Benefit busters Shaw Trust C4 9.00pm

What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples illness! Now
you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing people with serious
injury and mental health problems to apply for work.

There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could not
fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best was expected
to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old, ex painter and
decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy foot operation. What
can he do? These people were manual workers, there is no way in hell they
are going to get work in admin type jobs. They havent got the minerals.

I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct, they will
also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc. Thats fine for the
council who we pay for out of taxes, but no employer, who is in business and
has to make profit, is going to hire people like that.

Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have disabilities,
why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any people with
disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able bodied ****ers out
and let the disabled run our JC's.

Niteawk wrote:
> What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples illness!
> Now you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing people with
> serious injury and mental health problems to apply for work.
>
> There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could
> not fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best was
> expected to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old, ex
> painter and decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy foot
> operation. What can he do? These people were manual workers, there is no
> way in hell they are going to get work in admin type jobs. They havent
> got the minerals.
>
> I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
> disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct, they
> will also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc. Thats fine
> for the council who we pay for out of taxes, but no employer, who is in
> business and has to make profit, is going to hire people like that.
>
> Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have
> disabilities, why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any
> people with disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able
> bodied ****ers out and let the disabled run our JC's.

I'm very disappointed at what Shaw Trust has let happen to themselves in
order to get funding. At one time they only saw people who voluntarily
chose to see them. As a result they had a high success rate in getting
people into work or training. Now they've become part of "the system"
and are one of the Government's "partners". Sleeping with the enemy it
used to be called. They are hardly impartial any more.

On a related note, it looks like A4e have thrown a hissy fit over their
portrayal in the episode shown last week. The first episode was on the
on demand service for Channel 4 (a bit like the BBC's iPlayer) for one
week and the programme was repeated on C4 a few days later. The second
programme, shown last week, was on the 4OD service for 24 hours then
pulled as was the repeat showing of the programme, C4 stating they
didn't have the rights any longer to show the programme. Word is Emma
Harrison in her magnificent mansion asked for the programme to be pulled
after her less than glorious appearance at the end...

Did anyone know that David Blunkett, he of ministerial, guide dog and
mistress-dumping-him fame, is paid £30,000 a year by A4e as a
parliamentary adviser?

On 4 Sep, 14:12, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples illness! Now
> you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing people with serious
> injury and mental health problems to apply for work.
>
> There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could not
> fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best was expected
> to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old, ex painter and
> decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy foot operation. What
> can he do? These people were manual workers, there is no way in hell they
> are going to get work in admin type jobs. They havent got the minerals.
>
> I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
> disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct, they will
> also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc. Thats fine for the
> council who we pay for out of taxes, but no employer, who is in business and
> has to make profit, is going to hire people like that.
>
> Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have disabilities,
> why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any people with
> disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able bodied ****ers out
> and let the disabled run our JC's.

So you expect manual workers to be unable to do admin jobs? Sheesh,
you really want people thrown on the scrapheap don't you?

And a council employing people with disabilities? Oh, just like every
other employer can then. Employers tend to take more of a risk with
someone who is disabled but its not usually a massive risk.
Its harder for someone with a disability to get a job, not impossible
though.

You know, I think you'd be perfect working in a JC. After all, by your
own account you have mental health issues.
It would suit you - and starting pay is above minimum wage.

Martin <><

On 4 Sep, 16:03, Robbie <ngrobbi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Niteawk wrote:
> > What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples illness!
> > Now you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing people with
> > serious injury and mental health problems to apply for work.
>
> > There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could
> > not fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best was
> > expected to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old, ex
> > painter and decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy foot
> > operation. What can he do? These people were manual workers, there is no
> > way in hell they are going to get work in admin type jobs. They havent
> > got the minerals.
>
> > I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
> > disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct, they
> > will also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc. Thats fine
> > for the council who we pay for out of taxes, but no employer, who is in
> > business and has to make profit, is going to hire people like that.
>
> > Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have
> > disabilities, why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any
> > people with disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able
> > bodied ****ers out and let the disabled run our JC's.
>
> I'm very disappointed at what Shaw Trust has let happen to themselves in
> order to get funding. At one time they only saw people who voluntarily
> chose to see them. As a result they had a high success rate in getting
> people into work or training. Now they've become part of "the system"
> and are one of the Government's "partners". Sleeping with the enemy it
> used to be called. They are hardly impartial any more.
>
> On a related note, it looks like A4e have thrown a hissy fit over their
> portrayal in the episode shown last week. The first episode was on the
> on demand service for Channel 4 (a bit like the BBC's iPlayer) for one
> week and the programme was repeated on C4 a few days later. The second
> programme, shown last week, was on the 4OD service for 24 hours then
> pulled as was the repeat showing of the programme, C4 stating they
> didn't have the rights any longer to show the programme. Word is Emma
> Harrison in her magnificent mansion asked for the programme to be pulled
> after her less than glorious appearance at the end...
>
> Did anyone know that David Blunkett, he of ministerial, guide dog and
> mistress-dumping-him fame, is paid £30,000 a year by A4e as a
> parliamentary adviser?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Groups can either be part of the system or on the outside watching in
while someone else is part of the system, someone that perhaps screws
things up and doesn't subsidise the government.
Its only a minority of charities that rely on government contracts for
a good chunk of their income. Mainly social care but dealing with
helping people back to work or to a point where they can consider work
is a growing area.
Depending on the contract, depending on the whim of government about
whether something should be voluntary, imposed or mandatory,
determines the resources including the people being helped.
Not suprisingly its easier to help someone who wants help than someone
there just to satisfy a tick box.

You could leave A4e to do it all if you wanted, but for helping
disabled I'd prefer the expertise of the Shaw Trust myself.

Martin <><

wrote:
> On 4 Sep, 16:03, Robbie <ngrobbi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>> What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples illness!
>>> Now you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing people with
>>> serious injury and mental health problems to apply for work.
>>> There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could
>>> not fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best was
>>> expected to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old, ex
>>> painter and decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy foot
>>> operation. What can he do? These people were manual workers, there is no
>>> way in hell they are going to get work in admin type jobs. They havent
>>> got the minerals.
>>> I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
>>> disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct, they
>>> will also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc. Thats fine
>>> for the council who we pay for out of taxes, but no employer, who is in
>>> business and has to make profit, is going to hire people like that.
>>> Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have
>>> disabilities, why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any
>>> people with disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able
>>> bodied ****ers out and let the disabled run our JC's.
>> I'm very disappointed at what Shaw Trust has let happen to themselves in
>> order to get funding. At one time they only saw people who voluntarily
>> chose to see them. As a result they had a high success rate in getting
>> people into work or training. Now they've become part of "the system"
>> and are one of the Government's "partners". Sleeping with the enemy it
>> used to be called. They are hardly impartial any more.
>>
>> On a related note, it looks like A4e have thrown a hissy fit over their
>> portrayal in the episode shown last week. The first episode was on the
>> on demand service for Channel 4 (a bit like the BBC's iPlayer) for one
>> week and the programme was repeated on C4 a few days later. The second
>> programme, shown last week, was on the 4OD service for 24 hours then
>> pulled as was the repeat showing of the programme, C4 stating they
>> didn't have the rights any longer to show the programme. Word is Emma
>> Harrison in her magnificent mansion asked for the programme to be pulled
>> after her less than glorious appearance at the end...
>>
>> Did anyone know that David Blunkett, he of ministerial, guide dog and
>> mistress-dumping-him fame, is paid £30,000 a year by A4e as a
>> parliamentary adviser?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Groups can either be part of the system or on the outside watching in
> while someone else is part of the system, someone that perhaps screws
> things up and doesn't subsidise the government.
> Its only a minority of charities that rely on government contracts for
> a good chunk of their income. Mainly social care but dealing with
> helping people back to work or to a point where they can consider work
> is a growing area.
> Depending on the contract, depending on the whim of government about
> whether something should be voluntary, imposed or mandatory,
> determines the resources including the people being helped.
> Not suprisingly its easier to help someone who wants help than someone
> there just to satisfy a tick box.
>
> You could leave A4e to do it all if you wanted, but for helping
> disabled I'd prefer the expertise of the Shaw Trust myself.
>
> Martin <><

So would I - but I'd want Shaw Trust to do it on their own terms and not
on payment by results, which just encourages a conveyor belt approach to
helping the disabled. It doesn't help the organisation tailor make help
to the individual which is what they used to (be able to) do.

Like yourself, in the past I've been helped by Shaw Trust and found them
to be very helpful to the point they helped me back into work after a
period of having health problems. That was a few years ago, and since
then I've always recommended them to other people but this now puts a
whole new complexion on things...

<> wrote in message
news:60b28f37-3dc3-4a31-9555-...
On 4 Sep, 16:03, Robbie <ngrobbi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Niteawk wrote:
> > What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples illness!
> > Now you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing people with
> > serious injury and mental health problems to apply for work.
>
> > There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could
> > not fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best was
> > expected to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old, ex
> > painter and decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy foot
> > operation. What can he do? These people were manual workers, there is no
> > way in hell they are going to get work in admin type jobs. They havent
> > got the minerals.
>
> > I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
> > disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct, they
> > will also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc. Thats fine
> > for the council who we pay for out of taxes, but no employer, who is in
> > business and has to make profit, is going to hire people like that.
>
> > Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have
> > disabilities, why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any
> > people with disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able
> > bodied ****ers out and let the disabled run our JC's.
>
> I'm very disappointed at what Shaw Trust has let happen to themselves in
> order to get funding. At one time they only saw people who voluntarily
> chose to see them. As a result they had a high success rate in getting
> people into work or training. Now they've become part of "the system"
> and are one of the Government's "partners". Sleeping with the enemy it
> used to be called. They are hardly impartial any more.
>
> On a related note, it looks like A4e have thrown a hissy fit over their
> portrayal in the episode shown last week. The first episode was on the
> on demand service for Channel 4 (a bit like the BBC's iPlayer) for one
> week and the programme was repeated on C4 a few days later. The second
> programme, shown last week, was on the 4OD service for 24 hours then
> pulled as was the repeat showing of the programme, C4 stating they
> didn't have the rights any longer to show the programme. Word is Emma
> Harrison in her magnificent mansion asked for the programme to be pulled
> after her less than glorious appearance at the end...
>
> Did anyone know that David Blunkett, he of ministerial, guide dog and
> mistress-dumping-him fame, is paid £30,000 a year by A4e as a
> parliamentary adviser?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
snip,
You could leave A4e to do it all if you wanted, but for helping
disabled I'd prefer the expertise of the Shaw Trust myself.

Martin <><

More shite, the people I saw on that program were not fit to work. Unless
you can find them a job that involves no work, then forget about it. Move
on, there are plenty of healthy people who need jobs, leave the sick alone.
****ing maniacs.

"Robbie" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Niteawk wrote:
>> What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples illness!
>> Now you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing people with
>> serious injury and mental health problems to apply for work.
>>
>> There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could not
>> fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best was
>> expected to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old, ex
>> painter and decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy foot
>> operation. What can he do? These people were manual workers, there is no
>> way in hell they are going to get work in admin type jobs. They havent
>> got the minerals.
>>
>> I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
>> disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct, they
>> will also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc. Thats fine
>> for the council who we pay for out of taxes, but no employer, who is in
>> business and has to make profit, is going to hire people like that.
>>
>> Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have
>> disabilities, why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any people
>> with disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able bodied
>> ****ers out and let the disabled run our JC's.
>
> I'm very disappointed at what Shaw Trust has let happen to themselves in
> order to get funding. At one time they only saw people who voluntarily
> chose to see them. As a result they had a high success rate in getting
> people into work or training. Now they've become part of "the system" and
> are one of the Government's "partners". Sleeping with the enemy it used to
> be called. They are hardly impartial any more.

They probably saw Emma's mansion and decided that was the way to go.


>
> On a related note, it looks like A4e have thrown a hissy fit over their
> portrayal in the episode shown last week. The first episode was on the on
> demand service for Channel 4 (a bit like the BBC's iPlayer) for one week
> and the programme was repeated on C4 a few days later. The second
> programme, shown last week, was on the 4OD service for 24 hours then
> pulled as was the repeat showing of the programme, C4 stating they didn't
> have the rights any longer to show the programme. Word is Emma Harrison in
> her magnificent mansion asked for the programme to be pulled after her
> less than glorious appearance at the end...

The powers that be do not want the public to know that they are wasting
billions of tax payers cash on mindless crap. Most ordinary people think
that there is training available for the unemployed, imagine what they would
think if no training was being done, which there isnt, certainly not by A4e.
Making the likes of Emma Harrison into a billionaire for doing **** all. I
dont think the tax payer would be to happy about that. The government could
come under fire again, only this time they would have to explain why they
are wasting billions on nothing, and why some of them are being paid by Emma
Harrison, which is another way of helping themselves to yet more taxpayers
money.


>
> Did anyone know that David Blunkett, he of ministerial, guide dog and
> mistress-dumping-him fame, is paid £30,000 a year by A4e as a
> parliamentary adviser?#

Yes, and did you also know that he was instrumental in giving A4e many of
the contracts they now have. Bent as **** the lot of them.

Niteawk wrote:
>
> "Robbie" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>> What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples
>>> illness! Now you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing
>>> people with serious injury and mental health problems to apply for work.
>>>
>>> There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could
>>> not fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best
>>> was expected to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old,
>>> ex painter and decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy
>>> foot operation. What can he do? These people were manual workers,
>>> there is no way in hell they are going to get work in admin type
>>> jobs. They havent got the minerals.
>>>
>>> I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
>>> disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct,
>>> they will also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc.
>>> Thats fine for the council who we pay for out of taxes, but no
>>> employer, who is in business and has to make profit, is going to hire
>>> people like that.
>>>
>>> Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have
>>> disabilities, why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any
>>> people with disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able
>>> bodied ****ers out and let the disabled run our JC's.
>>
>> I'm very disappointed at what Shaw Trust has let happen to themselves
>> in order to get funding. At one time they only saw people who
>> voluntarily chose to see them. As a result they had a high success
>> rate in getting people into work or training. Now they've become part
>> of "the system" and are one of the Government's "partners". Sleeping
>> with the enemy it used to be called. They are hardly impartial any more.
>
> They probably saw Emma's mansion and decided that was the way to go.
>
>
>>
>> On a related note, it looks like A4e have thrown a hissy fit over
>> their portrayal in the episode shown last week. The first episode was
>> on the on demand service for Channel 4 (a bit like the BBC's iPlayer)
>> for one week and the programme was repeated on C4 a few days later.
>> The second programme, shown last week, was on the 4OD service for 24
>> hours then pulled as was the repeat showing of the programme, C4
>> stating they didn't have the rights any longer to show the programme.
>> Word is Emma Harrison in her magnificent mansion asked for the
>> programme to be pulled after her less than glorious appearance at the
>> end...
>
> The powers that be do not want the public to know that they are wasting
> billions of tax payers cash on mindless crap. Most ordinary people think
> that there is training available for the unemployed, imagine what they
> would think if no training was being done, which there isnt, certainly
> not by A4e. Making the likes of Emma Harrison into a billionaire for
> doing **** all. I dont think the tax payer would be to happy about that.
> The government could come under fire again, only this time they would
> have to explain why they are wasting billions on nothing, and why some
> of them are being paid by Emma Harrison, which is another way of helping
> themselves to yet more taxpayers money.
>
>
>>
>> Did anyone know that David Blunkett, he of ministerial, guide dog and
>> mistress-dumping-him fame, is paid £30,000 a year by A4e as a
>> parliamentary adviser?#
>
> Yes, and did you also know that he was instrumental in giving A4e many
> of the contracts they now have. Bent as **** the lot of them.

That's an unprovable aspersion you are casting there young Mr Niteawk...
like Emma, he's a fine upstanding citizen of Sheffield! I wonder how
many nights he's spent at her mansion - it looks like Blunkett decorated
it...

"Robbie" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Niteawk wrote:
>>
>> "Robbie" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>> What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples illness!
>>>> Now you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing people with
>>>> serious injury and mental health problems to apply for work.
>>>>
>>>> There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could
>>>> not fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best was
>>>> expected to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old, ex
>>>> painter and decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy foot
>>>> operation. What can he do? These people were manual workers, there is
>>>> no way in hell they are going to get work in admin type jobs. They
>>>> havent got the minerals.
>>>>
>>>> I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
>>>> disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct, they
>>>> will also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc. Thats fine
>>>> for the council who we pay for out of taxes, but no employer, who is in
>>>> business and has to make profit, is going to hire people like that.
>>>>
>>>> Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have
>>>> disabilities, why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any
>>>> people with disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able
>>>> bodied ****ers out and let the disabled run our JC's.
>>>
>>> I'm very disappointed at what Shaw Trust has let happen to themselves in
>>> order to get funding. At one time they only saw people who voluntarily
>>> chose to see them. As a result they had a high success rate in getting
>>> people into work or training. Now they've become part of "the system"
>>> and are one of the Government's "partners". Sleeping with the enemy it
>>> used to be called. They are hardly impartial any more.
>>
>> They probably saw Emma's mansion and decided that was the way to go.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On a related note, it looks like A4e have thrown a hissy fit over their
>>> portrayal in the episode shown last week. The first episode was on the
>>> on demand service for Channel 4 (a bit like the BBC's iPlayer) for one
>>> week and the programme was repeated on C4 a few days later. The second
>>> programme, shown last week, was on the 4OD service for 24 hours then
>>> pulled as was the repeat showing of the programme, C4 stating they
>>> didn't have the rights any longer to show the programme. Word is Emma
>>> Harrison in her magnificent mansion asked for the programme to be pulled
>>> after her less than glorious appearance at the end...
>>
>> The powers that be do not want the public to know that they are wasting
>> billions of tax payers cash on mindless crap. Most ordinary people think
>> that there is training available for the unemployed, imagine what they
>> would think if no training was being done, which there isnt, certainly
>> not by A4e. Making the likes of Emma Harrison into a billionaire for
>> doing **** all. I dont think the tax payer would be to happy about that.
>> The government could come under fire again, only this time they would
>> have to explain why they are wasting billions on nothing, and why some of
>> them are being paid by Emma Harrison, which is another way of helping
>> themselves to yet more taxpayers money.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Did anyone know that David Blunkett, he of ministerial, guide dog and
>>> mistress-dumping-him fame, is paid £30,000 a year by A4e as a
>>> parliamentary adviser?#
>>
>> Yes, and did you also know that he was instrumental in giving A4e many of
>> the contracts they now have. Bent as **** the lot of them.
>
> That's an unprovable aspersion you are casting there young Mr Niteawk...
> like Emma, he's a fine upstanding citizen of Sheffield! I wonder how many
> nights he's spent at her mansion - it looks like Blunkett decorated it...

Hardly unprovable, unbelievable maybe, ****ing astounding even. Why the
media has not picked up on it, I will never know. He was one of many
involved with the tendering process for government contracts. It is mear
coincidence that he got a job as consultant to A4e when he didnt even know
the job existed.

Maybe we should believe that Blunkett did not have any work to do as a
minister, so he decided to get himself a job which just happened to be with
a company he awarded contracts to.

I cant think of a good excuse, maybe you have to have your hands in the
public purse for a very long time to come up with the best excuses, "we are
endeavouring to help the most disadvantaged in society", "we are lifting
people out of poverty", "the figures never lie", "the initial feedback is
good". "It has nothing to do with me, I do not work with that woman" "I have
never laid eyes on her before". "Just because my dog knows where she lives,
proves nothing".

On 4 Sep, 21:36, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <mart2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:60b28f37-3dc3-4a31-9555-...
> On 4 Sep, 16:03, Robbie <ngrobbi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Niteawk wrote:
> > > What a ****ing carry on eh. They admitted to ignoring peoples illness!
> > > Now you see the point of the sham medical, they are forcing people with
> > > serious injury and mental health problems to apply for work.
>
> > > There is no way those people are going to get work. One of them could
> > > not fill in an application form, another lad, semi literate at best was
> > > expected to apply for office work. And an old boy 57 years old, ex
> > > painter and decorator, who was barely able to walk after a dodgy foot
> > > operation. What can he do? These people were manual workers, there isno
> > > way in hell they are going to get work in admin type jobs. They havent
> > > got the minerals.
>
> > > I see the adviser for ST saying the council employs people with
> > > disabilities, I suppose they do to be seen as politically correct, they
> > > will also have one gay, one lesbian, one religious nut etc. Thats fine
> > > for the council who we pay for out of taxes, but no employer, who is in
> > > business and has to make profit, is going to hire people like that.
>
> > > Now that I see there is a major problem with people who have
> > > disabilities, why doesnt the JC's employ them? I have not seen any
> > > people with disabilities working in my local JC. Kick the idle able
> > > bodied ****ers out and let the disabled run our JC's.
>
> > I'm very disappointed at what Shaw Trust has let happen to themselves in
> > order to get funding. At one time they only saw people who voluntarily
> > chose to see them. As a result they had a high success rate in getting
> > people into work or training. Now they've become part of "the system"
> > and are one of the Government's "partners". Sleeping with the enemy it
> > used to be called. They are hardly impartial any more.
>
> > On a related note, it looks like A4e have thrown a hissy fit over their
> > portrayal in the episode shown last week. The first episode was on the
> > on demand service for Channel 4 (a bit like the BBC's iPlayer) for one
> > week and the programme was repeated on C4 a few days later. The second
> > programme, shown last week, was on the 4OD service for 24 hours then
> > pulled as was the repeat showing of the programme, C4 stating they
> > didn't have the rights any longer to show the programme. Word is Emma
> > Harrison in her magnificent mansion asked for the programme to be pulled
> > after her less than glorious appearance at the end...
>
> > Did anyone know that David Blunkett, he of ministerial, guide dog and
> > mistress-dumping-him fame, is paid £30,000 a year by A4e as a
> > parliamentary adviser?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> snip,
> You could leave A4e to do it all if you wanted, but for helping
> disabled I'd prefer the expertise of the Shaw Trust myself.
>
> Martin *<><
>
> More shite, the people I saw on that program were not fit to work. Unless
> you can find them a job that involves no work, then forget about it. Move
> on, there are plenty of healthy people who need jobs, leave the sick alone.
> ****ing maniacs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh, so you used your medical qualifications and examined them
yourself?
Get real - you cannot possibly know if they were fit to work.

Just because someone is sick or disabled doesn't mean they get chucked
on the scrap heap, never to work again.
I've met plenty of sick and disabled people who work. You cannot say
someone is fit to work or not, the best person to know will be
themselves.
And employers these days are able to make reasonable adjustments in
the workplace.

Martin <><