Anyone near Shipley?

Can you nip up to the MP and kick him in the nuts for me? Ideally to the level of disability, see how he fucking likes it.

The front page of his website has him espousing cancer care. Shame he thinks that cancer patients should work on the cheap. Cunt

Tory vermin

On 5Live in a minute, defending the fact that he's a shit-eating bigot, Tone

Not for me thanks.
Hang the cunt.
I suppose he thinks Dr Stephen Hawking should be on a fiver an hour.

Mad Tony wrote:Not for me thanks.
Hang the cunt.
I suppose he thinks Dr Stephen Hawking should be on a fiver an hour.

Churchill had depression. Branson is dyslexic. Blunkett is blind. Paul Maynard MP has cerebral palsy. I could go on. Apparently he believes he should earn more than the last two for House work

I hate the cunt too, its about time we the people made our own party.

Revolution anyone?

bitofatwat wrote:I hate the cunt too, its about time we the people made our own party.

Revolution anyone?

He's getting torn apart on 5Live. Mind you, I am feeding Stephen Nolan some of his arguments...

how anybody can listen to that fat NI'ish cunt is beyond me.

" so, Marie, a a a a a a a a a, you say, a a a a a a a a that your 16 year old daughter is pregnant for the a a a a a a a a a 4th time?"

"yes, thats right Stephen"

"a a a a a a a a , so, let me get this right Marie, your daughter who is just a a a a a a a a a one year younger than 17 , has had not , one, not two, not three, but four children?"

"yes, thats right Stephen"

"So , lets just be a a a a a a a a a a a a clear here for all the listeners marie, you have a daughter, a a a a a a a a a a who was recently 15 , just 17 next year, and so far in her young life has had 4, not 3 or 1 or 2, but 4 children "


Lets face facts , he is shit, and only gets on radio5 , because he is regional, and they want to make up the numbers.

They should just melt him down for soap

with regards to the original post, there has been some horrific knee jerk over the top reactions from the usual suspects in the press, its only a matter of time till somebody mentions the 'N' word

Davies claimed that firms would be more likely to hire an able-bodied and more capable candidate over a disabled person who could instead be given the chance to work for below the minimum wage, to assess if they were worth the risk.

What Davis did was recognise a problem that people dont like to admit to there being. You can site people like fucking Piano tuners or MP's with MS, but in the real world of the processed meat packing factory (or whatever) its all about a workers productivity , and at the moment , the disabled who are fit to do some types of work, are at a terrible disadvantage to an able bodied person in the jobs market for unskilled work.

Davis , in what was a rather ham fisted way, has simply suggested that a probationary period (something thats quite common for people on JSA , they call it a job trial) of a lower wage, would give the differently able job seekers a chance to do a job, show what they can bring to the table and at least have a chance at having a productive working life.

But , I dont think thats really the point with some of the left, who froth at the mouth, with any such suggestion from a Tory , and see it as nothing more than an opportunity to try and score a few points against a party they hate with every bone in their body.

The sad thing is, that whilst the left chant, foam, spit and verbally shit themselves , the people of differing abilities are left to rot on benefits.

Anyway , now thats dealt with, the left can get down to more important business like bringing the country to a halt over their pensions.

I suggest a chant (plagiarised)

WHAT DO WE WANT?
PENSIONS AT EXISTING RATES!

WHEN DO WE WANT THEM?
WHEN WE ARE 65!

A great byline for these tedious unions that represent public sector workers would be "We realise we have more than most , just not enough more!"

TBH, Kit, I'd missed Newsnight with the Shipley Bellend on and I had the chance to influence the 5Live debate. As it happened, the bloke can take direction - he mightn't credit you for it but given what was being discussed, it's not credit you're looking for.

Otherwise I wouldn't listen to him. I actually refused all possibilities of going on air with them simply because I didn't want to sully my own name. That's how bad it was

Kit, your previous post would be fine if it were not bullshit from start to finish. I'm an unfortunate simply because I can foresee the long term repercussions of actions. One is this:

If you remove the minimum wage for a minority, policy creep allows the precedent and the minimum wage from day one ceases to exist for all.

Now I'll ask this - how do you know a worker in a face-to-face interview has a disability? It's against the law to carry out or even request a pre-employment check (Equality Act 2010) because it is potentially prejudicial to recruitment. If the worker doesn't reveal the detail, then it's down to an employer making a decision unilaterally. That would be clear discrimination on the grounds of perceived disability. There is a positive duty on the employer to meet legislative requirements and employers aren't doing it and getting away with it.

This prick wants to rubber stamp that. That's nothing to do with "left wing" but it is a convenient 80s throwback to resort to "left wing hysteria". That's practically a Nick Griffin pronouncement when he once again has been blocked from whatever he's been blocked from.

I'll simplify it. He put up a scenario where two employees went for a job and effectively said "the employer won't employ the fucking spacker cunt". If that's the reality he should be using existing legislation to redress that and introduce punitive sanctions against the employers as an example. If you can jail a juror for eight months for a couple of emails, I don't think a fucking big fine is too big a stretch.

The scenario he put up is this simple. If the employer does not employ the one best suited for the job, then he breaks the law. If his measuring criteria has candidates as equals (a scenario I considr impossible), he has the facility to employ the disabled candidate as a "tiebreaker". That's it. Anything else he is espousing is trying to get what he probably calls the untermensch to do the work on the cheap and they should be grateful for the opportunity, the spacker cunts.

I assume he considers his work more worthy and meriting better pay than Paul Maynard MP because he's a lovely white Anglo with no problems of his own.

>If you remove the minimum wage for a minority, policy creep allows the precedent and the minimum wage from day one ceases to exist for all.

I'd love to see where that was even suggested ? (other than in left wing hysteria) , what he suggested was not much different different from the JSA work trials, which Labour brought in.

>The scenario he put up is this simple. If the employer does not employ the one best suited for the job, then he breaks the law

And there you hit the nail on the head , unfortunately , for many unskilled jobs , a physically disabled person will often be at a huge disadvantage , on your terms, (in many cases) they never get work and rot on benefits forever. Davis , was just looking at a hand up via a probationary period on a lower wage.

>I'll simplify it. He put up a scenario where two employees went for a job and effectively said "the employer won't employ the fucking spacker cunt". If >that's the reality he should be using existing legislation to redress that and introduce punitive sanctions against the employers as an example.

Thats nonsense Bert , because an employer will never say such a thing, they will simply say they had a better candidate for the job! Again , the disabled are left to rot on benefits whilst people dream up new legislation (over and over again)

Whats the next step, every employer has to have 5% of the work force with an illness? ridiculous i'm afraid.

Regarding the country being ground to a halt, I don't see how it's going to happen. According to ministers, civil servants don't have the support yet they believe that about 300,000 of them are going to walk out.

There's a clear flaw in their cause and effect there.

The ATL have never taken strike action. Over 120 years in existence and they are coming out now. They got through the 70s and so forth without ever going out and now, they're going out. Go figure.

The projections for all the pension funds in question [remember at this point that it doesn't end at pensions] are roundly positive and will cost less and less over time. The increased contributions the government are trying to take are solely to pay off the deficit. Doing this is a change of terms and conditions and is unlawful. As a sole trader, Kit, if someone agreed a job for you for £1000 for a wedding job and then said "actually, I'm going to pay you £900 and every subsequent year take a further £100 a year while the marriage survives" then you're not going to accept it.

Public sector pensions historically offset poor pay. You take it away you just have poor pay. A couple of years back, the civilian MOD in Afghanistan at its lowest grades had to rush emergency payments to its staff in a war zone because a rise in the minimum wage was about to take them below the threshold for it. That's the government all but defaulting on the defence of the realm because it's manned by tight-fisted cunts who won't pay its staff (not servants) a proper fucking wage.

We get the government we deserve and we've allowed fatheaded middle class incompetents in charge with no sight of the real world. Someone has to make a stand.

Kit wrote:>If you remove the minimum wage for a minority, policy creep allows the precedent and the minimum wage from day one ceases to exist for all.

I'd love to see where that was even suggested ? (other than in left wing hysteria) , what he suggested was not much different different from the JSA work trials, which Labour brought in.

>The scenario he put up is this simple. If the employer does not employ the one best suited for the job, then he breaks the law

And there you hit the nail on the head , unfortunately , for many unskilled jobs , a physically disabled person will often be at a huge disadvantage , on your terms, (in many cases) they never get work and rot on benefits forever. Davis , was just looking at a hand up via a probationary period on a lower wage.

>I'll simplify it. He put up a scenario where two employees went for a job and effectively said "the employer won't employ the fucking spacker cunt". If >that's the reality he should be using existing legislation to redress that and introduce punitive sanctions against the employers as an example.

Thats nonsense Bert , because an employer will never say such a thing, they will simply say they had a better candidate for the job! Again , the disabled are left to rot on benefits whilst people dream up new legislation (over and over again)

Whats the next step, every employer has to have 5% of the work force with an illness? ridiculous i'm afraid.

He wanted to remove the minimum wage, Kit. It doesn't matter if it's for a trial period, if it's for one section of society, anything. As soon as it is done in one place, it can be done everywhere. That's how precedent and policy creep work.

As for "physical disability", disability does not end at "physical" nor at "visible" even. Like I said, if you can't tell, how will you know? One in four staff at the Home Office suffer discrimination annually on the grounds of disability. The culture in the UK is geared towards picking on those where they can still be picked on. Disability legislation is 20 years behind the rest and it shows.

Davies was not looking for a probationary period of a lower wage. He was telling everyone that employers openly discriminate in recruitment and rather than address it as a government through legislation that is nearly 20 years old, he's willing to let the employer be and pursue the applicant to make concessions. That's an admission of failure of government and a failure to implement the positive duty that exists in relationship to disability law.

I'll reiterate - how will an employer make a judgment on a disability when he has no right to ask, explore or question at any stage of recruitment?

NotBert wrote:Regarding the country being ground to a halt, I don't see how it's going to happen. According to ministers, civil servants don't have the support yet they believe that about 300,000 of them are going to walk out.

There's a clear flaw in their cause and effect there.

The ATL have never taken strike action. Over 120 years in existence and they are coming out now. They got through the 70s and so forth without ever going out and now, they're going out. Go figure.

The projections for all the pension funds in question [remember at this point that it doesn't end at pensions] are roundly positive and will cost less and less over time. The increased contributions the government are trying to take are solely to pay off the deficit. Doing this is a change of terms and conditions and is unlawful. As a sole trader, Kit, if someone agreed a job for you for £1000 for a wedding job and then said "actually, I'm going to pay you £900 and every subsequent year take a further £100 a year while the marriage survives" then you're not going to accept it.

Public sector pensions historically offset poor pay. You take it away you just have poor pay. A couple of years back, the civilian MOD in Afghanistan at its lowest grades had to rush emergency payments to its staff in a war zone because a rise in the minimum wage was about to take them below the threshold for it. That's the government all but defaulting on the defence of the realm because it's manned by tight-fisted cunts who won't pay its staff (not servants) a proper fucking wage.

We get the government we deserve and we've allowed fatheaded middle class incompetents in charge with no sight of the real world. Someone has to make a stand.

I'm not really the right person to comment on public sector workers , because my beliefs resolve around a small state/low tax model, where those jobs would simply not exist.

However , I do recognise that we live in a market economy with 2,500,000 people unemployed , and if the people currently employed are so unhappy with the terms you highlighted , I can only suggest they get out into the real world, get a private sector jobs, and we can move some of the 2,500,000 into their jobs , for what I assume, will be a wage they will happily accept.

I'll reiterate - how will an employer make a judgment on a disability when he has no right to ask, explore or question at any stage of recruitment?

I dont agree with the fact that because some people have hidden 'disability' like social phobia , that somehow gets to the point that an employer cannot see any disability.

You would have to assume, that if the candidate was wheeled in, in a chair, or perhaps had only one eye and no hands , that the person doing the interview, may get an inkling of an issue? Just a stab in the dark though

Kit wrote:

I'll reiterate - how will an employer make a judgment on a disability when he has no right to ask, explore or question at any stage of recruitment?

I dont agree with the fact that because some people have hidden 'disability' like social phobia , that somehow gets to the point that an employer cannot see any disability.

You would have to assume, that if the candidate was wheeled in, in a chair, or perhaps had only one eye and no hands , that the person doing the interview, may get an inkling of an issue? Just a stab in the dark though

I have an example to mirror that, Kit. Chris Grayling, in shunting the most vulnerable members of society of IB, released what was little more than an attack on fatties, junkies and drunks when releasing statistics. 80,000 were represented by these conditions and you were clearly told this because you were supposed to feel that it was their fault, somehow. Never mind that it could be after a lifetime of abuse, the number was important, not the individual.

By tarring those 80,000 with the "serves them right, fucking untermensch" brush, everyone who was on IB - running into hundreds of thousands - with depression was brought in under the "serves them right" umbrella.

My point is that depression as an example is going to outstrip the severely disabled pirate you've just exemplified by about 20,000 to 1 at a conservative estimate. But the 20,000 will be mistreated because the pirate had been told to take a wage below minimum.

The perception of disability is that it "unables". It doesn't. It disables and frankly, disabled people make better, more productive workers because they don't arse about like the self-centred non-disabled -the desire is there to get in work because they know how soul-destroying it is out. I know because I see it daily.

Kit wrote:
I'm not really the right person to comment on public sector workers , because my beliefs resolve around a small state/low tax model, where those jobs would simply not exist.

However , I do recognise that we live in a market economy with 2,500,000 people unemployed , and if the people currently employed are so unhappy with the terms you highlighted , I can only suggest they get out into the real world, get a private sector jobs, and we can move some of the 2,500,000 into their jobs , for what I assume, will be a wage they will happily accept.

I have the reverse on this. Why are private sector workers still in the private sector if the public sector is so fucking great?

There are meanwhile people who signed up to the same organisation say twenty years ago on pisspoor pay with the slight offsetting of not so much a good pension but a guaranteed pension. Not a job for life but a little bit of security. They survived agreements forged under Thatcher (for one, the civil service redundancy scheme was her work - who'd believe that her work would be defended) and now this shower of cunts want to change it, not because the scheme is unworkable but because they want the cash. It's tax by another name.

Trouble is, that's a change in terms and conditions and unagreed, it is contrary to employment law. You must negotiate any changes and no-one has said they won't negotiate on the workers' side. Danny Alexander had a prepared statement yesterday that showed that government aren't interested in negotiating. They are, by definition, criminal.

NotBert wrote:

Kit wrote:

I'll reiterate - how will an employer make a judgment on a disability when he has no right to ask, explore or question at any stage of recruitment?

I dont agree with the fact that because some people have hidden 'disability' like social phobia , that somehow gets to the point that an employer cannot see any disability.

You would have to assume, that if the candidate was wheeled in, in a chair, or perhaps had only one eye and no hands , that the person doing the interview, may get an inkling of an issue? Just a stab in the dark though

I have an example to mirror that, Kit. Chris Grayling, in shunting the most vulnerable members of society of IB, released what was little more than an attack on fatties, junkies and drunks when releasing statistics. 80,000 were represented by these conditions and you were clearly told this because you were supposed to feel that it was their fault, somehow. Never mind that it could be after a lifetime of abuse, the number was important, not the individual.

By tarring those 80,000 with the "serves them right, fucking untermensch" brush, everyone who was on IB - running into hundreds of thousands - with depression was brought in under the "serves them right" umbrella.

My point is that depression as an example is going to outstrip the severely disabled pirate you've just exemplified by about 20,000 to 1 at a conservative estimate. But the 20,000 will be mistreated because the pirate had been told to take a wage below minimum.

The perception of disability is that it "unables". It doesn't. It disables and frankly, disabled people make better, more productive workers because they don't arse about like the self-centred non-disabled -the desire is there to get in work because they know how soul-destroying it is out. I know because I see it daily.

That point of view has been made to me on a different forum, and TBH, much of it comes down to your personality and belief.

On one side you have care bear types , where everything (from liking a drink, being miserable or eating to much food) is defined as an illness , which disables the 'sufferer' from any type of work, ever, and demands huge resources from the NHS.

On the other side, there are cynical people (like me) who believe that a minority of people are disabled to the point that they can do nothing , a few %, and the rest are a bunch of scammers who will do anything they can to game the system.

Between those two extremes probably lies the truth , but in a climate when having a naughty child , can be labelled ADHD, and get the parents DLA, disabled badges and carers allowance, then things have to change before the people in my camp, even start to have empathy again.

Trouble is, that's a change in terms and conditions and unagreed, it is contrary to employment law. You must negotiate any changes and no-one has said they won't negotiate on the workers' side. Danny Alexander had a prepared statement yesterday that showed that government aren't interested in negotiating. They are, by definition, criminal.

I assume he said this, whilst the unions were in the middle talking to the Gov , whilst saying publicly that they planned to strike?

Burn them all IMO

The government aren't talking to the unions, Kit. No matter what they say, they're not. This is a pattern that has been in place for up to five years in my own experience, possibly longer.

Consultation and negotiation needs to be meaningful. Gvernment are going in and talks are breaking up practically instantaneously because there is nothing but intransigence despite the fact that they should be forging agreements because they want the changes. Mark Serwotka of the civil service union said on the box the other day that he will negotiate anytime and that Francis Maude has his mobile number. Francis Maude, millionaire cabinet minister, countered with "well he has my number too".

That's a minister of the Crown trying to get his cock out to piss as high as the last bloke. It's fucking childish and a clear demonstration that, where he wants the changes, he's willing to break the law and impose rather than talk to the hundreds of thousands of people he is going to disadvantage.

Don't believe all you read - there is a clear media groundswell to silence the voices of the working population. And I say that because they are, on air, allowing the voices of elected representatives of these workers to be talked over, tlaked down or ignored. The overarching impression of ministers that you get from any face time on screen or on the air is of a braying cunt who will chime in over the reasoned and reasonable (Mark Serwotka sounds like a matter-of-fact clerk because once, he was a matter-of-fact clerk) because that's what they do in the house. Look at PMQs transcribed on Hansard. William Hague in particular (although Cameron is the same) is one of the rudest bastards I have ever had the misfortune to read. Their social skills are non-existent and they aren't fit to make these decisions because they aren't equipped to negotiate like adults.

Kit wrote:
That point of view has been made to me on a different forum, and TBH, much of it comes down to your personality and belief.

On one side you have care bear types , where everything (from liking a drink, being miserable or eating to much food) is defined as an illness , which disables the 'sufferer' from any type of work, ever, and demands huge resources from the NHS.

On the other side, there are cynical people (like me) who believe that a minority of people are disabled to the point that they can do nothing , a few %, and the rest are a bunch of scammers who will do anything they can to game the system.

Between those two extremes probably lies the truth , but in a climate when having a naughty child , can be labelled ADHD, and get the parents DLA, disabled badges and carers allowance, then things have to change before the people in my camp, even start to have empathy again.

I don't "do" belief, Kit, I work off empirical evidence and I have experience in the field.

DLA has fraud at less than 1%, it is essentially, in comparison to others, unscammable. To go to the example of ADD diminishes again the incredibly prevalent issue of depression, cancers and even a metabolic illness such as type 1 diabetes, which although is very manageable, under disability legislation if you remove the deduced factor, the individual will be dead in three days. DLA is also granted to people who are working - it is help, not a means to an end for some, because they have a mobility or care requirement.

Badges and DLA are granted after sufficient medical means testing. What happens is that people look at someone, say "he looks fine" and call him a sponger. The fact that every decision they make is governed by his condition isn't considered because it isn't known and nor should it be - it's none of your business. It is however very real. You can talk about ADD but the truth is, inside the home that child might not be "naughty" but in fact be completely intractable and this has been evidenced through substantial advice, intervention and review by behavioural professionals over a substantial period of time.

Benefits are not just given away and in my experience, they aren't benefits. I remember a consultant saying to an audience I was in once that he has people who are on £20k worth of drugs a year to combat their condition and if you offered them the £20k or the drugs, not a one would take the money. People do not want to be sick, disabled or have sick or disabled children. There is a greater desire for work in these people and it is not being misrepresented, it is unrepresented.

I have seen parents on forums , literally , celebrating that they have 'finally after years of trying' managed to get their child diagnosed as ADHD. This is always followed by

'so far we have put in claims for carers allowance, DLA etc etc etc, have we missed anything out?'

They see the child as a golden goose.

As for the 'DLA has fraud at less than 1%' that may be a conclusion on current testing models, lets see how many are fit for a type of work, when ATOS starts on that section , it will be nearer half!

The problem is , many people consider a disability/illness disables them from any type of work, but when tested under different rules, its found that they can do some types of work , and need to be moved to JSA.

And thats where you go back to post 1.

Kit, the models that are being applied essentially show that no-one is incapable of work. What that does is removes them from assistance but puts them on the jobseeker's cycle when they aren't actually fit for work.

I know someone who twenty years ago was thrown off IB because he could be, and I quote, "a toilet attendant". He lives in a city with no public toilets. He was reinstated on appeal. To say he could do one job in the pantheon of work is not a fair test of employability. He would have loved to work and as time progressed, he managed to get back into employment (eventually he was fit enough to take driving work) as his lot improved.

To go ad absurdum, a blind deaf mute with no legs can lay bricks. Doesn't matter how badly they lay them or how few they lay, they can physically do it. That means that because they have passed a factual test, they are fit for work.

They're no less blind, deaf, mute or immobile.

If you think that's untrue, then I have to contend that. I've seen DLA tribunals and that's how they work - letter of the law, no exceptions. 1% to 50% is not a claim I think you would be able to substantiate.

Technically, everyone is fit for work because we can all hold a door open, even if we have to do it as a doorstop. And as for chancers, chancers do not flog a dead horse for several years - they accept it and move on because they are chancers.

No-one robs an empty safe.

Kit wrote:The problem is , many people consider a disability/illness disables them from any type of work, but when tested under different rules, its found that they can do some types of work , and need to be moved to JSA.

That's the problem. There isn't a proportionate response in terms of what work they can do. Let's just say for arguments sake there are 1000 job roles in the world.

Anyone can do them all. Some will be precluded from doing them because they'll not have the skills for it. However, on top of that, you will have some who because of their disability, will be excluded from doing it because their disability prevents it outright. Then there will be those who require reasonable adjustments to do the job but employers will duck that responsibility because they are essentially self serving law breaking shits and find an excuse to exclude (this is where government will turn a blind eye and try and make the spacker responsible for the employer's cuntishness - Harriet Harman was always good at that too).

You pare down and pare down and in an example of six disabled people, you have one who can do 12 in 1000, one who can do 20 in 1000, one who can do 41 in 1000, one who can do 59 in 1000, one who can do 73 in 1000 and one who can do 90 in 1000. This is before assessing the skills needed.

None of those are fit for work. Even the best of those is fighting for one job in eleven. The worst is going after 1 in 80. Thy're not proportionate responses and on top of that, you have the inherent anti-disabled stance of employers in the first place (this is very real both in recruitment and within the workplace - "spackers" do not get promoted proportionately).

This government however will maintain that they are fit for work because of the disproportionate minority of available roles.