statistics out.
No, I never said my figures were acurate, just an avarage/approximation, going by information from Publicly broadcast statements from the Government/Local Councils & by the Newspapers.

What I said was:

...
During the 80's Britian was supposed to have about 85M people, the 90's 98M people, now 110M people, but again they have fixed the figures.

These figures were unofficially released by a member of the one of the offices of the government last year. The crazy thing, reading one of the statistics from the Governments own site, they reckon britain has just scratched past 60M people
...

These details were released by someone from "within the Government" last year. Then early this year, on a news broadcast on TV, the reporter was quoting from a member of government who had earlier that day stated that the annual figures of population in the UK were approching 90-95M people.

As some1 who has NO TIES with ANY form of Government Departments/People, I can only go by what I Hear (TV & Radio) or Read (Newspaper, Magazine, Internet).

If my figures are wrong, then the people who supplied the information to the Goverment spokespeople/TV & newspaper reporters are wrong.

As with the Information regarding the Immigration in Heathrow, I worked there, & saw with my own eyes, & I was told by one of the Security Guards @ the Holding Centre, who I am still friends with.

The approx figures of Immigration/Asylum were from the amount of people coming through Heathrow, Stanstead, Gatwick Airports, as well as from Sea Ports, etc.

> Where you are right is that, from the early 1980s that Thatcher
> woman, in a bid to reduce the hostility her first term had
> engendered, decided to massage the unemployment figures by
> changing the method of counting the unemployed. Her second
> term saw a widening of the massaging and Major followed the
> trend.

Thankyou.

> Had John Smith lived, Labour would have gone back to the old
> system, having complained bitterly about false figures for
> nearly 13 years. When he died and Blair crawled from beneath
> Thatcher's skirts dressed as "New Labour" and he won the
> election, the system was retained.

He (Tony Blair) is a Fucking Asshole.

Certainly you can gaurantee that the shit will hit the fan at the first sign of a really bad recession. That is when we will find that there are not near enough jobs to go around no matter how shitty they may be.
The Government should really be looking at providing for their own people first and foremost rather than all this "PC" shite that they spin.
Also this just sounds to me like a "make the rich even richer" scheme and the poor/unemployed brits can go fuck themselves.

You should know not to believe what you read in the papers, or at least to use commonsense when interpreting what is printed and decide if it has any credence compared to a number of other indicators.

I'd be very interested in the source for those "figures".

Apart from the UK government there are many sources for population figures.

Running totals based on the 1901 census, using birth and death registrations plus sampling across the country to indicate immigration and emigration, has been going on since at leat 1910 and is used by commercial companies and NGOs. Supra governmental organisations such as the UN, WHO, and the European Commission all have their own means of assessing population, independently of the UK government.

Interestingly, all come up with figures just one side or the other of the 60 million mark.

If you think for a moment, were the figures you quote to have any credence, companies in the food chain, clothing supply, education authorities, NHS Trusts etc., would all have reported such a massive discrepancy over such a period. Governments couldn't possibly keep such a discrepancy covered up.

I used population figures for marketing purposes during my working life and know a great number of people who currently base their product manufacturing and distribution figures on the published population figures. Strangely their experience, like mine, is that the published figures are as accurate as they can get and are nowhere near the ridiculous figures you would seem to want to accept.

"Ten million illegal immigrants live in the US, according to estimates by academic and government agencies, although Bear-Stearns investment firm analysts claim that the US illegal immigrant population "may be as high as 20 million people." "

Mart