"Did you have a family when you got on your bike Jom? "
Are you making my point for me?
I wasn't married, if that's what you mean, but I had a mother and young sisters who depended to a degree on me - I had recently lost my father.
My background was the North of England, my friends and activities were based there, I liked living there - nobody should ever have the right to demand that I move elsewhere because the system we live in can no longer provide work for vast sweeps of Britain
At that time the North east and Northwest of Britain were permanent unemployment black-spots, the Midlands were not much better, the work was centred in the South-east which was the only place in Britain where it was readily available.
Since then that has intensified tenfold since Thatcher drew a line across Britain, virtually abandoning everywhere outside the South East.
" I have given you my suggestions on what to do with them twice now"
Where - I ignore nothing.
Your account of the Scandinavian model, based on social co-operation between workers organisations and government bodies a gross distortion of what happens there and is impractical here anyway as historically, the British establishment has refused to recognise workers representation as part of governance - Thatcher deliberately destroyed what little there was of that.
Britain has opted to force people to take whatever menial job is available - slavery without the chains.
We live in a stable society where people have established permanent identities in specific areas - we are no longer a nomadic nation and haven't been since the Neolithic period, yet twots like you would turn us into hunter-gatherers all over again.
We are human beings, not chess-pieces to be moved about to suit an economy favouring as small, privileged group who have become the sole beneficiary of the riches of society.
Your scummy argument that those who will not revert to itinerancy to find work should be either forced to by law or starved into accepting anything, whether it suits our capabilities or meets our needs, or not - which is the logic of your argument - it is primitive and savage situation you propose.
You say we should move where the work is, yet you refuse to tell us where we are going to find somewhere to live in areas where accommodation costs are directly linked to employment - hobo encampments like the Hungry Thirties in America, workingmens' hostels, sleeping rough.....?
Take your hospital porters example - because of the essential job they do, they can never take action to improve their conditions - doesn't matter that they can't feed their families on what they are paid.
Same with teachers
Same with Nurses
Same with ambulance drivers, or public transport workers.... how far do you want to go.
Same with anybody we rely on in society
Take what we choose to give you and get on with it - you have no say in your lives.
I seem to remember not so long ago your defending military officers who, at a time when hostile forces within Britain were threatening armed violence against British citizens, declared they were not prepared to act to prevent that violence.
Didn't those officers fall within the description "essential"?
You are a running joke - please keep running - it really is quite entertaining.
Jim Carroll