I have no problem with the idea of assigning welfare recipients or prisoners to work, as long as the work is for a govermental entity. But, according to the article linked to in the opening post, one of the claimants "...argued that making her work unpaid at a Poundland store for two weeks or risk losing her benefits was a breach of human rights." Isn't a store a private enterprise? Doesn't that mean said store is basically obtaining a free employee at taxpayers' expense? Doesn't that open a very wide door for political corruption? Did Pound Stores get a free worker for two weeks because they gave a government official a better deal on a plasma television set than did their competitor?