Category Archives: Government

Riots Erupt Across Britain

Riots and Looting

The cost is already running into tens of millions, yet the Government sits on their hands.

BBC News – London riots: Violence erupts for third day

Violence has broken out for a third consecutive day in London, with riot police deployed and firefighters tackling blazes across the capital.

Since then further riots have sprung up across London and now also in Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Nottingham. Shops and houses are being looted and burnt to the ground, people are being robbed, beaten and even stripped of their clothing; all whilst the police stand by, seldom taking any action.

Blame Game

The blame has been placed at the feet of the police, in part for the shooting of Mark Duggan and the uncertainty surrounding the details of his death, but also because of supposed race relations failures. That’s right, the overwhelming majority of the rioters are black, ergo it is the white man’s fault.

As usual this gives those race relations experts ample ammunition to justify their own existence. The head of the Runnymede Trust has, not in the least bit surprisingly, blamed racism. It seems that the reason that these young thugs need to loot the plasma TVs, Apple Mac computers, and expensive clothing is because they have been discriminated against.

Oddly, this kind of thing didn’t happen during the Great Depression, when people faced true abject poverty, repression and staggering unemployment. But then, the likes of Rob Berkeley weren’t around back then to further fuel the victim mentality of certain sections of the community.


Organisations like the Runnymede Trust et al have spent decades telling young black kids and other ethnic minorities that they are in for a life of adversity, and that the Government/white man/police is against them. Then, when these disenfranchised kids hit out or just plain give up trying, they again blame racism and the Government/police/white man for promoting inequality.

Berkeley said:

“Reports earlier this year highlighted that Black men were 8 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white men.”

Not the Blitz, but the day after marauding kids ripped the heart out of Croydon.

A blatant and sickening attempt to excuse the recent violence, failing to point out that according to the prison statistics there are five times more black people in prison, i.e. criminals, than whites per percentage of the population. Indeed, 20% of the prison population is black, but only 2% of the actual population.

Therefore the police are doing their job, by searching people who are most likely to be criminals, and for that matter carry drugs, guns and knives.

Perhaps Berkeley should be asking why so many black people turn to crime, and not why so many blacks are searched. Indeed, he may well discover that he and his ilk promoting their ‘expect inequality always’ agenda, is what is causing the problems.

I would not consider myself an expert in black issues, but I am fairly sure that in modern Britain they are less discriminated against than ever before, so why such a violent and hateful reaction now?

Berkeley also went on to blame a lack of jobs and opportunities and also the schools system, claiming:

“In education there was a 20 point-gap in achievement between Black and White youth. In Haringey schools this year that gap had increased to one of 35 points.”

This seems to be in complete contrast with all the information I have seen on the subject over the past few years. According to the BBC:

BBC News – Poor pupils in struggling schools ‘lag further behind’

At secondary level, white British children in this category lagged behind most other major ethnic groups. For example, they were only half as likely to reach the GCSE target as Bangladeshi children, and also lagged behind Pakistani, Black African, Caribbean and Asian pupils

So white pupils are now the under performers, yet oddly, there are currently no predominately poor white areas rioting.

Regardless of the facts people like Berkeley will be blaming racism and rubbing their hands in glee, foreseeing huge handouts from the contrite Government to ensure that these woeful  events never arise again (at least until further budget cuts; they have to be practical). Even in his article he pointed out that in the US £600 million had been earmarked to combat inequality. So even as people’s homes are burning (and people of all colours), Berkeley is holding out the begging bowl for his cause, along with the caveat that failure to give generously enough will only lead to more such violence in the future.

As nice (and rewarding for equality campaigners) it would be to lay this at the door of racism, it is far more complex than that and frankly race itself has little to do with this.

Liberal Mentality

No, what has caused this is the liberal mentality that pervades the British political system. First we were told that the death penalty should be abolished as it was inhumane.

This was never the consensus, but rather a decision made for the voter, by the people they voted for and against popular opinion. Since then we’ve seen the murder rate increase three-fold. Next came the removal of corporal punishments in schools, in order to protect the children from violence. Then the removal of the right of parents to hit their own children ostensibly to protect children from abuse. Inevitably leading to a situation where parents cannot control their own children, relying on the schools, who also cannot control the children.

Finally there has been the steady emasculation of the justice system. Where criminals are rehabilitated, understood and hugged, rather than punished, which has resulted in our soft touch prisons being no deterrent, let alone punishment, whatsoever. This is startlingly obvious to would-be ruffians from  very young age.

Even the Police Force, or (Police Service as it is now known officially – time to rethink that perhaps) is a toothless beast. Too afraid to confront wrong doers, merely standing by whilst the miscreants steal, pillage and burn.

Once such misbehaviour would, at the very least have resulted in a good braining from the police truncheons for offender, if not the use of water cannon’s, tear gas and rubber bullets.

But that doesn’t fit with the liberal way of doing things, Theresa May, the supposed Home Secretary said:

“The way we police in Britain is not through use of water cannon. The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”

Seemingly confusing these riots with the rowdy behaviour of certain individuals at one of her late night garden parties. Where, after politely asking them to leave, the drunkard may make a few bawdy comments, but will eventually leave without much disruption, as they usually have to be up for a high ranking political duties in the morning.

May is a misnomer - should be won't, to remove doubt.

May and the rest of the Government are unconcerned as only the peasants are suffering at this point. She also hopes to reason with them and more bizarrely, get them to consent to going home!

It seems that May is going to continue waiting for the louts, thugs and thieves to get bored and stop, rather than stopping them.

As of yet, only police dogs and horses have been deployed, it seems water cannons are only reserved for the Irish. The police have made no attempt at clearing the streets. This is not solely the fault of the police, but the liberal and ineffective politicians who cannot even carry out one of the basic functions of Government, to protect its people.

Instead, they are letting the rioters have their head, in another example of what has become common place in Britain, giving more thought and protection to the criminal, than to the victims. It seems that the Government believes that using violence on the violent is wrong, better to wait till they wear themselves out, like a toddler’s tantrum.

This has meant that for every looter that manages to get an LCD TV home, ten of his, and even now her, friends want to do the same. After all, there is literally nothing to stop them, no punishment. The police cannot even protect their own police cars, or even police stations. These young criminals may be ruffians and vandals, but they aren’t completely stupid, they are finally starting to realise that the softly softly approach actually means that there is nothing to stop them, at all.

Like a teacher cannot remove them from the classroom for being disruptive, only ask them to leave; the police cannot remove them from the streets, only ask them to leave. They can do what they want, and no one can stop them, as these girls are happy to say.

Spreading Like Wildfire

Because of this inaction the violence and disorder has now spread not only across London, but to other cities in Britain too. And the police reaction to this? A promise to release CCTV footage of the rioters to catch them later, maybe, and a request that parents call in their children.

Water Cannon used in Northern Ireland

This water cannon was used less than a month ago in Northern Ireland. It appears however that water cannon, plastic bullets and tear gas are only used against the Irish, or perhaps only against white people.

A heavy hand is needed to discourage further rioting and pillaging. Briton’s up and down the country and crying out on social networks, the internet and local news for the army, for tough measures and for swift and decisive action.

But that is not the liberal mentality, which advocates first and foremost an understanding of the brute, then placation and finally all out surrender. May and the Government have literally surrendered the streets of Britain to the thugs and are hoping that they get bored, or stay home to play on their stolen gadgets.

The Government and police force have shown themselves up to be ineffective and limp wristed. They have spent decades trying to understand criminals and make them see the error of their ways, believing them all, at their core, to have the same moral integrity as the Oxbridge political elite. And this situation is a result of that.

The Riot Act

In the old days, back when Britain used a heavy hand to deal with criminals, and unsurprisingly the crime and murder rates were very low compared to today, they used the Riot Act to clear the streets.

The rioters were read the Riot Act:

“Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King!”

Once the Act was read, the rioters had one hour to disperse, or would be forcibly removed, either by the police or local people. The last point is an important one, the Act ensured that anyone aiding in the removal of rioters were not liable for any injuries or loss of life.

Fortunately the people of Britain, at least in some areas, retain a back bone. And there are already reports of communities heading into the streets and confronting the rioters and driving them away from their neighbourhoods.

However, as the riot act was repealed in 1973, they are literally playing Russian Roulette with their lives. Apart from possible harm they may face at the hands of the rioters, should they injure a rioter, or even kill one, defending themselves or their property, they will go to prison.

It is an inexcusable situation that the people of Britain now find themselves in, and all thanks to successive feckless Governments. The streets have been taken over by violent thugs, burning and pillaging, yet the Government and Police are incapable or unwilling to take any action.

Even now it is too late. London has a population of 8 million, yet just 30,000 police officers. If the these people want to riot throughout Britain, there is becoming less and less chance that the 150,000 police officers in the whole of the UK will be enough to contain them. The army has just 110,000 men, and many of those are abroad.

The Government should have nipped this in the bud, instead they have sat back, and wished it away.

Instead it will ultimately be left to the citizens to protect their homes, their places or work and themselves from the hooligans and people will die, but in doing so, they will inevitably be punished by the very Government that has failed them.

Banning Burkha’s Simply Not British

Man/Woman Wearing Burkha: Especially handy for those wishing to leave the country, or commit crimes, incognito.

Banning burkas in the UK would be ‘rather un-British’, says Green | Mail Online

A cabinet minister has delivered a staunch defence of a woman’s right to wear a burka.

Quite right, I totally agree with Caroline Spelman, the Burkha empowers women. It allows them to go out and about without any thought to having to use sun glasses and make-up to cover up their bruises and black eyes, unlike most abused women. How many drunkard wife-beaters are kicking themselves, or their wives, for not thinking of such a marvellous piece of clothing?

I mean is the woman really that naive? She’s meant to be a Government minister. 

Possession and Repression

Afghan Woman

Boy crying as he realises that this person, is not in fact, his mother and he has lost her in a sea of similarly dressed women.

The burkha has nothing to do with Islam, indeed it is believed to pre-date Islam and is part of a culture that at best marginalises women, at worst subjugates them. Of course most cultures and civilisations have been guilty of this at some point, including the great Greek and Roman civilisations, but the fact that such an attitude persists in the modern world, and with such vehemence, is quite disturbing. Almost as disturbing as having it not only in Britain, but also defended by so called intellectual women in Britain.

The burkha allows women to be removed from society, to become non-people, and invisible. I am sure that they are times when we all crave a little anonymity, but to have it forced on us daily, whether we want it or not, would be soul destroying. 

Spelman said:

I’ve been out to Afghanistan and I think I understand much better as a result of actually visiting why a lot of Muslim women want to wear the burka.

The irony of course is that women in Afghanistan may very well chose to wear it, but usually because they’d much rather not be accosted for not covering themselves or worse, have acid thrown in their faces or be killed.  To me that isn’t so much a choice as an ultimatum. And yet that is what she bases her view on women wearing the burkha in Britain on! The dozy mare continues to dig herself a hole stating:

‘We are a free country, we attach importance to people being free and for a woman it is empowering to be able to choose each morning when you wake up what you wear.’

Quite right, I am sure they agonise for hours over whether to wear the black burkha with the semi-tranparent mesh covering the eyes, or the black burkha with the semi-tranparent mesh covering the eyes! Does she really not see that this is precisely the point? These women cannot chose what they wear, she may very well spend time picking the perfect outfit each morning, but for burkha wearers, the outfit has already picked them.   

Afghan ID parade

ID parades in Afghanistan are much easier to organise, unfortunately not so easy to pick out offenders.

Not Part of Our Culture

Another ministerial buffoon, Damian Green, stated that it was un-British to tell people what to wear. Clearly he hasn’t been shopping or to his local bank for quite a while then, hoodies and motorcycle helmets and anything else that covers the face are banned in such places. Even Jedi are not allowed to cover their heads in Tesco.  So is it really a case of it being un-British telling people what to wear, or is it just considered un-British telling those what to do who bring their whole culture here, wholesale, and expect the British to put up with it?

Surely it is more un-British to behave in a totally unfamiliar way to most Britons, i.e. force your wife to cover herself from head to toe in black with only a semi-transparent eye slot? There’s nothing particularly British about that.  Imagine if we all were to go around dressed in burkhas, men and women? It would be totally impractical and absolute chaos, no-one would have any idea who any one is, the whole sense of community would collapse, so why do these ministerial half-wits think it is OK for certain people to do it?

Such behaviour is not part of British culture, nor indeed is it part of any modern, forward thinking society, as Sarkozy said:

“The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.”

Which is why they have banned it there. Even Syria, yes, that’s Syria has banned them from University campuses.

Mustn’t Upset Anyone

There is no end to this kind of limp wristed, ‘let’s put up with everything from a foreign culture, no matter how wrong it is’ attitude, and from the nation that put an end to Thugee and Sati in India, and helped end the slave trade world-wide, it is deeply worrying. It seems that to some people foreign = better, or at least means that it overrides normal, British, morals. 


MUSLIM drivers are forcing blind people and their guide dogs off buses because they consider the animals to be ‘unclean’, it has been revealed.

This is another example that some aspects of foreign cultures or even religions, have no place in Britain. 

Sexism and Nepotism

Emilie Oldknow: She allegedly said 'Who do I have to sleep with to get elected in my area?' at a Labour Party meeting, and Jonathan Ashworth held up his hand.

It seems that I have to remove the image of my MP that I have had on my dartboard for the past decade and replace it. No, the election hasn't come early to my neck of the woods, rather the boundary commission has decided to move me into another region.

My 'new' region is still a Labour safe seat and although the MP is standing down, another candidate has been parachuted in – Emilie Oldknow. 

Available in any colour, as long as its black

Oldknow was selected from a list of women only candidates. Now, I have nothing against voting for women (I voted for Thatcher), but I despise being forced to only vote for women, merely because they are women and are needed to make up the numbers in Parliament. It wasn't a case that the two best canidates for Labour were women, it was a case that the only candidates that Labour would select in my region were women. 

This ridiculous sexism, masquerading as positive discrimination is insulting, not only to women, who are apparently too stupid to vote for anyone other than someone with breasts, but also men, who are apparently so sexist that they can only vote for men unless given no choice. 

Purely on the basis that my choice has been removed from me, I would never vote for Emilie Oldknow. Such actions are a first step on a slippery slope, what next, only being allowed to vote for Blair/Brown cronies?

Too late

Chris Leslie

Chris Leslie: Another Brown crony, who masterminded his 2007 leadership campaign, has been parachuted into Nottingham East safe seat after being personally selected by Brown.

Well it seems that Emilie Oldknow ticks that box too. Oldknow just happens to be sharing a bed with Jonathan Ashworth, Brown's deputy political secretary. Even her opponent during selection pulled out citing cronyism and claiming that the selection process is basically a done deal. 

I am inclined to believe her, how else, other than cronyism and positive discrimination, would a 29 year old who cannot even spell the name of her hometown and with no political experience become the candidate for my area?

It has also been noted that Oldknow, who used to work for the NHS, and her fiancée Ashworth, may have had quite a lot to do with the recent cancer leaflets, although Oldknow stated:

“I had not seen the mailshot before and it wasn’t sent out by my campaign,”

Thank you Brown, if I were beginning to forget why I will never vote Labour again for the rest of my life, and why I hate our current political system, you have reminded me. 

Met Office Can’t Predict the Weather

Coldest Winter in 30 Years

Never in the field of human science has so many lies been told to so many, by so few

Met Office’s debate over longer-term forecasts

The UK Met Office is debating what to do with its long-term and seasonal forecasting after criticism for failing to predict extreme weather.

This is quite amusing. The apparently independent Met Office, who predict all the weather in the UK, from the next day forecasts right up to predictions on ‘Climate Change’ some 20, 50 and even 100 years in the future; cannot actually predict anything.

[The Met Office] has been criticised for failing to predict in its seasonal forecasts that the UK would suffer this cold winter or the previous three wet summers.

Well, there is a very good reason for that isn’t there? They could not possible predict colder weather, when more than 25% of their budget comes from ‘Climate Change Research’!

After being rapped for its now notorious “barbecue summer” press release, the winter forecast was expressed in probabilistic terms, with a 66% likelihood that the winter would be warmer than average and a one in seven chance that it would be colder.

One in seven chance that it would be colder, and yet it turned out to be the coldest winter for more than 30 years! The coldest winter since this ‘Global Warming’ business began. And that of course is the important thing as:

The Met Office admits its annual global mean forecast predicted temperatures higher than actual temperatures for nine years out of the last 10.

Now why would that be? It has become almost like a religion, they believe it so much and think that if they want it hard enough, it will happen. The fact is that the Met Office has been over egging Global Warming for years, telling us that things are getting so much more worse and the new catch phrase of course of ‘Time Is Running Out’ but evidently not as quickly as the Met Office, or indeed the Hadley Centre, would like.

SCHTOP! Global Warming is not ready yet!

Woman going for a dip in a frozen river

Crazy People: Some made use of the fact that the rivers were frozen by going for a dip or ice skating. Something rarely possible since the Victorian cold spell.

The fact that they keep predicting that Global Warming is continuing apace, when anyone can see that it is not, displays quite clearly that the Met Office is no longer fit for purpose. It wouldn’t be so bad if they came clean and admitted they their predictions are wrong, but no, they are claiming that the actual temperatures are wrong and their predictions are right!

Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office said a re-analysis of weather science might even show that the actual temperature measurements have under-recorded recent warming – making the Met Office forecast even more accurate than it appears.

Quite right Prof Folland, this is indeed a warmer than average winter, my thermometers and indeed my eye sight are clearly under recording the weather! This is unbelievable, the man is clearly clutching at straws and refuses to believe anything that contradicts his doctrine. The man is not a scientist, he has become a preacher.

But some scientists contacted by BBC News say the organisation needs to discover why there is a consistent bias towards warming, however slight.

Money, pure and simple. They are the champions of a billion pound industry, and as I have said, they receive more than a quarter of their funding from the government to investigate Global Warming. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realise that they might not be the quickest to pour cold water on the whole Global Warming nonsense.

Global Warming Cult

As I said earlier it has become a pseudo religion. It has been stated that we are building up to Thermogeddon, and that cannot, under any circumstances, falter or deviate from the pre-determined pattern of global warming. Like all good zealots, they are perfectly prepared to ignore, or as the Climate Gate emails demonstrated, doctor, any evidence to the contrary.

“The warming bias is admittedly very small – but the Met Office has to address why it is there. It will certainly be very difficult to get rid of – they can’t just knock a bit off their forecast – that would be totally unscientific.”

Unscientific? As is adding this bias in the first place, it has nothing to do with science or even any real scientific methodology. They believe it should be warmer, so they add the bias, regardless of the facts.

The short term forecasts are excellent. They should say the longer-term ones are highly uncertain, then keep modifying them.

And this is the crux of the matter. Their short term forecast may well be excellent, but hell, even I can look out of the window and see a cloudy sky and know that it is likely to rain, and I am no meteorologist. The problem lies with their long term forecasts and they seem to rely completely on flawed computer modeling.

‘If you run the (computer) model one year it might not come out right but over 50-100 years you will be able to predict that the climate is getting warmer on average but not if, say, 2031 will be a warmer or a colder year.’

Absolute rubbish. Computers cannot predict the future, nor can they predict the weather. They can only predict an outcome based on the variables and parameters that they are given. Now if the Met Office is adding the same ‘warming bias’ to these computer models, then obviously these too will be inaccurate. Worse, the margin of error will increase year on year and means that in 100 years, the warming bias will have carried the prediction to a ridiculous extreme.

The important line in his statement is this ‘…you will be able to predict that the climate is getting warmer…‘ that is not a prediction. You cannot know the outcome before even running the computer models unless the computer has been programmed to come up with that prediction. If I create a spreadsheet to work out my incomings and outgoings and my monthly surplus, I do not start off by stating that ‘I can create a spreadsheet to ensure that my monthly surplus is £700!’

But I guess that is the problem with the Climate Change Creed. They know the outcome that they want, that they believe in, they just need to computer models to prove it. Easy, when you program in a bias to ensure thermogeddon.

Dissenting Voices

A young child builds her first, and according to the Met Office predictions, last, snowman.

According to Met Office long term predictions, this snowman cannot exist, indeed this child should never have seen a snowman in her whole life. As Britain was due to be a desert by her 16th birthday.

It seems that these days, one must look to independent forecasters to get any accurate or old fashioned truthful information.

Others see the problem as one of forecasting rather than communication. Piers Corbyn, the independent weather forecaster, predicted the winter cold many months ago, to the surprise of many meteorologists. He says the Met Office failed to warn of extreme events in their seasonal forecasts because they are employing a computer model based on the assumption of man-made climate change.

That is the point. They have already ‘predicted’ that it is going to get warmer, which means that all of the predictions of the Met Office are flawed. It doesn’t matter whether they decide to no longer publish their seasonal forecasts, their long term ‘Climate Change’ forecasts will still be wrong and they will continue to be more and more erroneous as time goes on.

No wonder that more than half of people in Britain no longer believe in Global Warming.

Cameron to destroy what Churchill set up

Cameron: Plans to create many more millionaire recruitment bosses.

Tories would force jobless to work – Times Online

DAVID CAMERON is to unveil a plan to get Britain back to work by forcing millions of welfare claimants into training.

I’ve mentioned before that I think that getting the unemployed working for their benefits is a great idea. After all, they have a much better chance of getting a job and presenting a good impression of themselves when they are used to getting up and working all day, as oppose to rising at lunch and spending the day in their pyjamas engaging in slovenly behaviour.

Meeting targets

However I don’t believe that the Tory plan is the right one. This idea that private companies, i.e. employment agencies, will somehow be much better placed to find work for the terminally unemployed, or even just the hard up, is wrong. As anyone who has ever had any dealings with employment agencies knows, they are only interested in bums on seats and meeting targets.

They don’t care about the individual, nor even about finding the right job for the right person, just about filling positions. Sure this may sound ideal, but the unemployed don’t want to work for three weeks, be unemployed again for a month, then employed again etc. People who are unemployed want a job first and foremost, but they want to stay in that job. The idea is to find the unemployed long term, meaningful employment, not short term fixes to make the quarterly figures look good.

The Government currently has a similar scheme with private companies getting paid to find work for the unemployed, and has also had a comparable scheme running for several years with various Chambers of Commerce. It doesn’t work, because the Government, and by the sounds of it the next Tory government, are only interested in setting targets and making the figures look good. These private companies in turn are then only interested in meeting these targets in the quickest and simplest way possible and getting their payouts.

Job Centre Plus

Privatisation: Expect to see less of these, but more companies like Working Links

The only reason such measures are being considered is because Job Centre Plus is so poor at providing the service that it was set up to do. The Job Centre’s very premise was to get the unemployed back to work, now the Government gets third parties to do it.

The original labour exchanges were an idea of Winston Churchill’s, and they were intended to help the unemployed back into work by matching them up with vacancies.

Today, they are basically just used to collect claimant information, little or no effort is made to match a claimant with a job, other than displaying vacancies. Indeed most of the real job matching work is done by private companies under impressive sounding schemes such as Employment Zones or Pathways to Work, and as with most Government schemes, it is an exercise in meeting quotas and ticking boxes. Only those in ‘high priority groups’ are eligible for the schemes, i.e. those with alcohol or addiction problems, single parents etc, in other words, those least likely to benefit from them, but look best on paper.

Many Job Centre Plus locations are closing; processing claims is now being taken over by Benefit Delivery Centres, where fewer and even less attentive people can spend even less time looking over claimant forms. Another example of the lax approach to dealing with unemployment is the fact that claimants are now known as customers! An excellent way of tackling the benefit culture, by making it seem as though claimants are doing the benefits office a favour, rather than the other way around!

Back to work

How hard is it to spend time with individuals to work out their requirements for employment, and then match that? To find their weaknesses and resolve them, such as providing training courses, work experience etc? With a £8 billion a year budget and more staff than the British Army, over 120,000 at the last count, one would think it was relatively simple. Yet the Department of Work and Pensions seems intent on paying others to do their work for them, and it is a lucrative business.

Several years ago now, I was involved with my local Chamber of Commerce in providing the above to claimants on behalf of the Job Centres. It seemed like a good and worthwhile project, helping claimants with their CVs, running workshops about interviews etc and helping them find work that they were qualified for. All pretty basic stuff. Add to this a work placement scheme and it did indeed seem a brilliant way of getting people back to work.

Unknown to me, at least at the time, was that claimants had to be unemployed for at least 18 months to be eligible for this ‘help’ and the course was only mandatory if the person had been unemployed for three years! For each person on the course, the Job Centre paid the Chamber of Commerce the equivalent of one year’s Job Seekers Allowance, at the time about £2000.

They could also get a bonus of about five times that amount when one of the claimants found full time employment whilst on, or immediately after the course! At any one time there were at least 20 people on the course, meaning a payout of £40,000 and a potential bonus of £200,000 and many of these courses were run consecutively. I can only guess at the money being made by private companies now.

The words ‘Gold Mine’ spring to mind. But that said, it was a great way of getting people off benefits, especially as the work placement scheme was for one year and the vast majority were either hired by the company they were working for, or immediately found work upon completely the course.

Unfortunately a year is a long time for politicians, this was cut down to six months when more pleasing targets and figures were needed. A year was deemed too long, when the claimants could do a six month placement and then find work. Needless to say the success rate dropped, but rather than increase it back to year, it was halved again to just three months (worse still, those completing the course had to wait another 18 months to be eligible again so it now took 6 years to get 1 year work experience!).

Three months is next to useless, and the number of claimants finding work plummeted again, however the bonuses did not. It was often remarked by the claimants that the Job Centre would have been better off handing the 5 years worth of ‘dole’ money to the claimant and getting them to find themselves a placement for a year. A thought that obviously never occurred to them.

Good money after bad

In the end disillusioned with the project I left, but I still believe that something similar really could work. The Conservatives proposal is just throwing more money at the problem, and farming the responsibility, and therefore the blame, out to someone else. At the end of the day, these companies will be given tick boxes and targets to meet, and that is precisely what they will do, and nothing more.

You have to remember that it is not really in the companies interests to find long term employment for people, the more people they have through their scheme, the more money they get. Many of the current private companies working in this area have multi-million pound turnovers (some more than £100 million a year), and are increasing this year on year. More often than not, this is because they find the claimants work with agencies, which is normally short term, and they get to cash in on the same claimants several times a year. This is just paying private companies millions of pounds of tax payers money to take advantage of those in desperate straits.

Paying for the right training courses, or providing benefits to people while they work for free at local hospitals, councils, charities etc is the right way to go. After all, even the most work shy will not work for long earning £60 a week, when they could be earning £260 a week doing the same job.