Bring back Workhouses!

[dilbert]

Pothole said:

not really the way it happened...death camps were always on the agenda

Well we know that about the past now.

But like just like the Nazis then, those that promote this idea undoubtedly wouldn't admit to it today.

Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 14:25

[Eric Mc]

Pothole said:

not really the way it happened...death camps were always on the agenda

No they weren't.

The Nazis had all sorts of schemes for solving the "Jewish Question" (and getting rid of others those they considered to be social undesirables). Systematic extermination only really became an official policy after 1942.

Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 26th April 14:30

[OnTheOverrun]

Eric Mc said:

Who would they work for?

Primarily the public sector.

Eric Mc said:

What work would they do?

Cleaning, maintenance, gardening, litter-picking etc.

Eric Mc said:

What impact would it have on genuine hard working workers in, presumably, who already work low paid jobs? I am assuming, of course, that these people would be made to work as labourers or in other non-skilled work. I would hate to be depending on them for anything REALLY important.

The system would be constructed so that no-one with an existing, paid job can be replaced with a workhouse worker.

Eric Mc said:

You could end up with forced labour costing the country MORE than the current system (for all its faults).

You wouldn't because the current system is appealing to people who don't want to work, the workhouse system is not, thus only the people who had absolutely no other choice would take part, greatly reducing the overall cost compared to the current system.

[dilbert]

OnTheOverrun said:

The system would be constructed so that no-one with an existing, paid job can be replaced with a workhouse worker.

So you have an overt policy to extend the existing policy of introducing a social divide.

From what you're saying I assume you're a Labour voter planning to lock the people driven out of work, into a perpetual state of poverty.

May I ask?

What are you going to do with us when we actually stink so badly, that you can smell us from your mansion?

And by the way, I'm going to escape, and blow your arms and legs off with a fertiliser bomb unless you actually kill me first. So think carefully, scumbag.

To anyone else reading this, I'm White, Middle Aged, Conservative, British Born and proud of it. I know I can't do it on my own.

Vote for change, vote conservative.

Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 15:14

[OnTheOverrun]

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

The system would be constructed so that no-one with an existing, paid job can be replaced with a workhouse worker.

So you have an overt policy to extend the existing policy of introducing a social divide.

From what you're saying I assume you're a Labour voter planning to lock the people driven out of work, into a perpetual state of poverty.

May I ask?

What are you going to do with us when we actually stink so badly, that you can smell us from your mansion?

And by the way, I'm going to escape, and blow your arms and legs off with a fertiliser bomb unless you actually kill me. So think carefully, scumbag.

Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 15:05

I think you have some serious anger issues that you should deal with before attampting to take part in theoretical political discussions. Personal abuse and threats of violence don't tend to add to your arguments.

[dilbert]

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

The system would be constructed so that no-one with an existing, paid job can be replaced with a workhouse worker.

So you have an overt policy to extend the existing policy of introducing a social divide.

From what you're saying I assume you're a Labour voter planning to lock the people driven out of work, into a perpetual state of poverty.

May I ask?

What are you going to do with us when we actually stink so badly, that you can smell us from your mansion?

And by the way, I'm going to escape, and blow your arms and legs off with a fertiliser bomb unless you actually kill me. So think carefully, scumbag.

Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 15:05

I think you have some serious anger issues that you should deal with before attampting to take part in theoretical political discussions. Personal abuse and threats of violence don't tend to add to your arguments.

I think you're psychotic. I doubt it'll stop you posting.

[OnTheOverrun]

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

The system would be constructed so that no-one with an existing, paid job can be replaced with a workhouse worker.

So you have an overt policy to extend the existing policy of introducing a social divide.

From what you're saying I assume you're a Labour voter planning to lock the people driven out of work, into a perpetual state of poverty.

May I ask?

What are you going to do with us when we actually stink so badly, that you can smell us from your mansion?

And by the way, I'm going to escape, and blow your arms and legs off with a fertiliser bomb unless you actually kill me. So think carefully, scumbag.

Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 15:05

I think you have some serious anger issues that you should deal with before attampting to take part in theoretical political discussions. Personal abuse and threats of violence don't tend to add to your arguments.

I think you're psychotic. I doubt it'll stop you posting.

But at least I can post without resorting to pathetic keyboard warrior name calling and threats of violence. However, I shall not report your post to the mods because at some point in the future I may need an additional servant to clean the stables and it would make it harder to PM you.

[dilbert]

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

The system would be constructed so that no-one with an existing, paid job can be replaced with a workhouse worker.

So you have an overt policy to extend the existing policy of introducing a social divide.

From what you're saying I assume you're a Labour voter planning to lock the people driven out of work, into a perpetual state of poverty.

May I ask?

What are you going to do with us when we actually stink so badly, that you can smell us from your mansion?

And by the way, I'm going to escape, and blow your arms and legs off with a fertiliser bomb unless you actually kill me. So think carefully, scumbag.

Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 15:05

I think you have some serious anger issues that you should deal with before attampting to take part in theoretical political discussions. Personal abuse and threats of violence don't tend to add to your arguments.

I think you're psychotic. I doubt it'll stop you posting.

But at least I can post without resorting to pathetic keyboard warrior name calling and threats of violence. However, I shall not report your post to the mods because at some point in the future I may need an additional servant to clean the stables and it would make it harder to PM you.

Well pathetic you can call it. But our brave soldiers don't think it's pathetic. They don't get the choice. People like you make the decisions, and they lose their limbs on your behalf.

I won't make that mistake. I like and admire them. I'll just come for you if I can.

Lord only knows what your stables have to do with anything.

[JacksHereR]

fight fight fight
die die die



ETA - well there wernt any calm down smileys

is this a theorectical arguement?

Edited by JacksHereR on Monday 26th April 15:30

Edited by JacksHereR on Monday 26th April 15:33

[dilbert]

JacksHereR said:

fight fight fight
die die die



ETA - well there wernt any calm down smileys

is this a theorectical arguement?

Edited by JacksHereR on Monday 26th April 15:30

I'm not sure.
Can't give in to that though.

[OnTheOverrun]

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

The system would be constructed so that no-one with an existing, paid job can be replaced with a workhouse worker.

So you have an overt policy to extend the existing policy of introducing a social divide.

From what you're saying I assume you're a Labour voter planning to lock the people driven out of work, into a perpetual state of poverty.

May I ask?

What are you going to do with us when we actually stink so badly, that you can smell us from your mansion?

And by the way, I'm going to escape, and blow your arms and legs off with a fertiliser bomb unless you actually kill me. So think carefully, scumbag.

Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 15:05

I think you have some serious anger issues that you should deal with before attampting to take part in theoretical political discussions. Personal abuse and threats of violence don't tend to add to your arguments.

I think you're psychotic. I doubt it'll stop you posting.

But at least I can post without resorting to pathetic keyboard warrior name calling and threats of violence. However, I shall not report your post to the mods because at some point in the future I may need an additional servant to clean the stables and it would make it harder to PM you.

Well pathetic you can call it. But our brave soldiers don't think it's pathetic. They don't get the choice. People like you make the decisions, and they lose their limbs on your behalf.

I won't make that mistake. I like and admire them. I'll just come for you if I can.

Lord only knows what your stables have to do with anything.

Soldiers? Me making decisions to go to war? Are you suddenly in an alternative universe? Isn't it a little early to be drunk?

[JacksHereR]

im on both sides lol

who said the workhouses had to actually produce anything?

they could stand knee high in st all day drinking tea. Just anything so that they cant enjoy the sunny days when Im at work!!

[dilbert]

OnTheOverrun said:

Soldiers? Me making decisions to go to war? Are you suddenly in an alternative universe? Isn't it a little early to be drunk?

Well, you've not refuted the idea that you live in a mansion. I assume you're part of the (or soon to be part) of the elite. You tolerate it, at the very least.

I supported Iraq, and I still do. We're not in Iraq any more, and the casualties keep mounting. I don't think we should be fighting a war we can't afford. Only because the troops don't have the kit they need to protect themselves.

What exactly is your point. I don't think you have one any more. It ceased with your final hypocrisy.

[OnTheOverrun]

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

Soldiers? Me making decisions to go to war? Are you suddenly in an alternative universe? Isn't it a little early to be drunk?

Well, you've not refuted the idea that you live in a mansion. I assume you're part of the (or soon to be part) of the elite. You tolerate it, at the very least.

I supported Iraq, and I still do. We're not in Iraq any more, and the casualties keep mounting. I don't think we should be fighting a war we can't afford. Only because the troops don't have the kit they need to protect themselves.

What exactly is your point. I don't think you have one any more. It ceased with your final hypocrisy.

What on earth are you rambling on about?

You do know this thread is about workhouses, not war don't you?

[dilbert]

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

Soldiers? Me making decisions to go to war? Are you suddenly in an alternative universe? Isn't it a little early to be drunk?

Well, you've not refuted the idea that you live in a mansion. I assume you're part of the (or soon to be part) of the elite. You tolerate it, at the very least.

I supported Iraq, and I still do. We're not in Iraq any more, and the casualties keep mounting. I don't think we should be fighting a war we can't afford. Only because the troops don't have the kit they need to protect themselves.

What exactly is your point. I don't think you have one any more. It ceased with your final hypocrisy.

What on earth are you rambling on about?

Well I think you lost. I'll be back later to argue my case if you bother to resort to reason.

You do know this thread is about workhouses, not war don't you?

[OnTheOverrun]

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

Soldiers? Me making decisions to go to war? Are you suddenly in an alternative universe? Isn't it a little early to be drunk?

Well, you've not refuted the idea that you live in a mansion. I assume you're part of the (or soon to be part) of the elite. You tolerate it, at the very least.

I supported Iraq, and I still do. We're not in Iraq any more, and the casualties keep mounting. I don't think we should be fighting a war we can't afford. Only because the troops don't have the kit they need to protect themselves.

What exactly is your point. I don't think you have one any more. It ceased with your final hypocrisy.

What on earth are you rambling on about?

Well I think you lost. I'll be back later to argue my case if you bother to resort to reason.

You do know this thread is about workhouses, not war don't you?

LOL, you can't even quote straight! Come back when you're sober.

[dvs_dave]

Eric Mc said:

I don't think you can argue that a workhouse would be cheaper at all.

It would be extremely difficult to cost accurately the financial benefits or otherwise of implementing such a scheme.

The direct cost of running them might be cheaper than the current system, but the downstream costs of putting low paid people out of work or paying people to do work that might not be really needed or rectifying poor workmanship caried out by a non-motivated workforce could very easily outweigh the initial perceived cost savings.

Equally I don't think you could argue it's more expensive? There seems to be the assumption that all the folk in a workhouse would not be interested in getting out of there (for some this will be the case) so have no incentive to work their way out? That would be one of the schemes fundamental directives. Work equals a better life.

You then go on to say it would put existing low paid workers out of a job. Who do you think in this country does the majority of these so called low paid jobs? By and large it's immigrant workers as it's worth their while. If it's worth their while, then it's worth anybody's while if the alternative is a workhouse. At least then you'd get rid of the "foreigners taking our jobs" and the "immigration" hot potato that is always used as an excuse.

The crux of the problem is that the system too easily encourages claiming benefits rather than getting even a low paid job and giving something back to society.

With regards the Nazi Germany comments, I think you've gone off on an irrelevant and extreme tangent with that one.

[dilbert]

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

dilbert said:

OnTheOverrun said:

Soldiers? Me making decisions to go to war? Are you suddenly in an alternative universe? Isn't it a little early to be drunk?

Well, you've not refuted the idea that you live in a mansion. I assume you're part of the (or soon to be part) of the elite. You tolerate it, at the very least.

I supported Iraq, and I still do. We're not in Iraq any more, and the casualties keep mounting. I don't think we should be fighting a war we can't afford. Only because the troops don't have the kit they need to protect themselves.

What exactly is your point. I don't think you have one any more. It ceased with your final hypocrisy.

What on earth are you rambling on about?

You do know this thread is about workhouses, not war don't you?

Well I think you lost. I'll be back later to argue my case if you bother to resort to reason.

LOL, you can't even quote straight! Come back when you're sober.

Quoting issue corrected. Unless you're going on the attack, there's nothing more that I want to say.

[V8mate]

Ganglandboss said:

Eric Mc said:

Mazda Baiter said:

P_J_R said:

I've been saying that for years; and whilst we're at it, make everybody have an IQ test before being allowed to breed; no pass, no offspring. Sadly it's all too late, this country is fked.

If you can prove that "IQ" (flawed as the test is) is more influenced by genetics than environment then I might agree with you.

On the other hand, a high "IQ" score does not make you a responsible parent... Which is where the problem lies, to which you are inferring.

It's called Eugenics and was a favourite policy of the Nazis - which eventually led to the slaughter odf hundreds of thousands of innocent, defenceless people.

Great plan.

Winston Churchill was a fan too:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-church...

It's always the Germans get such a bad press for it!

The Amercicans started their eugenics programme in the early 1900s and it continued until 1970.

[Eric Mc]

dvs_dave said:

Eric Mc said:

I don't think you can argue that a workhouse would be cheaper at all.

It would be extremely difficult to cost accurately the financial benefits or otherwise of implementing such a scheme.

The direct cost of running them might be cheaper than the current system, but the downstream costs of putting low paid people out of work or paying people to do work that might not be really needed or rectifying poor workmanship caried out by a non-motivated workforce could very easily outweigh the initial perceived cost savings.

Equally I don't think you could argue it's more expensive? There seems to be the assumption that all the folk in a workhouse would not be interested in getting out of there (for some this will be the case) so have no incentive to work their way out? That would be one of the schemes fundamental directives. Work equals a better life.

You then go on to say it would put existing low paid workers out of a job. Who do you think in this country does the majority of these so called low paid jobs? By and large it's immigrant workers as it's worth their while. If it's worth their while, then it's worth anybody's while if the alternative is a workhouse. At least then you'd get rid of the "foreigners taking our jobs" and the "immigration" hot potato that is always used as an excuse.

The crux of the problem is that the system too easily encourages claiming benefits rather than getting even a low paid job and giving something back to society.

With regards the Nazi Germany comments, I think you've gone off on an irrelevant and extreme tangent with that one.

There is no doubt that the Nazis were extreme - but they didn't start off like that. Any policy that stigmatises and corrals people who have not committed any crime is a policy that has potential for an ultimately extreme outcome.

So I belive a study of what happened in Germany between 1933 to 1945 is always relevant.