BS: Britons shall be slaves?

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Aug 12 - 05:05 AM

I read about that, mauvepink. I quite agree. The customers using the call centres would be completely unaware that criminals (and that's what they are, after all) were taking down their details and would presumably have access to their records etc. Also, those are jobs that honest folk might be glad of. I have several friends with sons & daughters in their twenties who are finding it hard to get work. No-one is doing much for them, and they've never broken the law. I have visited many prisoners in eight prisons in the UK, both 'open' and 'closed' and I do see that they need rehabilitation, but surely common sense dictates that the opportunities don't compromise the security of the public? They chose to commit crimes, we don't owe them much really.

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Aug 12 - 10:25 AM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Aug 12 - 01:53 PM

Actually, prisoners here in UK have the right NOT to work. They can choose, if they wish, not to do anything at all during their sentence, but of course they still get fed, clothed and heating,hot water, TV, lighting etc and the 'Basic' pocket money. Yet the Benefits claimant was threatened with withdrawal of her payments if she turned down the 'work' at Poundland. I call that discrimination.

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Aug 12 - 02:18 PM

They have obviously got to have food, adequate heating, &c. But I have never understood why they have got to have tv. How long has that been a necessity of life whose removal would be grossly inhumane?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Aug 12 - 03:41 PM

You can't just sit at home watching the ( @ )( @ ) boob tube.
(:-( P)=

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Aug 12 - 05:47 PM

I agree, Michael. But I suspect the prison officers need to keep them quiet somehow, and TV does that to some extent. I don't see why they should be given pocket money though. They get a 'canteen list' every week and tick off the things they want to buy. It's brought to their cells by an officer (room service?) Blooming cheek!

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 12 - 09:31 AM

Where do you draw the line between what prisoners (and by extension benefit recipients &c) need or should be given by the state? Where do you draw the line between punishment and rehabilitation? Lots of people are, perhaps justly, angry about training and educational possibilities in prisons at a time where genuine (re)training &c is out of reach of many law-abiding long-term unemployed.

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Aug 12 - 10:26 AM

My point is that BOTH prisoners and benefits recipients need to be provided with necessities. But while prisoners are protected from being forced to work for their 'keep', the young lady at Poundland was told to work the prescribed hours or forfeit her benefits. I find this difference hard to justify. I draw the line, GUEST, between the criminality (by choice) of prisoners and the honesty of benefits claimants. The one group have put themselves into their custodial predicament, the others are blameless for being unable to find work.

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Aug 12 - 10:45 AM

Yes, BWL, Poundland got a free employee - so could sack another paid worker.

If the state is the "employer" so called "workfare" also displaces a paid employee.

What Dave H said on the 10th at 7 Mudcat time is spot on the money.

I imagine that TV for prisoners does enable them to keep up with the world so that they are less disadvantaged on release - as well as helping to keep them quiescent. So it's probably beneficial overall on balance.


Oh dear MG - you need to see what actually happens. Your rose-tinted version of "public service" is a fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 12 - 12:14 PM

GUEST,Eliza,

My comments were more open and rhetorical and not aimed at you.

The earlier point I was making was, regarding the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade', where do they draw the line? Does their need to see punitive 'justice' (no luxuries or liberties and, saliently, making them work for their keep) outweigh the needs of people on the outside who need training and jobs?

Similarly, for those generally more on the left, at a time when college courses, funding &c is being cut outside of prison, how does 'rehabilitation' and training work in prison when it's providing more opportunities inside than it does for people outside?

As for workfare &c., I made some long posts above that should clarify how I feel about workfare and the treatment of people on benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: Britons shall be slaves?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Aug 12 - 02:10 PM

(Thank you Guest, I didn't see your post as being directed at me personally.) In an ideal world, prisoners would be given meaningful work (however, this would create serious security issues) and paid a wage, to encourage rehabilitation. Benefits claimants would receive a decent amount per week, enough to actually live on, and help & support to find decent and dignified work. Obviously this isn't an ideal world, and we're in a recession. BUT you cannot ever demand that a person work for benefits that barely sustain life, and threaten to withdraw the pittance if they refuse. That is slavery, and totally abhorrent. It's plain that Poundland and others are gleefully cashing in on the gift of slave labour. Also, as this practice is not nationwide, presumably many claimants are being given their benefits without having to be slaves. Not fair.