Support NeoGAF

[frankie_baby]

I wasn't talking about fraud, I was talking about the fact that not everyone on benefits is using them as a stepping stone to work and instead using them as a way of life.

To be honest I applaud all parents that use benefits as a way of life when being on benefits can bring a better standard of living than a minimum wage job, they are just doing the right thing by their kids, yes the whole culture needs changing but it needs to be done in a way to reward work not penalising those on benefits

 

[Psychotext]

I worked out recently that my sister would have been significantly better off on benefits than she would have doing her part time job (she was searching for full time work). She was working enough hours that she was pretty much entitled to no support at all and frankly I wouldn't have blamed her if she'd quit and just claimed benefits.

The system is broken.

 

[nib95]

I worked out recently that my sister would have been significantly better off on benefits than she would have doing her part time job (she was searching for full time work). She was working enough hours that she was pretty much entitled to no support at all and frankly I wouldn't have blamed her if she'd quit and just claimed benefits.

The system is broken.

That's just it though, the cost of living has gone up several fold, public transport costs, petrol, food, rent, property prices (especially so) etc and wages have not increased enough to sustain it. Minimum wage right now is out of sync with reality, and that's partly why benefits have caught up with them, since benefits are basically at a level of the bare minimum.

The system is indeed broken.

 

[radioheadrule83]

If Teresa May deports Gary McKinnon today I am liable to go down to her next public appearance and throw something at her.. he's served a decade in limbo as far as I'm concerned and he's a medically and psychologically vulnerable man who has already been mistreated in my view. It's time to make an exception to our agreement with the US, in this case above all others.

I would have bartered Abu Hamza for McKinnon's safety

 

[CyclopsRock]

That's just it though, the cost of living has gone up several fold, public transport costs, petrol, food, rent, property prices (especially so) etc and wages have not increased enough to sustain it. Minimum wage right now is out of sync with reality, and that's partly why benefits have caught up with them, since benefits are basically at a level of the bare minimum.

The system is indeed broken.

This isn't a new problem by any means, though. We have households with three generations of a family who have never worked a day in their life. The system has been broken for a long time, and it's those trapped in it that suffer the most. It desperately needs reform, and it's in a position where even sociopathic monsters like myself would happily advocating spending more to fix the system (and the unified benefit system will go some way to doing this) because right now it's both expensive and ineffective. Expensive and effective is much better! Plus, as I've said before, it's about saving people's lives, stopping them wasting it in a drudgery filled existence on just enough to survive. I don't even really care much about the eventual savings (though that's nice too).

 

[nib95]

This isn't a new problem by any means, though. We have households with three generations of a family who have never worked a day in their life. The system has been broken for a long time, and it's those trapped in it that suffer the most. It desperately needs reform, and it's in a position where even sociopathic monsters like myself would happily advocating spending more to fix the system (and the unified benefit system will go some way to doing this) because right now it's both expensive and ineffective. Expensive and effective is much better! Plus, as I've said before, it's about saving people's lives, stopping them wasting it in a drudgery filled existence on just enough to survive. I don't even really care much about the eventual savings (though that's nice too).

Damn Cyclops, a post we can actually (mostly) agree on lol.

 

[Wes]

Guardian: "Gary McKinnon is to be spared extradition to the US, according to reports on Sky News and the Daily Mail."

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Guardian: "Gary McKinnon is to be spared extradition to the US, according to reports on Sky News and the Daily Mail."

Wow, that was unexpected.

 

[Psychotext]

Excellent.

 

[Jezbollah]

That is very good news.

 

[SteveWD40]

Guardian: "Gary McKinnon is to be spared extradition to the US, according to reports on Sky News and the Daily Mail."

 

[War Peaceman]

Great news. Now let's rewrite that awful extradition treaty.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I am amazed and relieved that May has a backbone.

Victory for logic and reason in my view... the extradition treaty has been far too one-way for too long. The US would do better to invest their money and time trying to extradite their healthier, more malevolent and malicious enemies around the world - and not spend a decade ruining the life of a man with aspergers.

 

[phisheep]

This isn't a new problem by any means, though. We have households with three generations of a family who have never worked a day in their life. The system has been broken for a long time, and it's those trapped in it that suffer the most. It desperately needs reform, and it's in a position where even sociopathic monsters like myself would happily advocating spending more to fix the system (and the unified benefit system will go some way to doing this) because right now it's both expensive and ineffective. Expensive and effective is much better! Plus, as I've said before, it's about saving people's lives, stopping them wasting it in a drudgery filled existence on just enough to survive. I don't even really care much about the eventual savings (though that's nice too).

Just shooting from the cuff here, but minimum wage doesn't necessarily help with this. I know a good few households in that description. And there's some very promising people there I would happily recruit. But my business can't afford to pay minimum wage for even one person now (not even for us two owners). Drop the min wage by a half and I would get someone in like a shot - I'd have had someone already. And in a household like you describe, three people on half minimum wage is going some. With probably another two to spare.

100 years ago, my ancestors were 8 to a house that would these days be considered a tight squeeze for a couple. Maybe we just got our aspirations a bit high?

Benefit trap's a bugger, don't get me wrong on that. But using statute to price available jobs out of the market isn't too smart either.

 

[radioheadrule83]

1409: Former Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson thinks Theresa May has made a big mistake in halting Mr McKinnon's extradition: "Gary McKinnon is accused of very serious offences. The US was perfectly within its rights, and it was extremely reasonable of them, to seek his extradition...the Home Secretary has made a decision today that's in her own party's best interest; it is not in the best interests of the country."

Respect for Alan Johnson -10,000,000,000,000,000

 

[CyclopsRock]

Just shooting from the cuff here, but minimum wage doesn't necessarily help with this. I know a good few households in that description. And there's some very promising people there I would happily recruit. But my business can't afford to pay minimum wage for even one person now (not even for us two owners). Drop the min wage by a half and I would get someone in like a shot - I'd have had someone already. And in a household like you describe, three people on half minimum wage is going some. With probably another two to spare.

100 years ago, my ancestors were 8 to a house that would these days be considered a tight squeeze for a couple. Maybe we just got our aspirations a bit high?

Benefit trap's a bugger, don't get me wrong on that. But using statute to price available jobs out of the market isn't too smart either.

I agree entirely. I consider the minimum wage to be like any other mandated price floor - If apples suddenly had a minimum price of £2, and it inflated slightly every year, you'd expect demand for apples to go down. It's good for the people that get jobs, terrible for those that can't.

I've also written a fairly large (quelle surprise) post in, I think, this thread, about how the large pool of available labour from the EU reinforced the benefits trap further, as you have a group of people for whom benefits aren't available. As a result, the normal wage inflation that'd occur in those businesses that could afford employees doesn't occur, because they don't need to. If they had to compete with benefits in order to hire people, wages would go up. But they don't, so they don't.

I think IDS actually has the right idea. If you taper benefits, so that they decrease slowly (and not in parallel) as your earnings increase, it'll cost more in real terms, but it'll mean working is always worth doing. This'll allow British people to compete more effectively for jobs against those from the continent, which in turn will lead to a lowering of overall benefit payments. During 1997-2007, employment rose by 2 million yet the number of people on benefits scarcely changed. That's a very expensive addiction to foreign labour we have, and the short-term increase in costs that tapering the benefits system would have will, I think, more than pay for itself. Plus, it's about more than just the money.

 

[operon]

Respect for Alan Johnson -10,000,000,000,000,000

exactly, but he was in the government that went to war for America

 

[CyclopsRock]

Respect for Alan Johnson -10,000,000,000,000,000

I don't even understand what he's saying. Is there really a big, Tory grass roots campaign to save the mentally disabled computer hacker who admitted to his crimes? I think she did the right thing, but I don't think it was a particularly partisan move.

 

[operon]

Just shooting from the cuff here, but minimum wage doesn't necessarily help with this. I know a good few households in that description. And there's some very promising people there I would happily recruit. But my business can't afford to pay minimum wage for even one person now (not even for us two owners). Drop the min wage by a half and I would get someone in like a shot - I'd have had someone already. And in a household like you describe, three people on half minimum wage is going some. With probably another two to spare.

100 years ago, my ancestors were 8 to a house that would these days be considered a tight squeeze for a couple. Maybe we just got our aspirations a bit high?

Benefit trap's a bugger, don't get me wrong on that. But using statute to price available jobs out of the market isn't too smart either.

Oh Please, I hope you don't thinking eating and having a roof over your head is an aspiration too high. You want people to work for about 3.50 an hour what are they going to be able to do with that.

 

[travisbickle]

Just shooting from the cuff here, but minimum wage doesn't necessarily help with this. I know a good few households in that description. And there's some very promising people there I would happily recruit. But my business can't afford to pay minimum wage for even one person now (not even for us two owners). Drop the min wage by a half and I would get someone in like a shot - I'd have had someone already. And in a household like you describe, three people on half minimum wage is going some. With probably another two to spare.

100 years ago, my ancestors were 8 to a house that would these days be considered a tight squeeze for a couple. Maybe we just got our aspirations a bit high?

Benefit trap's a bugger, don't get me wrong on that. But using statute to price available jobs out of the market isn't too smart either.

Also drop the Children and Young Peoples Act, I own a mine where a family of 5 could easily earn enough to live a subsistence life with the other families in the one room they rent from me.

 

[SteveWD40]

I don't even understand what he's saying. Is there really a big, Tory grass roots campaign to save the mentally disabled computer hacker who admitted to his crimes? I think she did the right thing, but I don't think it was a particularly partisan move.

My bet is the Torys are arguably a little less toady with the US, seeing China and India as far better bets for prosperity if nothing else.

 

[Walshicus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19957358
Fairly sensible next-best-thing solution from the Lib Dems, should the Scottish Independence Referendum fail.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19957358
Fairly sensible next-best-thing solution from the Lib Dems, should the Scottish Independence Referendum fail.

This reminds me of the Home Rule plans for Ireland that WW1 disrupted. It's an interesting proposal, although I guess Westminister's insistence on an all-or-nothing referendum means they won't be up for this either.

 

[gutter_trash]

after 2 Referendums in Quebec, I can assure you that if they permitted dumb 16 and 17 year olds to vote... the Yes would have won in 1995. The final 1995 result was No 50.6% vs Yes 49.4%

young people under 18 and insanely dumb and lalalalala you done goofed by letting them vote

 

[Biggzy]

after 2 Referendums in Quebec, I can assure you that if they permitted dumb 16 and 17 year olds to vote... the Yes would have won in 1995. The final 1995 result was No 50.6% vs Yes 49.4%

young people under 18 and insanely dumb and lalalalala you done goofed by letting them vote

I am more concerned that we don't fall into a Quebec style situation where Scotland keeps threatening with independence - depending on a no vote of course.

Edit: I have just realised I am no longer a junior, lol.

 

[kitch9]

To be honest I applaud all parents that use benefits as a way of life when being on benefits can bring a better standard of living than a minimum wage job, they are just doing the right thing by their kids, yes the whole culture needs changing but it needs to be done in a way to reward work not penalising those on benefits

Benefits, should not be a "way of life," that mentality is crazy. They should be societies safety net to catch those who fall out of the employment grinder so they can jump straight back in.

The benefits system pays people at the minute to pop kids out for fun, so you are getting big families of none workers all just not working because they CBA.

Its insane.

 

[Biggzy]

Benefits, should not be a "way of life," that mentality is crazy. They should be societies safety net to catch those who fall out of the employment grinder so they can jump straight back in.

The benefits system pays people at the minute to pop kids out for fun, so you are getting big families of none workers all just not working because they CBA.

Its insane.

The one policy that I agree with the Tories and that is limiting child benefit for parents. My belief is that having more than 2 maybe 3 kids is a life style choice and so you should foot the bill for that life style choice.

 

[travisbickle]

Benefits, should not be a "way of life," that mentality is crazy. They should be societies safety net to catch those who fall out of the employment grinder so they can jump straight back in.

The benefits system pays people at the minute to pop kids out for fun, so you are getting big families of none workers all just not working because they CBA.

Its insane.

This metaphor is ... apt.

People are becoming unemployable not unemployed.

 

[phisheep]

Oh Please, I hope you don't thinking eating and having a roof over your head is an aspiration too high. You want people to work for about 3.50 an hour what are they going to be able to do with that.

Let's try putting a different perspective on it shall we? My finances don't allow a full-time employee, or anywhere near half-time (not out -of-season like now anyway). But I'm up to the eyeballs with people who want to work here because it is a whole load of fun and also good experience. But there's legislation saying I can't sling them a couple of quid an hour to do so - so my workforce is restricted to me and the Missus and whoever can afford (because of relative "richness"( hah!) or because of being on benefits or on student loans) to do so for free.

That does not seem right to me. Of course I could get away with it through under-the-counter payments, but that ain't right either.

 

[radioheadrule83]

The one policy that I agree with the Tories and that is limiting child benefit for parents. My belief is that having more than 2 maybe 3 kids is a life style choice and so you should foot the bill for that life style choice.

To what end though - til they're too poor to look after them and one or more of the kids die or until the children have to be taken into care?

I have a feeling lots of people would agree with general gist that people have more kids than they can afford, but the government can't enforce a restriction on how many children people have, and they would find it very hard to break families up or refuse them money for feeding innocent children

 

[travisbickle]

Let's try putting a different perspective on it shall we? My finances don't allow a full-time employee, or anywhere near half-time (not out -of-season like now anyway). But I'm up to the eyeballs with people who want to work here because it is a whole load of fun and also good experience. But there's legislation saying I can't sling them a couple of quid an hour to do so - so my workforce is restricted to me and the Missus and whoever can afford (because of relative "richness"( hah!) or because of being on benefits or on student loans) to do so for free.

That does not seem right to me. Of course I could get away with it through under-the-counter payments, but that ain't right either.

WHAT!!!

Now that's out of the system...

Create a contract of work experience. Work out a weekly figure that you can afford, attribute that to incurred cost of the person on work experience, don't over-work them. You could also submit forms to possibly get government assistance for taking on people for experience. With the correct forms (I can't remember it's been along time since I did it) the "work experience" person could still claim some benefits.

 

[phisheep]

The one policy that I agree with the Tories and that is limiting child benefit for parents. My belief is that having more than 2 maybe 3 kids is a life style choice and so you should foot the bill for that life style choice.

I'm not at all sure about that one either. By far the best environment for bringing up children is lots of other children - I'm far more concerned about the long-term effects of bringing up lots of rich only children than I am about the occasional massive w/c families (which aren't as common as it may seem).

 

[CyclopsRock]

Oh Please, I hope you don't thinking eating and having a roof over your head is an aspiration too high. You want people to work for about 3.50 an hour what are they going to be able to do with that.

More than with £0.00 an hour was his point, I think.

 

[phisheep]

WHAT!!!

Now that's out of the system...

Create a contract of work experience. Work out a weekly figure that you can afford, attribute that to incurred cost of the person on work experience, don't over-work them. You could also submit forms to possibly get government assistance for taking on people for experience.

Yeah, that kind of illustrates the point. Gotta make contracts, fill in forms and all sorts of shit. That's hassle I don't need. Got a business to run and a taxman to keep happy, or at least satisfied.

Besides, "work experience" doesn't necessarily work for people who already have work experience but have for one reason or another fallen off it.

Happy to hear further advice from you though if there is a sensible way around it.

 

[operon]

Let's try putting a different perspective on it shall we? My finances don't allow a full-time employee, or anywhere near half-time (not out -of-season like now anyway). But I'm up to the eyeballs with people who want to work here because it is a whole load of fun and also good experience. But there's legislation saying I can't sling them a couple of quid an hour to do so - so my workforce is restricted to me and the Missus and whoever can afford (because of relative "richness"( hah!) or because of being on benefits or on student loans) to do so for free.

That does not seem right to me. Of course I could get away with it through under-the-counter payments, but that ain't right either.

but you think having someone work for 2 pound an hours is right to you. They only way someone would agree to that is under the counter/off the books because no one will work for pittance when they can get more on the dole

 

[radioheadrule83]

Let's try putting a different perspective on it shall we? My finances don't allow a full-time employee, or anywhere near half-time (not out -of-season like now anyway). But I'm up to the eyeballs with people who want to work here because it is a whole load of fun and also good experience. But there's legislation saying I can't sling them a couple of quid an hour to do so - so my workforce is restricted to me and the Missus and whoever can afford (because of relative "richness"( hah!) or because of being on benefits or on student loans) to do so for free.

That does not seem right to me. Of course I could get away with it through under-the-counter payments, but that ain't right either.

I'd pay them under the counter, or maybe try and rejig the job to take on apprentices or something - they have the misfortune of a £2.60 minimum wage already. You can have 16-18 year olds for £3.68 and 18-20 year olds for just under a fiver...

The moment people can start employing independent people (who have their own bills and responsibilities) legally for less than minimum wage is the day wages and standards are driven down for a lot more besides those already on it. If printing money devalues currency, paying less than at least a living wage devalues work in my view... isn't that one of the problems with welfare dependency at the moment? That people feel work has no value?

I can see your point. If people are willing and able to do work for what you can afford to pay, it seems mad that they shouldn't be able to. I might be more comfortable if only small businesses were allowed to do it, and only allowed to employ a set amount of people under minimum wage per year or something, but free reign would just invite exploitation and throw people into the jaws of greed.

If you're a medium to large business and your only growth prospects are found in paying people low wages, then maybe demand is actually saying you don't deserve to grow. Sounds harsh I'm sure.

I would be in favour of a solution that rewarded job seekers and put them together with small businesses by subsidising part of the wages that they are given by effectively passing benefits to the employer for a time, but again, there would have to be safeguards around the size of the business, the business' ownership, safeguards around the number of employees a business could employ in that way and for how long they could legally do so...

sadly, I just don't think most businesses are like yours. There aren't many people 'crying out' to do jobs for lower than minimum wage. Nor should there be. In my view.

 

[phisheep]

but you think having someone work for 2 pound an hours is right to you. They only way someone would agree to that is under the counter/off the books because no one will work for pittance when they can get more on the dole

Not necessarily. Not if they are too proud to go on the dole in the first place, nor if the work is genuinely for charity (which some of it is).

But we're kind of in agreement that if somebody is on the dole and reliant on it then they could not take the kind of job that I am currently able to offer.

But still, that doesn't seem right to me.

 

[operon]

Not necessarily. Not if they are too proud to go on the dole in the first place, nor if the work is genuinely for charity (which some of it is).

But we're kind of in agreement that if somebody is on the dole and reliant on it then they could not take the kind of job that I am currently able to offer.

But still, that doesn't seem right to me.

But who can afford to work for so little, possibly if you were still at home with family, but what chance have you of moving out and bettering yourself. There is no way anyone in the UK who could work for that kind of money, hell if you had to take any kind of public transport it could cost you what you make in an hours. Its just not feasable

 

[CyclopsRock]

But who can afford to work for so little, possibly if you were still at home with family, but what chance have you of moving out and bettering yourself. There is no way anyone in the UK who could work for that kind of money, hell if you had to take any kind of public transport it could cost you what you make in an hours. Its just not feasable

Then no one would take the job and they'd be forced to raise their wages. Supply and demand works both ways, my friend!

 

[phisheep]

I'd pay them under the counter, or maybe try and rejig the job to take on apprentices or something - they have the misfortune of a £2.60 minimum wage already. You can have 16-18 year olds for £3.68 and 18-20 year olds for just under a fiver...

The moment people can start employing independent people (who have their own bills and responsibilities) legally for less than minimum wage is the day wages and standards are driven down for a lot more besides those already on it. If printing money devalues currency, paying less than at least a living wage devalues work in my view... isn't that one of the problems with welfare dependency at the moment? That people feel work has no value?

I can see your point. If people are willing and able to do work for what you can afford to pay, it seems mad that they shouldn't be able to. I might be more comfortable if only small businesses were allowed to do it, and only allowed to employ a set amount of people under minimum wage per year or something, but free reign would just invite exploitation and throw people into the jaws of greed.

If you're a medium to large business and your only growth prospects are found in paying people low wages, then maybe demand is actually saying you don't deserve to grow. Sounds harsh I'm sure.

I would be in favour of a solution that rewarded job seekers and put them together with small businesses by subsidising part of the wages that they are given by effectively passing benefits to the employer for a time, but again, there would have to be safeguards around the size of the business, the business' ownership, safeguards around the number of employees a business could employ in that way and for how long they could legally do so...

sadly, I just don't think most businesses are like yours. There aren't many people 'crying out' to do jobs for lower than minimum wage. Nor should there be. In my view.

I appreciate where you are coming from.

Under the counter is hard (corporation tax issues). Apprenticeships is hard because there's some sort of minimum term and to be quite honest all I have to teach are basic retail skills, and that's not an apprenticeship's-worth.

To be quite honest I think a 30-hour/week contract at two or three quid an hour beats the shit out of the currently prevailing "zero-hours" contracts that are infiltrating the retail and catering sectors when you don't know in advance when you are required to work, and chances are it pays more overall. And there's no way I want to be pushed by legislation into offering such a crappy contract to anyone.

Maybe you're right. A small business exemption would suit me fine, and nobody'd be obliged to take the job after all. But I'd like it tied in with the benefits system too so I don't end up only offering jobs to people who can afford to do without them anyway. I know w hole bunch of people who would be only too happy to pick up the work if it weren't for the benefits impact.

 

[travisbickle]

Phisheep I'm sorry but this just sounds like a bunch of people who don't realise what's happening in the world of work.

You want to employ someone even though there's no work?

And they want to join because they've "fallen" when it comes to work experience?

They're too proud to go on the dole?

If part of your work is for charity, you can get subsidies.

The best advice, tell your "fallen" friends to retrain, they could get financial aid to do so if they're not too proud.

To be quite honest I think a 30-hour/week contract at two or three quid an hour beats the shit out of the currently prevailing "zero-hours" contracts that are infiltrating the retail and catering sectors when you don't know in advance when you are required to work, and chances are it pays more overall. And there's no way I want to be pushed by legislation into offering such a crappy contract to anyone.

Zero contract hours are the most disgusting thing ever, but you believe £2 is the value of one man-hour?

A quick calculation of a 40 hour week comes out at a whopping £3,500 pre-tax wage per year(more/or less depending on the policy for holiday pay).

 

[7aged]

Can I interrupt the benefits/wages debate to bring this up:

Attorney general blocks disclosure of Prince Charles letters to ministers

Guardian to challenge Grieve's ruling that release of 27 letters 'could damage prince's ability to perform duties as king'

Prince Charles has been accused of meddling in government affairs and seeking to influence ministers to alter policy.

The government has blocked the disclosure of a set of confidential letters written by Prince Charles to ministers.

Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, issued a veto that puts an absolute block on the publication of 27 letters between the prince and ministers over a seven-month period. Grieve said the letters contained the "particularly frank" and "most deeply held personal views and beliefs" of the prince.

The decision comes after seven government departments lost a long-running freedom of information tribunal over the disclosure of the letters.

The veto overrides last month's ruling by the tribunal that the public had a right to know how the prince sought to change government policy.

Grieve's decision comes after seven years of government resistance to the Guardian's request to see copies of the prince's letters to ministers over the seven-month period in 2004 and 2005.

Following his decision, the Guardian announced that it would be seeking to take the government to the high court to challenge the veto on the grounds that it had acted unreasonably.

The prince has for some years been accused of meddling in government affairs and seeking to influence ministers to alter policy.

In a statement on Tuesday justifying his use of the veto, Grieve said: "Much of the correspondence does indeed reflect the Prince of Wales's most deeply held personal views and beliefs. The letters in this case are in many cases particularly frank.

"They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality."

Grieve continued: "In summary, my decision is based on my view that the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince of Wales's preparation for becoming king. The Prince of Wales engaged in this correspondence with ministers with the expectation that it would be confidential. Disclosure of the correspondence could damage the Prince of Wales's ability to perform his duties when he becomes king.

"It is a matter of the highest importance within our constitutional framework that the monarch is a politically neutral figure able to engage in confidence with the government of the day, whatever its political colour."

Katy Clark, a Labour MP who campaigns for an elected head of state, said she was appalled at the attorney general's decision, which she described as "quite shocking".

"The more you hear about the lobbying that Charles has undertaken over decades, the more inappropriate it seems," she said. "My concern is that government policy has been changed and it would seem to me that Prince Charles should not be allowed to hold undue influence over aspects of health policy and architectural policy where he has little experience."

Lord Rogers, the Labour peer and architect whose schemes have been previously torpedoed by the prince's private interventions, said he believed the government's decision would continue to allow the royal "to do the damage and disappear without a trace".

Rogers said: "It is either a democracy or it is not. I don't think anybody, be it a king, prince or poor man, has a right to undermine decisions by private interventions which have a public impact. The only way for Charles to be a public figure is for him to act publicly. It is not democratic to cover up his interventions."

He said the secrecy also clashed with Prince Charles's own claims that he represents a strand of public opinion. He said if he considered himself representative then those representations must be made in full view.

The judges on the information tribunal had ruled in favour of releasing the letters, stating: "The essential reason is that it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government."

They decided "it was fundamental" that the lobbying by the heir "cannot have constitutional status" and cannot be protected from disclosure.

The evidence, they said, showed "Prince Charles using his access to government ministers, and no doubt considering himself entitled to use that access, in order to set up and drive forward charities and promote views, but not as part of his preparation for kingship … Ministers responded, and no doubt felt themselves obliged to respond, but again not as part of Prince Charles's preparation for kingship."

Graham Smith, the director of Republic, a pressure group which is campaigning for greater transparency over royal engagement in politics said: "He clearly has something to hide and this is a coverup.

"In a very convoluted way, [Grieve] is saying it is in Charles's interests to use the veto and therefore it is in the public interest, which it isn't.

"There is no credibility to Grieve's remarks and he is simply making sure that Charles isn't exposed for lobbying government."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/16/attorney-general-blocks-prince-charles-letters

I don't know what to bold here. It's all pretty shocking. So because he can one day become king he can lobby with impunity and no accountability or transparency!

Oh and how can you be neutral while making known to ministers your "frank" and "deeply held views and beliefs"?

Ridiculous

 

[phisheep]

Phisheep I'm sorry but this just sounds like a bunch of people who don't realise what's happening in the world of work.

You want to employ someone even though there's no work?

And they want to join because they've "fallen" when it comes to work experience?

They're too proud to go on the dole?

If part of your work is for charity, you can get subsidies.

The best advice, tell your "fallen" friends to retrain, they could get financial aid to do so if they're not too proud.

No Travis, we're talking perfectly ordinary normal people who I would like to employ but cannot do so at the current minimum wage, who would get good experience working here, but who I either (a) cannot currently afford to employ because of the minimum wage legislation (at least on terms that I am comfortable would be fair to them) or (b) cannot afford to do so because of the benefits trap or (c) even if either of us could find a way around it it would be by cheating the revenue, which I don't think is right either.

We're not talking the "fallen" as in the damned or anything like that.

And I'm not saying there's no work either. There's plenty of work, just not, currently, at the rate the legislation allows for, but there's no shortage of demand either.

But telling them to retrain is not a huge amount of help. Where would they retrain if not here? Nearest major employment is 20 miles away and costs a boatload to get to. Best training is work. Best work is right here. Ditto best boss. Now, I've got to maybe fill in a whole load of forms and get somebody's approval to make this work? Bullshit. That's not making it easy for people to get into employment or for small firms to employ people.

 

[phisheep]

I don't know what to bold here. It's all pretty shocking. So because he can one day become king he can lobby with impunity and no accountability or transparency!

Oh and how can you be neutral while making known to ministers your "frank" and "deeply held views and beliefs"?

Ridiculous

Frankly I don't give a damn. I've tried to influence government and judicial policy in the past and Prince Charles has no greater (and no less) standing than I have. (Probably has a bit more influence though).

So what?

Who the hell cares?

Provided whatever decisions were made stood up to whatever scrutiny was in place (parliamentary/judicial/select committees etc) it really doesn't matter if some geezer wrote a few letters about whatever it was.

It's not as if ministers wouldn't be acutely aware of the possible bias, what with the headed notepaper and all.

 

[travisbickle]

And I'm not saying there's no work either. There's plenty of work, just not, currently, at the rate the legislation allows for, but there's no shortage of demand either.

So you want labour costs of £2 an hour? £12 a day? (6 hour day, 30 hr week)

 

[Psychotext]

Provided whatever decisions were made stood up to whatever scrutiny was in place (parliamentary/judicial/select committees etc) it really doesn't matter if some geezer wrote a few letters about whatever it was.

There's absolutely no way to tell this though. That's why not publishing the letters appears particularly suspect.

For all we know they actioned absolutely everything he mentioned.

 

[phisheep]

So you want labour costs of £2 an hour? £12 a day? (6 hour day, 30 hr week)

I could maybe try to wriggle out of this; but more-or-less, yes. That's pretty much what me and the mrs are earning out of the business, maybe a bit less.

Now I'm not saying by any means that I'd want (or need) that level of wages on a permanent basis, or that we can't plan for and achieve a decent level of growth without. But *if* we could employ someone at those wages, we'd probably employ them right now, bung our energy into business growth over the winter, hit the ground running next spring faster than we otherwise would, put that person on a proper (min-wage pus a bit) full-time in the shop and start two other people in the warehouse that we haven't got yet.

But short-term, yes. It would be good all round (and I'm insured for the downside anyhow).

We're probably three years off earning a "living wage" ourselves - why should a government force us to pay twice as much to somebody else?

(Yes, I know I'm pushing this a bit to make a point, but it is a point that needs to be made. And remember I'm not talking some crappy zero-hour contract here neither).

 

[morch]

That's just it though, the cost of living has gone up several fold, public transport costs, petrol, food, rent, property prices (especially so) etc and wages have not increased enough to sustain it. Minimum wage right now is out of sync with reality, and that's partly why benefits have caught up with them, since benefits are basically at a level of the bare minimum.

The system is indeed broken.

yeah my thoughts, but benefits, well the ones the recipient sees have hardly changed, the ones that have gone up are the 'indirect' ones like housing benefit.

My general experiences are that basically wages and benefits in kind are being gobbled up more and more by rent/gas/electricity/water/council tax.

Best thing for the economy would be make up some kind of tax to hit people holding onto landbanks or brownfield residential sites, whilst improving the planning conditions so more housing can be built.

Any money raised from said penalty tax could be used to build more social housing, which is sorely lacking as most of the 'stock' sol under right to buy is now used to milk said taxpayers in housing benefit to pay their mortgage

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Can I interrupt the benefits/wages debate to bring this up:



I don't know what to bold here. It's all pretty shocking. So because he can one day become king he can lobby with impunity and no accountability or transparency!

Oh and how can you be neutral while making known to ministers your "frank" and "deeply held views and beliefs"?

Ridiculous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxxyOX2g1Kk&feature=youtu.be

 

[Clay Davis]

Guardian: "Gary McKinnon is to be spared extradition to the US, according to reports on Sky News and the Daily Mail."

very good news, but this feels like a cynical move by teresa may and it's not coincidence that it's done before the wholesale opt out from eu laws.

or maybe I'm reading too much into it and it's as simple as them making the right decision.