Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Labour supporting Duncan Smith in defending slave work at Poundland Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I'll quote what I said.

    "So being made to work for below minimum wage doesn't ring some bells there?"

    Tell me how this isn't happening.
    You can choose to not work for below minimum wage and relinquish your right to benefits - hence 'freedom to starve'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    And I don't think that somebody with those characteristics has ever been forced to stack shelves in Poundland.
    The fact that you think that demonstrates conclusively that haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about; anybody of working age, capable of working and who has been claiming JSA for 12 months or more is eligible for the mandatory work scheme.

    (Original post by venenecinema)
    There's a big difference between being made to work and being told that if you don't work you won't receive money. The former implies force and a lack of choice, and isn't what is happening. Seeing things for what they actually are isn't a cognitive deficiency.
    Well a high court judge disagrees with you on that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    You can choose to not work for below minimum wage and relinquish your right to benefits - hence 'freedom to starve'.
    I knew you would attempt this argument. You lot always do. Despicable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    The fact that you think that demonstrates conclusively that haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about; anybody of working age, capable of working and who has been claiming JSA for 12 months or more is eligible for the mandatory work scheme.



    Well a high court judge disagrees with you on that. And quite frankly, I hold the ruling of said judge in higher esteem than I do the opinion of some anonymous student forum buffoon.
    He's admitted what we all knew. For venenecinema and people like him, starvation is freedom. Naked amorality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I knew you would attempt this argument. You lot always do. Despicable.
    You think that freedom is despicable? Fair enough.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    You can choose to not work for below minimum wage and relinquish your right to benefits - hence 'freedom to starve'.
    Oh great. Cushty. Fantastic.

    You have the freedom to starve. Now, first I thought that this policy was a terrible thing - all this forcing someone to work below minimum wage. But now that you have drawn my attention to the fact that peasants could opt for death in the alternative... well, it suddenly seems like a much more reasonable initiative.

    Good work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    The fact that you think that demonstrates conclusively that haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about; anybody of working age, capable of working and who has been claiming JSA for 12 months or more is eligible for the mandatory work scheme.



    Well a high court judge disagrees with you on that. And quite frankly, I hold the ruling of said judge in higher esteem than I do the opinion of some anonymous student forum buffoon.
    There's nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate with people, and it surprises me that you think you're able to make the judgement that I'm a 'buffoon' based on what I've written on the internet when you're unable to properly comprehend the court's judgement. This reveals more about you than it does about me to be brutally honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    You think that freedom is despicable? Fair enough.
    Starvation is not freedom.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    There's nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate with people, and it surprises me that you think you're able to make the judgement that I'm a 'buffoon' based on what I've written on the internet. Reveals more about you than it does about me to be brutally honest.
    Its the only thing we have to judge you on. Personally I think buffoon is too mild.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Oh great. Cushty. Fantastic.

    You have the freedom to starve. Now, first I thought that this policy was a terrible thing - all this forcing someone to work below minimum wage. But now that you have drawn my attention to the fact that peasants could opt for death in the alternative... well, it suddenly seems like a much more reasonable initiative.

    Good work.
    Indeed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Its the only thing we have to judge you on. Personally I think buffoon is too mild.
    True, although since you have essentially nothing to base the judgement on doesn't that make it fairly pointless?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    True, although since you have essentially nothing to base the judgement on doesn't that make it fairly pointless?
    I have your stated opinions to base it on. That's enough.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I have your stated opinions to base it on. That's enough.
    Stated opinions are nothing. I've canvassed for the Green party, it doesn't make me a Green.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by venenecinema)
    Stated opinions are nothing. I've canvassed for the Green party, it doesn't make me a Green.
    "Stated opinions are nothing."

    What does this even mean? Why state opinions you don't hold (if this is what you're actually alluding to)?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    "Stated opinions are nothing."

    What does this even mean? Why state opinions you don't hold (if this is what you're actually alluding to)?
    I can only speak for myself but I canvassed for the Green Party because I saw it as a personal challenge, particularly where I live.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    I've addressed it several times. But let's try again shall we:

    In the cases of Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, their lawyers claimed that "Mandatory unpaid government work schemes that last up to six months should be declared illegal because they are a form of forced labour." and further that they were "illegally forced to take part in government work experience schemes, without pay and under the "menace of penalty" of losing their benefits." They described the work schemes as "a form of forced labour which breached article four of the European convention on human rights."

    They have since won their cases, with the respective judges evidently agreeing that they had been coerced into forced, unpaid labour and that this thus constituted a breach of their human rights.
    That's actually completely and totally not what happened. The case was won on legal technicalities- that the scheme was not supported by current legislation. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's stance that requiring jobseekers to particpate in the scheme did not breach human rights.

    To summarise (Reilly and Wilson vs Secretary of State for Work and Pensions):

    For these reasons, briefly stated, I do not consider that either scheme is contrary to Article 4, nor do I consider that there has been any breach in Miss Reilly’s case - Mr Justice Foskett, (Article 4 being the ECHR rule on slavery and forced labour)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    Well a high court judge disagrees with you on that. And quite frankly, I hold the ruling of said judge in higher esteem than I do the opinion of some anonymous student forum buffoon.
    As mentioned above by 'pol pot noodles', the judge didn't disagree with the principle at all, no matter how the Guardian chose to portray it. The issue was simply that the programme was not supported by the Act of Parliament that was issued to start it: in effect, a legal technicality. Once the legislation is fixed, the courts will have no problem with it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    That's actually completely and totally not what happened. The case was won on legal technicalities- that the scheme was not supported by current legislation. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's stance that requiring jobseekers to particpate in the scheme did not breach human rights.

    To summarise (Reilly and Wilson vs Secretary of State for Work and Pensions):

    For these reasons, briefly stated, I do not consider that either scheme is contrary to Article 4, nor do I consider that there has been any breach in Miss Reilly’s case - Mr Justice Foskett, (Article 4 being the ECHR rule on slavery and forced labour)
    It would be good to get it tested in Europe, many do not agree with the court.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It would be good to get it tested in Europe, many do not agree with the court.
    Well the thing is, a bunch of liberal young people's opinion on what they think is slavery is a bit irrelevant. The courts are ruling on whether or not they think the scheme is compatible with the guidelines of Article 4 of the ECHR, they don't just make a personal judgement on if they think unpaid workschemes are unfair.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Work experience of any sort is better than been on the dole/JSA when it comes to your CV full stop.
    But in the case of Cait Reilly, she was already doing work experience at a local museum out of her own initiative, which makes the Jobcentre's decision to effectively force her to give up this placement for one in a completely unrelated industry so hair-tearingly stupid.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 22, 2013
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.