[ritchie888]

(Original post by MirandaPanda)
That's awfully smart/logical; oh right, its not



Well done making a completely useless comment in an otherwise serious thread; you look real big right now.

Wowwwwww you take every really seriously. Chill out, you'll last longer.

[Nick100]

Why the hell should people who are already forced to pay thousands of pounds per year in taxes also be forced to do an additional day of menial labour per year? We effectively spend months working solely to "contribute to the community", why not use some of the money you take from us to pay people to perform these "community services"?

I think that a corporate executive has more important things to do than pick up trash for a day. Hell the taxes they pay from one day of work alone could probably pay several people to pick up trash on their behalf.

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by MirandaPanda)
That's awfully smart/logical; oh right, its not

Well done making a completely useless comment in an otherwise serious thread; you look real big right now.

Slightly uncalled for...

[Martyn*]

(Original post by ckingalt)
The bottom line it that I contribute, and I would happily sacrifice a few extra eight hour working days for the "common good", just so there would be a way to force people who have never contributed a thing in their entire lives to contribute some small token.

You would give more than what is reuqired? Isn't that just foolish?

[madders94]

(Original post by ckingalt)
In other words, I don’t care how important or disabled you think you are, everyone is capable of contributing in some way.

....

Seriously? You don't care how disabled people "think they are"? Alright, alright, but you can deal with my Dad when he has a meltdown, you can get him to hospital when he has a flare-up and you can live with him for the next few months afterwards.

People like you have no idea how fortunate they are.

[WelshBluebird]

Right. And what about:
1 - Those who are physically not able to do it.
2 - Those who have more important things to be doing (such as looking after a relative who needs pretty much 24/7 care).
3 - Those who are working all hours just to make ends meet.
4 - Those who simply are too lazy to do such things? (prisons are overcrowded already, so I can't see you jailing them).

[Iron Lady]

Excuses, excuses; that's all you ever do.

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
1 - Those who are physically not able to do it.

Common sense. They do things they are able to do under such a system and its principles.

2 - Those who have more important things to be doing (such as looking after a relative who needs pretty much 24/7 care).

Unbelievably random suggestion.

4 - Those who simply are too lazy to do such things? (prisons are overcrowded already, so I can't see you jailing them).

Poor excuse. If they're too lazy to contribute, they don't get the services on offer. Simples.


...And i've destroyed your argument.

[Ice Constricter]

So what you're saying OP is that the people on JSA will have complete the same amount of community service as people that are fully employed? Seems pretty unreasonable to me, and its not as if people that are employed don't contribute to society.

[c471]

I think this is a good idea for small scale. Make residents spend a little bit of time every once in a while cleaning up the area they live in.
It is far cheaper for everybody to look after their own area then for the council to do it. It should be reflected by a reduction in council tax at least.

It promotes pride in your local community, is good for you, and has visible effect. As long as it was sufficiently staggered, could be policed by neighbourhood police team. It would provide them an opportunity to interact with the community they patrol, improve relations with the police and invariably bring down crime as an aside.

those who would potentially 'lose their job' could be absorbed into administering the system, supervising, helping etc.

I suspect if you were forced to look after your local area, residents would tolerate far less vandalism and destruction in their area than some do. It is a shame it would be resisted by the lazy majority as it would do a lot of good.

[Sly Blade]

Firstly, the entire point in tax is to give back to the community? At least that's how it works in Britain(I apologise if it is somehow different in America).

Secondly there are also a lot of single carers (parents of otherwise) who would have to pay for a baby sitter or day care if they wished to take part in it, and in some cases (mostly people who care for the elderly) this is simply not an option.

Thirdly it is a nice concept but what happens to people who are homeless etc? Do you expect them to spend a day working at their homeless shelter?

Also If someone is incapable of speech, or are deaf, it is unreasonable to expect them to find and organise some way of getting round their disability just so they can be treated like everyone else who doesn't have to go to further lengths, especially for such a short period of time.

Also people with physical disabilities would also have to go to extreme lengths, even something as simple as tennis elbow can render a person incapable of picking up litter or even serving soup.

Though otherwise it seems like a reasonably good concept. Though it should be something like a community litter drive (going around the local area picking up rubbish). This was mentioned by someone but i apologise but whilst typing this I forgot their name.

[c471]

(Original post by Sly Blade)
Firstly, the entire point in tax is to give back to the community? At least that's how it works in Britain(I apologise if it is somehow different in America).

Yes true, but this would be far more cost efficient. So much of the money is eaten up in the process that this sort of effort would be similar to a massive increase in a councils budget in terms of what it could get done.

Secondly there are also a lot of single carers (parents of otherwise) who would have to pay for a baby sitter or day care if they wished to take part in it, and in some cases (mostly people who care for the elderly) this is simply not an option.

Thirdly it is a nice concept but what happens to people who are homeless etc? Do you expect them to spend a day working at their homeless shelter?

Also If someone is incapable of speech, or are deaf, it is unreasonable to expect them to find and organise some way of getting round their disability just so they can be treated like everyone else who doesn't have to go to further lengths, especially for such a short period of time.

These are some fairly trivial problems. There could be various things, depending on abilities, and alternatives for those with big problems. I think most disabled people would take exception to people suggesting they are useless or incapable of performing simple manual tasks.

Again, details would have to be worked out, but there are plenty of ways to involve single mothers. Most reasons against are simply people finding excuses, not actually trying to make it work.

Also people with physical disabilities would also have to go to extreme lengths, even something as simple as tennis elbow can render a person incapable of picking up litter or even serving soup.

Im not sure about this. These people obviously still take care of themselves. Assuming you are employed or even feed and clothe yourself, you have the ability to do something. Again, I just think its malingering, if these people can bring themselves to drive cars, go to the pub or have sex despite their 'injuries', they can do other things to, its just people using a tiny problem as an excuse.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
Excuses, excuses; that's all you ever do.

Please learn the difference between a REASON and an excuse.

(Original post by Iron Lady)
Common sense. They do things they are able to do under such a system and its principles.

I was replying to the OP.
The OP said it doesn't matter how disabled someone is.
Well obviously it DOES matter, because some people will not be able to do anything in a scheme like this.

(Original post by Iron Lady)
Unbelievably random suggestion.

Not at all. It is a genuine REASON.
Some people care for relatives pretty much 24/7. How are they supposed to find spare time for schemes like this?

(Original post by Iron Lady)
Poor excuse. If they're too lazy to contribute, they don't get the services on offer. Simples.

I was just giving a REASON why such a scheme may pose issues.

(Original post by Iron Lady)
...And i've destroyed your argument.

No where near. Infact, you haven't even addressed my argument.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by c471)
These are some fairly trivial problems. There could be various things, depending on abilities, and alternatives for those with big problems. I think most disabled people would take exception to people suggesting they are useless or incapable of performing simple manual tasks.

I don't think they are trivial.
Some of the reasons given are serious things that would cause serious issues to such a scheme being implemented.

(Original post by c471)
Again, details would have to be worked out, but there are plenty of ways to involve single mothers. Most reasons against are simply people finding excuses, not actually trying to make it work.

1 - Details need to be worked out? Then go on. Work them out.
2 - As with others on the right, you need to learn that REASONS exist.

(Original post by c471)
Im not sure about this. These people obviously still take care of themselves.

Quite a lot don't actually. And rely on friends / family / the state to actually live.

(Original post by c471)
Assuming you are employed or even feed and clothe yourself, you have the ability to do something.

Like what exactly?
If someone cannot work, can just about feed themselves, can just about dress themselves, and not much more, what exactly do you suggest they do in this scheme?

(Original post by c471)
Again, I just think its malingering, if these people can bring themselves to drive cars, go to the pub or have sex despite their 'injuries', they can do other things to, its just people using a tiny problem as an excuse.

Why assume they can drive cars / go to the pub? Quite a lot cannot.
And even if they can, being able to drive, go to the pub or have sex says nothing about what they can do in a scheme like this. As I said above, if you have someone who can only just about look after themselves because of a disability, what exactly do you suggest they actually do in this scheme?

[goape]

Sounds like something that would be inexpensive and inefficient given it is for something as small and utterly pointless as community service for ONE DAY!

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Please learn the difference between a REASON and an excuse.

Is this your comeback to everything? Yes, I understand that some people cannot participate in this scheme; though some of your 'reasons' (bar disability and carers) are pathetic.

I was replying to the OP.
The OP said it doesn't matter how disabled someone is.
Well obviously it DOES matter, because some people will not be able to do anything in a scheme like this.

They could participate in some form, depending on the task and their disability. Perhaps registering people or something.

Not at all. It is a genuine REASON.
Some people care for relatives pretty much 24/7. How are they supposed to find spare time for schemes like this?

Fine - but carers? I just thought it was a random suggestion; out of all of the 'reasons' you could have thought of!

I was just giving a REASON why such a scheme may pose issues.

Then you deal with those people.

No where near. Infact, you haven't even addressed my argument.

I did.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
Is this your comeback to everything? Yes, I understand that some people cannot participate in this scheme; though some of your 'reasons' (bar disability and carers) are pathetic.

It is not my comeback to everything. However, you and others on the right seem unable to see the difference.
You say my reasons, with the exception of those who care for relatives and disabilities, were pathetic. But I only had one other reason that you replied to. And that wasn't a reason that people are not able to take part in a scheme. But a reason why such a scheme may be difficult to implement.

(Original post by Iron Lady)
They could participate in some form, depending on the task and their disability. Perhaps registering people or something.

So obviously the disability DOES matter. That is all I was saying.
I was not saying disabled people can't do anything full stop. But I was replying to the OP who tried to say the disability does not matter, when obviously it does.

(Original post by Iron Lady)
Fine - but carers? I just thought it was a random suggestion; out of all of the 'reasons' you could have thought of!

It is something that is very obvious to me as me and my parents cared for my gran who had dementia. There was no chance we could have found the time to take part in such a scheme.

(Original post by Iron Lady)
Then you deal with those people.

How?

[Sly Blade]

(Original post by c471)
Yes true, but this would be far more cost efficient. So much of the money is eaten up in the process that this sort of effort would be similar to a massive increase in a councils budget in terms of what it could get done.

I want to argue this however I can't as my understanding of how many things work in America may not be entirely accurate. So I'll concede this point.

These are some fairly trivial problems. There could be various things, depending on abilities, and alternatives for those with big problems. I think most disabled people would take exception to people suggesting they are useless or incapable of performing simple manual tasks.

Firstly I apologise if I came across as suggesting them to be useless it was not my intention. My point was organising jobs (or tasks) that they would be capable of doing or organising methods of communication would cost extra money, I personally do not see it worth it for a time period as short as a day or week, if it was longer than a day then it would have to be spread out which when it comes to organising things makes things more difficult and costly.

Again, details would have to be worked out, but there are plenty of ways to involve single mothers. Most reasons against are simply people finding excuses, not actually trying to make it work.

Again this has to come from my knowledge of British law, as I believe it is different in America, But it is illegal to leave a child home alone when it would endanger them. My point being you shouldn't expect someone to either endanger their child or have to pay in order to carry out work, for example sake to be able to vote. Is it not every citizens right to vote without having to pay for the oppurtunity. ( I may be entirely wrong on that I apologise if i am.)


Im not sure about this. These people obviously still take care of themselves. Assuming you are employed or even feed and clothe yourself, you have the ability to do something. Again, I just think its malingering, if these people can bring themselves to drive cars, go to the pub or have sex despite their 'injuries', they can do other things to, its just people using a tiny problem as an excuse.

When my father first 'acquired' tennis elbow for about 3 months he was incapable of using his arm. And not to be to graphic but people have sex with corpses, the fact they're dead doesn't make sex any harder, people with injuries do.

And to finish it is a great idea despite my protests, their are plenty of benefits of it, the problem is i don't believe it to be something you can make mandatory (or with the restriction of rights) in modern society, in either Britain or America.

[c471]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
I don't think they are trivial.
Some of the reasons given are serious things that would cause serious issues to such a scheme being implemented.

If you are wheelchair bound that is an issue. If you consider there are about 2 million people recieving disability allowance, that is around 3% of the population.
This is hardly a widespread issue. Then consider some of these will be completely compatible with any time of manual work (for example learning difficulties, downs syndrome etc), and lots more may be able to perform some sort of work

1 - Details need to be worked out? Then go on. Work them out.
2 - As with others on the right, you need to learn that REASONS exist.

1 - you want me to sit here and sort it all out now? Are you seriously suggesting any issue raised is an insumountable hurdle to implementing such a scheme?
2 - I know reasons exist. However, claiming you have tennis elbow or a twisted sock is no reason to be excused work.

Quite a lot don't actually. And rely on friends / family / the state to actually live.

as i mentioned, something like 3%. nobody is suggesting if you are in a serious medical condition you should be turfed out onto the streets to work. Stop picking on a small minority, to try and prove the majority could not participate.

Like what exactly?
If someone cannot work, can just about feed themselves, can just about dress themselves, and not much more, what exactly do you suggest they do in this scheme?

How about those with disability or carers benefits are exempt, along with those who have serious medical conditions or a doctors certificate saying they cannot participate for the immediate future?

Are you genuinely telling me that you cannot think of a single non manual job somebody could do for a day, either with a charity or local govt?

Why assume they can drive cars / go to the pub? Quite a lot cannot.
And even if they can, being able to drive, go to the pub or have sex says nothing about what they can do in a scheme like this. As I said above, if you have someone who can only just about look after themselves because of a disability, what exactly do you suggest they actually do in this scheme?

my point is not the severally disabled, more the idea that most of the population cant participate. If you are seriously impacted, obviously you would be exempt, however if you can go to work, go to the pub, have sex, live a normal life, there is no reason why these people should be allowed to shirk out with a twisted sock.

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
How?

Firing squad, electric chair, the head slap. We're spoilt for choice.