• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Once again this government shows its heartless side.....

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
by getting rid of 17k jobs for disabled people
Unite For Our Society | Solidarity with Remploy

Not only that but it has plans to remove benefits for pensioners such as free bus pass, tv licences and winter fuel subsidies ,thus showing its capacity for attacking the most vulnerable amongst us.We can safely say that it is not only heartless but stupid with it for the grey vote will surely count against them

Pensioners the disabled and the unemployed , easy targets for a ruthless government that only cares about the rich
 

sidicks

Banned
by getting rid of 17k jobs for disabled people
Unite For Our Society | Solidarity with Remploy

My understanding is that these factories are incurring millions of pounds in losses and the intention is to support those employed in a more meaningful way, not least to be employed alongside 'normal' workers rather than in segregated factories.

Which seems far more sensible and inclusive.

Not only that but it has plans to remove benefits for pensioners such as free bus pass, tv licences and winter fuel subsidies ,thus showing its capacity for attacking the most vulnerable amongst us.We can safely say that it is not only heartless but stupid with it for the grey vote will surely count against them

Pensioners the disabled and the unemployed , easy targets for a ruthless government that only cares about the rich

Of course someone that actually bothered to read what is being discussed would see that:

a) this is a consultation
b) the plan is to remove beenfits from the rich (which seems perfectly reasonable given that we have a £100bn deficit to resolve)!
c) this also ignores the fact that the main pension benefit is being increased

Even the left-leaning BBC summarise as follows:

Wealthy pensioners should stop receiving free bus passes and prescriptions, an ally of the prime minister is expected to argue later.

I've highlighted the key word for you LGS.

Of course the Labour government would continue to bribe the electorate with benefts that can't be afforded whilst keeping pensions at a lower level and leaving someone else to pick up the tab in the future...

Seemingly some idiots would fall for it!!
:facepalm:
 
Last edited:

karkus30

Banned
la gran siete said:
by getting rid of 17k jobs for disabled people
Unite For Our Society | Solidarity with Remploy

Not only that but it has plans to remove benefits for pensioners such as free bus pass, tv licences and winter fuel subsidies ,thus showing its capacity for attacking the most vulnerable amongst us.We can safely say that it is not only heartless but stupid with it for the grey vote will surely count against them

Pensioners the disabled and the unemployed , easy targets for a ruthless government that only cares about the rich

Are you blaming the Tories for that ?

I can tell you that it was under labour that this happened and was a policy of wind down. I was asked to support the campaign to support Remploy in the North East under labour over 4 years ago. In reality it's more ineffective, segregation, expensive and personally I think divisive. I can tell you that local labour MPs tried to find a way to make it work, but they saw it was doomed.

There are several private companies set up, specifically employing a mix of disabled and abled under charity/ not for profit status and these have proved successful.

http://www.itforcharities.co.uk/pcs.htm

The company legislation and often company policies are now aimed at employing disabled people and companies often benefit financially as a result. Disabled workers working for Remploy were mostly redeployed at other factories in a mixed group. The companies employing them are extremely satisfied with their performance and as a result will often take on other disabled people as they realise that they are actually taking on highly productive staff.

Remploy itself cost a fortune to run. Able bodied managers predominated in these places and consumed the money which went in that direction. Often the companies did repair work for private companies that have ceased manufacture in the UK. This left Remploy with no effective market at all.
 

sidicks

Banned
Karkus30 said:
Are you blaming the Tories for that ?

I can tell you that it was under labour that this happened and was a policy of wind down.

LGS shoots himself in the foot once more....
:laugh:
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
Are you blaming the Tories for that ?

I can tell you that it was under labour that this happened and was a policy of wind down. I was asked to support the campaign to support Remploy in the North East under labour over 4 years ago. In reality it's more ineffective, segregation, expensive and personally I think divisive. I can tell you that local labour MPs tried to find a way to make it work, but they saw it was doomed.

There are several private companies set up, specifically employing a mix of disabled and abled under charity/ not for profit status and these have proved successful.

PCs - Recycled / Special Charity Pricing

The company legislation and often company policies are now aimed at employing disabled people and companies often benefit financially as a result. Disabled workers working for Remploy were mostly redeployed at other factories in a mixed group. The companies employing them are extremely satisfied with their performance and as a result will often take on other disabled people as they realise that they are actually taking on highly productive staff.

Remploy itself cost a fortune to run. Able bodied managers predominated in these places and consumed the money which went in that direction. Often the companies did repair work for private companies that have ceased manufacture in the UK. This left Remploy with no effective market at all.

Frankly i dont care who started this policy of wind down. The Tories completed the destruction of a project aimed at providing working opportunities for disabled people.Did the Government bother to consult the very people who are affected ? Clearly not given the the reaction.I have no doubt there are other groups who are effective but the government would have gained more credibility by actually attempting to improve Remploy rather than close it down altogether.
 

sidicks

Banned
I'm assuming you really don't need an explanation for that. :D

It's not the first time he's blamed the Coalition for something and then had to do a great deal of (hypocritical) backtracking with his opinons....
:D
 

Jamezinho

Distinguished Member
Not only that but it has plans to remove benefits for pensioners such as free bus pass, tv licences and winter fuel subsidies ,thus showing its capacity for attacking the most vulnerable amongst us.

Yeah, but many pensioners are some of the most comfortable people in society.
The perks you mention should be taken away from those that can afford them (such as those that have the sort of pension my generation can only dream of).

I'll never be as well off when I reach pensionable age. I'm 31 - think how much worse things are going to be by the time I retire. :suicide:

Sorry, but I can't feel too sympathetic towards pensioners. Some struggle - and they should be looked after - the rest can pay their own way.
 

sidicks

Banned
Yeah, but many pensioners are some of the most comfortable people in society.
The perks you mention should be taken away from those that can afford them (such as those that have the sort of pension my generation can only dream of).

I'll never be as well off when I reach pensionable age. I'm 31 - think how much worse things are going to be by the time I retire. :suicide:

Sorry, but I can't feel too sympathetic towards pensioners. Some struggle - and they should be looked after - the rest can pay their own way.

I think what you are missing is that LGS will shortly be a pensioner, and as a wealthy pensioner (with multiple properties) he might well fall foul of the outcome of this consultation.

So he's just being selfish - we all know that any proposals, however 'fair' aren't allowed to adversely impact him!
:smashin:
 

Jamezinho

Distinguished Member
He'll have to sell one of his houses to pay for the heating in the one he lives in.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
It's not the first time he's blamed the Coalition for something and then had to do a great deal of (hypocritical) backtracking with his opinons....
:D

That's completely unfair, I sure that now he realises that it's simply wealth redistribution amongst the elderly he will be completely in favour of it. :thumbsup:
 

karkus30

Banned
la gran siete said:
Frankly i dont care who started this policy of wind down. The Tories completed the destruction of a project aimed at providing working opportunities for disabled people.Did the Government bother to consult the very people who are affected ? Clearly not given the the reaction.I have no doubt there are other groups who are effective but the government would have gained more credibility by actually attempting to improve Remploy rather than close it down altogether.

It was doomed. I spent time in discussion with ways of finding other contracts to keep it going. The reality is it was fully funded operation, but it also was running at a severe loss. The management were on pretty good wages. Until you understand how it works LGS I don't think you are in a position to comment. When you see the P and L it was scary. You could have done far more with far less really. The work given to the employees was generally re-work. Essentially they were given a contract by a private company who really didn't need the work doing, but felt it was part of their commitment to the community. Even after full funding and what amounts to a private donation they were running badly in the red.
 

sidicks

Banned
It was doomed. I spent time in discussion with ways of finding other contracts to keep it going. The reality is it was fully funded operation, but it also was running at a severe loss. The management were on pretty good wages. Until you understand how it works LGS I don't think you are in a position to comment. When you see the P and L it was scary. You could have done far more with far less really. The work given to the employees was generally re-work. Essentially they were given a contract by a private company who really didn't need the work doing, but felt it was part of their commitment to the community. Even after full funding and what amounts to a private donation they were running badly in the red.

This doesn't normally stop him!!
:lesson:
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
It was doomed. I spent time in discussion with ways of finding other contracts to keep it going. The reality is it was fully funded operation, but it also was running at a severe loss. The management were on pretty good wages. Until you understand how it works LGS I don't think you are in a position to comment. When you see the P and L it was scary. You could have done far more with far less really. The work given to the employees was generally re-work. Essentially they were given a contract by a private company who really didn't need the work doing, but felt it was part of their commitment to the community. Even after full funding and what amounts to a private donation they were running badly in the red.

well if the government can find a b ether alternative then all well and good but I doing see why they cannot take the existing concept and just improve it, maybe change the management as well.What i will say is that I see it more as occupational therapy from which money could be made rather than being an end in itself.I don't believe the disabled should be thrown at the mercy of the market place, I am all for encouraging the disabled to work if at all feasible ,but I don't believe they should thrown at the mercy of the market place so if Remploy's P and L is on the negative side so be it.If , as you say,its too much so then maybe you have case but I would seek improvements rather than just shutting it down because , clearly , too many people are being affected.
 

Ian J

Banned
Yeah, but many pensioners are some of the most comfortable people in society.
The perks you mention should be taken away from those that can afford them

I'm eligible for a bus pass but I've never bothered to claim one as I prefer to continue pouring expensive fuel into my gas guzzler.

I've also never completed the paperwork to claim the winter fuel allowance as it's too much bother.

I agree that it's a waste of valuable resources to continue to give these benefits to people just because they have reached a certain age and like all state benefits they should be means tested
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
Yeah, but many pensioners are some of the most comfortable people in society.
The perks you mention should be taken away from those that can afford them (such as those that have the sort of pension my generation can only dream of).

I'll never be as well off when I reach pensionable age. I'm 31 - think how much worse things are going to be by the time I retire. :suicide:

Sorry, but I can't feel too sympathetic towards pensioners. Some struggle - and they should be looked after - the rest can pay their own way.
well i can understand that well off pensioners should be required to pay their own way .The question then is at which point are they defined as well off? Apparently the government is considering the point at which they start paying taxes which, to my mind, is far too low and would therefore negatively affect far too many.If its implemented the Tories will undoubtedly pay at the next election
 

Sonic67

Banned
The Tories? It's a coalition government. Some people can't help themselves.
 

karkus30

Banned
la gran siete said:
well if the government can find a b ether alternative then all well and good but I doing see why they cannot take the existing concept and just improve it, maybe change the management as well.What i will say is that I see it more as occupational therapy from which money could be made rather than being an end in itself.I don't believe the disabled should be thrown at the mercy of the market place, I am all for encouraging the disabled to work if at all feasible ,but I don't believe they should thrown at the mercy of the market place so if Remploy's P and L is on the negative side so be it.If , as you say,its too much so then maybe you have case but I would seek improvements rather than just shutting it down because , clearly , too many people are being affected.

Bloody hell, the disabled don't need your kind of support. That's exactly what gets them branded as useless social misfits that need treating as special cases. The Paralympics is all about celebrating diversity and showing that disabled people are not second class citizens. If they are not engaged in the real market place ( thrown on the mercy is an awful figure of speech I might add because it's a dynamic, productive place and not a Coliseum full of Lions ), then they become habitually side lined and tainted. Nothing moves on, they are stuck in a nice safe place and the rest of us don't have to contend with it.

Remploy as a business was stuck in the 1940s. We literally have no businesses like that anymore. It wasn't the management at fault. You should go and visit a few and stop thinking up ideas. Despite all your concern and rhetoric I bet you have never been, never talked to the people who attend these places and understand what they really want. Please stop making them into a political chip to prove a point, they certainly wouldn't thank you for it.
 

sidicks

Banned
la gran siete said:
Apparently the government is considering the point at which they start paying taxes which, to my mind, is far too low and would therefore negatively affect far too many.If its implemented the Tories will undoubtedly pay at the next election

Not that it is like you to jump to conclusions in order to try and make a political point, but....

This is simply an area for discussion and won't be implemented before the next election!
:nono:
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
karkus30 said:
Despite all your concern and rhetoric I bet you have never been, never talked to the people who attend these places and understand what they really want. Please stop making them into a political chip to prove a point, they certainly wouldn't thank you for it.

Surely you aren't suggesting that LGS would rant about something he doesn't know about just to have a go at the government?
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
Not that it is like you to jump to conclusions in order to try and make a political point, but....

This is simply an area for discussion and won't be implemented before the next election!
:nono:
they would completely imbecilic to do so.It was all over the from pages of the Daily Express yesterday ,which has a considerable readership
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
Bloody hell, the disabled don't need your kind of support. That's exactly what gets them branded as useless social misfits that need treating as special cases. The Paralympics is all about celebrating diversity and showing that disabled people are not second class citizens. If they are not engaged in the real market place ( thrown on the mercy is an awful figure of speech I might add because it's a dynamic, productive place and not a Coliseum full of Lions ), then they become habitually side lined and tainted. Nothing moves on, they are stuck in a nice safe place and the rest of us don't have to contend with it.

Remploy as a business was stuck in the 1940s. We literally have no businesses like that anymore. It wasn't the management at fault. You should go and visit a few and stop thinking up ideas. Despite all your concern and rhetoric I bet you have never been, never talked to the people who attend these places and understand what they really want. Please stop making them into a political chip to prove a point, they certainly wouldn't thank you for it.
Are you seriously suggesting most disabled people are like paraolympians??Only a small minority will every achieve that kind of status.By the same token a great many haven't a ghostly chance of being able to compete in the market place as you suggest they should .Those that can ,by all means encourage them and I have made the point already, but one must bear in mind some have committed suicide out of desperation at seeing their benefits cut so to put them in the same category as fully abled people is just folly.Some have mental disabilities, are you suggesting they can compete on an equal footing?
i fully accept many disable people are proud and wish to be treated on equal terms to the fully abled except, of course, they would need greater assistance.Putting them to one side one must also accept there are great many others who have to be approached differently and not be expected to face the what four many of them would be a draconian scenario of the market place .
 

The latest video from AVForums

CES 2023 Round Up: New TV Lineups for 2023 from LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Hisense & TCL
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom