THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

Review Disabled Children’s Support

Ministers are being encouraged to reconsider care provided for children with disabilities following an investigation into the adequacy of support for families.

The conclusions were heart rending and disturbing and, indicated that some families were unable to bear the expense of basic essentials to live a dignified life.

A study, carried out by the University of Central Lancaster (UClan) for the children’s commissioner, found evidence that poverty signified that some disabled children were not living lives that converged with international human rights standards.

This is about the voiceless and the helpless, as well as making ends meet and, some of these stories that we’re informed about are extremely touching and very distressing.

Money matters are extremely real and very demanding and, parents are equally saying they have little or no say in the methods that services are organised and provided, from transport to access to youth, or play or leisure which is properly modified for one’s disability.

The research was founded on talks and group discussions with 78 disabled children and young people and 17 parents. It was co led by a group of 11 disabled children and young people working with the university.

A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions rebuffed some of the conclusions.

“In fact, independent reports show how we are world leaders in support for disabled people with the UK’s spending on disability-related benefits a fifth higher than the EU average.

“The UK is also acknowledged as a world leader in supporting independent living for disabled people, having the best overall rating of 55 countries.

“We continue to spend around £50bn a year on disabled people and their services and our reforms will make sure the billions spent give more targeted support to those who need it most.”

Nonetheless, some of those intimate stories coloured a much different picture and, those officials who have no doubt composed that statement should go and meet some of those young people, who will tell them the true story of living with a disability on an extremely low income.

There is a mum cited in the survey, who because her child required a modified home, incorporating a multi sensory setting, was coerced to make sure that was available, she will be paying for it until November 2022.

There was as well a young woman going through everything that adolescence carries with it, who needs incontinence pads. Benefits pay for four a day; she needs 10. That is not human respect and, it’s not human rights either.

In spite of the condemnation, researchers found numerous examples of disabled children being given good care and services which they said give a demonstration on how low income doesn’t have to be an obstacle.

Nonetheless, proof was as well established of insufficient services, compounding the difficulties of some low income families and, even though families with disabled children often have rights to welfare payments and practical support, their basic incomes frequently don’t deal with the additional costs of raising and caring for a disabled child.

The team analysed three United Nations treaty documents: the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on Persons with Disabilities and the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights.

Between them these treaties state an individuals’ rights to food, clothes and heating, to live on one’s own, to be able to settle on where to live, to live in their local communities and, to the provisions and amenities they need to be able to do that.

It was found that the lives lived by some disabled children and young people did not fulfil these fundamental rights. There were accounts of some disabled children, young people and their parents not being able to heat their homes properly, or pay for sufficient clothing or food.

Some were not notified or involved in decisions about changes to where they lived. Some experienced delays in alterations being made to their homes and, some didn’t have enough room nor support for independent living.

It appears that because the government has no emotional bond to these people they can then be narrow-minded in the way that they look at the disabled.

If they were more unprejudiced with their views, their response with regard to the disabled might be different and, their reaction towards them would be looked at to a larger degree, but there’s no support, plainly because they don’t have to raise them, consequently it’s easier to throw them to one side like a commodity.

As well it’s not just the young that need assistance, it’s adults similarly, because they’re the selfsame, they’re no different. Their individuality might be somewhat different, but at the end of the day, they’re as well disabled and need support.

They’re as well unable to pay for basic essentials for a dignified life, or is it because they’re adults that they no longer need that support, because it appears that after a certain age people that are adults and disabled no longer appear to be a viable commodity.

Nonetheless, if we’re no longer viable, then as far as the government are interested we’re no longer worth retaining and, as a result, of no real significance.

If we can’t labour and, we’re not making money for them, then they may as well pull the plug on us and, terminate us, since the only reason we’re here in the first place is so that the government can make us into serfs, but what they fail to remember, if there were no slaves, there would be no government!

When people start believing that they need us more than we need them, then maybe it may be better understood that this country doesn’t need to run with a government, it can stand on its own two feet because WE ARE the spine of this government, the government ARE NOT the spine of us!

How Junk Food Manufacturing Has Persuaded Us To Eat Ourselves To Death

There are some frightening ways in which processed food suppliers are sliding mouthwatering but disease-causing extras into our munchables.

So why are diabetes, obesity and hypertension figures still gyrating out of self-control?

It’s not just a matter of limited determination on the part of the shopper and, a give the people what they desire viewpoint on the part of the food makers.

There is a deliberate effort taking place in labs, marketing and grocery store walkways, to get people captivated on foods that are handy and cheap.

Would it astonish you to find out that food giants Kraft, Pepsi and, General Mills use large-scale experimentation and development processes patterned to obtain a consumer ideal bliss point?

Does it surprise you that the said bliss point is an amalgamation of way more sugar, salt and, fat than any of us would load up on our plate otherwise?

Doesn’t it amaze you that this makes those corporate food monsters an enormous amount of money?

Nothing shocks me and, its alarming and, these corporations’ strategies are remarkable, but they appear right in line with marketing tactics that have formed our well padded lives for the last three decades.

Marketing these products is about giving the product a character that is daring and spirited, communicating the concept that this is the best snack food.

The plan is to prey on a special segment of people who are regular snackers, mothers, children, young professionals, keeping their snacking rituals fresh by trying a new food product when it captures their attention.

These establishments position planned storytelling in the advertisement campaigns for snacks, using crucial expressions that have been developed with significant assessment.

Attempting to keep your weight down and endeavouring to stay trim can be completely different things. We go about thinking that sugar free foods and drinks are in fact good for us.

Drinking sugar-free Red Bulls and dumping Splenda into your morning coffee like your life is contingent on it is a little humiliating because you then consider yourself in good health.

Synthetic sweeteners have chemicals or innate composites that take the place of the sweetness of the sugar, without all of the calories, but occasionally the label ‘sugar free’ disguises calories present in the food or drink.

Of course, you can always study the product’s description, but believe it, or not, there are a whole lot of people out there who believe that sugar free or fat free signifies low calorie.

On top of that, there are some investigations that have demonstrated that artificial sweeteners can in fact increase your craving for food.

Next there are sugar free products with ingredients that can amplify your blood sugar dramatically, like the white flour in sugar free cookies. All in all, ‘sugar free’ doesn’t always signify ‘diet friendly’.

Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal, NatraSweet, Canderel, Spoonfuls, DiabetiSweet) is a general chemical sweetener with potential side effects that sound like they’re out of a horror movie.

From hallucinations to seizures to brain tumours, it’s barely worth consuming for the sake of saved calories.

Sucralose (Otherwise known as Splenda); is frightening. Testing indicates that Splenda can enlarge both the liver and kidneys and shrink the thymus glands.

Sucralose breaks down into small quantities of dichlorofructose, which has not been tested adequately in humans. Splenda reportedly can bring about skin rashes, panic, diarrhoea, headaches, bladder issues, stomach pain and, those side effects don’t even sum it up.

You think this sounds bad? Do some additional investigations. Nearly all artificial sweeteners on store shelves are accompanied by many side effect stories. (Some investigation indicates they result in Cancer and, should something as serious as Cancer actually be disregarded?)

Research as well suggests that they in truth lead to overeating amongst consumers. In addition to all of this, think about the left overs associated in the manufacturing of artificially sweetening.

Ever stepped into a coffee shop and noticed a heap of sugar replacement packets building on the counter or in the garbage? We’ve been throwing away one of our most valuable materials for the sake of a sweetener that can damage our bodies and stop weight loss.

In a surprisingly unethical way the food industry makes food to equal hard drugs for their habit-forming possibilities. ‘Designer sodium’, the origin of the perfect kid’s lunch and, the hunt for the morphine like ‘bliss point’ in soda.

Cheetos, in particular, spotlighted the remarkable precision that goes into what we see as a healthy, recognised food. It’s one of the most marvellously formulated foods on the planet, in terms of unadulterated enjoyment.

Cheetos puffs have an extraordinary ability to melt in the mouth, it’s called vanishing caloric density, it softens down rapidly and, your brain thinks that there’s no calories in it, you can just keep eating it forever.

Almost all widely obtainable foods from Cutie Clementines to dozens of Pringles flavours, have been exquisitely made to attract to our basic requirement for salt, fat and sugar. Food science has perfected the technique of hooking customers on whatever they care to feed on.

Child Poverty No Longer A Problem Of The Workless And Work Shy

Two thirds of impoverished children are at the moment from families where an adult is in employment and, a great deal of low middle income children face being worse off than their parents because of decreased earnings and soaring prices.

Maybe more affluent pensioners’ benefits should be given the chop and, minimum pay increased, but it’s proposed that some benefits are currently protected from cuts, such as unencumbered TV licences and winter fuel allowances for pensioners and, they could therefore be means tested in order to split the responsibility of austerity more evenhandedly.

But a spokesman for David Cameron said: “The prime minister believes it is right to make commitments to pensioners in relationship to state provision.”

The aim to end child poverty by 2020 would in all probability be missed by a sizeable gap, leaving as many as two million children in poverty.

Poverty is determined as having a family salary that is less than 60% of the national average income.

Campaign On Families Who Evade Care Home Fees

Councils are spying on parents who have signed over their homes to their children to dodge care home fees.

Local authority inspectors are rummaging through residents’ financial records to see if they’ve knowingly attempted to hide their property wealth.

You don’t get anything for nothing these days; you work all your life and, what for, to be informed that you’ll have to put your home up for sale and, then pay to go into a care home.

Once more the government continually take from us and, give us nothing back in return, but requires us to work our whole lives, buy our own homes and, then sell them to go into homes in our old age, so that the government can neglect them.

At one time, a husband and wife bought their own homes so that when children came along, they could have a nest egg for when they passed away and, they could go to their demise knowing that their children would be looked after through the sale of their home that they once owned.

Nevertheless, at present, nothing is sacrosanct.

You work, you buy your own home, that you hope will go to your children and, then find that they’ll get nothing because it’s all got to be used up on selling a house to be cared for in a home – makes you wonder why we really work at all.

If they expose proof that parents gave their home away as a ruse to evade care bills, they can use little known powers to coerce the family to put their property up for sale and, pay up.

One council, Buckinghamshire, verified its investigators were making such inquiries.

Leading charity Age UK is so worried at the number of families attempting to evade care fees it has published suggestions of caution of the dangers in signing over property.

This is the nonprofit organisation that has received a slice of the governments £900,000 which is supposedly going to fight fuel poverty and, teach people, giving advice to them and, as well provide sessions to vulnerable people, so consequently it looks like Age UK is no longer a nonprofit organisation if it’s being given money by the government.

It makes families aware that they may be venturing on a dangerous operation, saying that budget conscious councils are likely to look at cases where they believe deprivation of assets may have taken place.

Last night campaigners for the elderly said that the grey area of the law meant that a great deal of families could be vulnerable, losing homes already signed over.

The warning has been issued because a growing number of parents in their 60s and 70s are signing over the deeds to their homes to their children to stop it being counted for means testing. This permits them to live in their home still, but are no longer the legal owners.

Political Correctness Gone Insane

Political correctness is the avoidance of any kind of indication or action that might be regarded as abusive with regard to people who are socially deprived or differentiated against – A variety of bullying per se.

Nevertheless, has it all gone mad, because the Home Office Minister John Denham has been condemned by the police for applying the expression ‘nitty gritty’ and, has been criticised because of race relation rules.

Each word has a diversity of individual definitions and, just because one word is made use of, it doesn’t as a result mean it’s being utilised in the frame of reference that the police are surmising it’s being used, or should we just alter the entire Oxford dictionary to how John Denham see’s fit, so that he can then persecute people, when they should in fact be getting down to the ‘nitty gritty’ of their responsibilities and, allowing the police to pursue real criminals – whoops, was I being politically incorrect?

At present police officers can face disciplinary charges for saying ‘nitty gritty’ because it dates from the slavery epoch.

Some rank and file officers have said that the regulations about vocabulary has become a minefield and, has made them reticent in doing their jobs.

How far will these absurd rules carry on until they’re so comical that they’re laughable.

Some of these rules are ridiculous and, how oddball do Britons have to become before we’re categorised as crackpots?

This political correctness has gone too far. It’s sheer silliness and, so far I’ve not read anywhere that the word ‘nitty gritty’ is of slave origin and, if it does, so what.

It’s fascinating to note that it’s normally not minorities who amplify this matter of political correctness, but politicians who want to take advantage of the situation.

People should be encouraged to freely participate in conversations of matters or subjects that others in government may deem politically incorrect.

We’re meant to be living in a democratic society, a free world that others in government are envious of because in government you have to be politically correct because you’re always on display, but that’s the profession they entered into of their own free will.

The same as a Nun will enter the house of God so that she may be married to God, which means she may never have sex with a man, that doesn’t mean that she may not be envious of those who are free to do so.

A soldier will enter the Military to do battle for his country, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a little resentful of the person who doesn’t fight for his country, while the soldier fights in horrific circumstances.

We identify bullying as the most disagreeable kind of physical abuse by someone who wants to exercise control of some sort over someone else, yet the government are doing it to us daily and, we appear to find that justifiable.

Political correctness is the most insidious form of bullying where the bullies assault the mindset and reasoning of another for their own fulfilment.

We should acknowledge the politically correct brigade as nothing but bullies in another mold, attempting to contort the minds of others to indulge their own inadequacies.

You cannot be politically correct in a war.

Rupert Everett

£900,000 Plans To Reduce Winter Fuel Deaths

Fears of a sharp increase in deaths brought about by rising energy bills has induced the Government to unveil a £900,000 plan to battle fuel poverty.

The percentage of overabundant winter deaths is too high and, the Government is determining the vulnerable households and, those people aged above 75 or children less than five, or those where somebody is afflicted with a long term illness or disability.

We should not be opposed to this sort of action, but we should as well put into perspective the reality that the government has removed money from people’s benefits, particularly those with long term illness or disability, stating that they’re scroungers and, then acknowledging that there is an increase in deaths in these groups.

If the government had not reduced their money in the first place, even though fuel bills have gone up, they would in all likelihood still have been capable of paying their bills – So, the government take with one hand and, then give back with the other to make themselves look like they’re assisting and helping the elderly, the disabled and long-term sick, when really they removed it from them in the first place.

Apparently, households will be given special assistance to lessen energy prices. Were they not special enough in the first place, obviously not, or else the government wouldn’t have felt the necessity to leave them penniless and, on the poverty line and, powerless to pay their bills and, as well, lose their homes.

I was, in addition, mortified to then find out that the £900,000 was not to give back to people, but to in fact use for nonprofit organisations such as Age UK and National Energy Action for volunteers to give guidance and support sessions to vulnerable people and, to help them change to more energy efficient offers and tariffs, as a more sustainable way of tackling fuel poverty because apparently, the elderly, the long term sick and disabled are utilising too much energy and, they should improve the way that they use domestic energy and, use it efficiently.

It’s in fact a joke; I’m sure of it, because we as human beings are being treated like children because the government are paying action groups to educate us on how to utilise our energy, because of course, we’re far too foolish to be able to do it on our own.

Apparently it’s impractical to talk about an inexhaustible financial plan because it seems the most sustainable way of coming to grips with fuel poverty is to improve domestic energy productivity. Well, except for turning all our lights off, doing no washing and cooking and, leaving us in the dark, what else is there left?

The central drawback is not consumers using too much domestic energy, it’s the rising fuel bills, which has been kindled by an eight per cent price increase that has been made public by “Big Six” energy giant SSE on Thursday.

It’s fearful that there will be an increase in winter deaths this year, unless extreme measures are taken. More people are getting into debt and, energy costs are far surpassing wages and, people are striving hard to get by, but finding it near on impossible.

It’s anticipated that 24,000 older people may not survive a cold winter, that’s equal to 200 deaths a day and, it’s calculated roughly that 1.7 million older people can’t pay to heat their homes adequately.

It’s as well calculated that cold homes cost the NHS in England more than £1.36 billion every year in health problems, comprising heart attacks, strokes and breathing difficulties. Fuel poverty levels are at national degradation, with the old among the worst affected.

Energy bills are already an enormous worry for a great deal of pensioners who will be anxious about another round of price increases and, many thousands of older people will face an everyday fight to stay warm during the winter months, endangering their health by keeping the heating low to evade a bill that they can’t pay for.

George Osborne Sucks!

I’ve got one news item for you today and, it’s about George Osborne, a multimillionaire who’s got his trust fund set up overseas in a tax haven.

He’s the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he puts doughnuts on his on winkle and, he gets them to eat them off, what sort of man is that?

This man said: ‘We have agreed seven departments CUTS.”

They’re cutting the elderly, the young, the disabled, in the end they’ll be making people destitute, they’ll be carrying people out onto the streets, where they’ll call for the police to go and thieve the homeless food and, their blankets.

Yet you see the MP’s aren’t getting cut, the MPs want a pay increase, they want thousands and thousands of pounds more.

They’ve got cash for Plasma TVs, for curtains, for £39 breakfasts, yet they want to cut the vulnerable. They don’t want to cut the Royals, the Queen is getting a £6 million pay increase, how is that right?

As stated by Forbes magazine, Queen Elizabeth has a personal net worth of approximately 500 million dollars.

Although, if her personal assets were to incorporate possessions that she technically is the owner of, incorporating all of England, India and, Canada including others, as well as the Crown Estates, which comprise Buckingham Palace, the Royal Art collection and, additional belongings, her net worth would be in the trillions, but yet they still seem to want more.

The Queen requested ministers for money to heat Buckingham Palace from a kitty set to one side for low income families, it’s been divulged.

Royal assistants begged for the money as they asserted that gas and electricity bills had gone up by an extra 50 per cent in a year, adding up to more than £1 million.

The cash would have come from the £60 million energy savings grant set to one side for cash strapped families, housing associations and hospitals.

Nevertheless, ministers turned down the 2004 request made by the Royal Household, fearing a public relations catastrophe.

Nonetheless, if they thought they could have gotten away with it, do you believe they would have given the Royal Household the cash?

You’ve got the bedroom tax and, The Queen has got 775 rooms in Buckingham Palace, these incorporate 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, who sleeps in all of these rooms, the undetectable ghost?

Then you have the bankers, George Osborne isn’t saying anything about cutting the bankers money, he’s been giving bankers millions and, their rubbings their hands together.

One more Pony for my daughter, another Bentley for my son, holidays and skiing trips. There’s no banking reform, but theres Welfare reform, you do that mathematics in your head and, ask yourself the questions, why is that?

Why is George Osborne giving tax cuts to the wealthy, why is he feeding bankers pound notes, so they can go and gamble it up in the City?

Why are they hitting the most vulnerable, the disabled, the sick and, then you’ve got Iain Duncan Smith, can you visualise a man that you’re going to for assistance, for compassion, your suffering, your elderly, your having a heart attack, you’ve got Cancer, your vulnerable.

We have to go to that nut case and, he’s employing ATOS because you see this government, the money isn’t going to us because they’re spending more.

Why – Government contracts and, they want private courts to save money, they’re building infrastructure for the German National Railway to financially gain from us.

These people who sit at their troughs are moving money into private pockets, all the time squeezing people, extracting the life out of them.

Then there’s the case of a poor woman who had a double heart and lung transplant and, she’s dead, nine days after ATOS found her fit to work and, her money was stopped, you can’t make those events up.

In addition, these people at the troughs, they can’t stop, they’re part of the war mechanism, they want to go around murdering people, they’ve just opened up a new line in Syria, let’s move a cargo of weapons there.

George Osborne, how is it feasible that we permit these parasites among us and, what do they say after they’ve shot 25 demonstrators, where they’re making anybody who wants to protest an extremist and, then they can just gun them down so that it’s better for the entire nation.

They use these derisory bigotry methods, aiming at the poor against the poor, black against white, muslim against christian, the government love it, it’s one huge shit storm, it’s a super storm!

There has never been such an insidious government, they’re privatising the NHS, can you visualise that? They’ve got predators standing at the doors of Accident and Emergency.

Cherie Blaire and Richard Branson with fangs and blood coming out their mouths, just dripping and seeping with blood, with talons, scrapping at sick people, what is this eternal damnation that’s going on?

As George Osborne attacks the most vulnerable people, the rich walk away with goody bags. The wealthier get wealthier and, the poor get deprived even more and, are given no consideration.

There’s no freedom for the poor as the government Lord over us and, we shadow them like sheep and, the government can gloss over it as much as they want but in the end the rug will get swept from under them and that cape of deception that covered them, will no longer be there to hide all their lies.

The Queen Assists Despairing Victim By Sending His Letter To David Cameron

Dad of three Roger Davis is fighting eviction from his three bedroom home, so he decided to write to Her Majesty as a final resort after No 10 Downing Street disregarded him.

Now the Queen has been drawn into the coalitions’ Bedroom Tax debacle by passing on a victim’s grievance letter to David Cameron, a newspaper revealed.

Roger Davis who is terrified of going out because of Agoraphobia (an extreme or irrational fear of crowded spaces), is confronted with losing his home of 20 years after the tax totalled almost £100 a month to his rent and, forced him into owing money.

He wrote to the Queen after the Prime Minister didn’t bother to answer two of his letters, nevertheless; nearly all correspondence that are sent to the Prime Minister from the public don’t in fact get past his personal assistant and, if his cleric doesn’t think that it’s of pressing importance, then in that case the PM will not even see what was in the correspondence.

Roger Davis then received a letter from Buckingham Palace promising his plea for assistance would be handed onto Downing Street, talk about passing the buck.

Next he was sent a correspondence from the PMs office saying his appeal would be handed over to the communities department run by Tory minister Eric Pickles, talk about passing the buck yet again.

Without doubt the Prime Minister could have sorted this poor man’s predicament out, after all, David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the whole country, or is Eric Pickles the PM nowadays, I’m not sure, it’s all remarkably perplexing!

Curiouser and Curiouser – Follow that White Rabbit!

The Royal residence said Her Majesty could not personally involve herself in Roger’s situation but there is hope he may retain his home as his council is evaluating if he’s owed further benefits.

Last week a poll established that 60 percent of voters backed Labour’s intention to put an end to the Bedroom Tax, which has hit 660,000 British households.

Roger Davis said: ‘I wrote to Downing Street but they ignored me. I didn’t know who else to turn to, so in desperation I tried the Queen.’

‘When I got a letter back it really lifted me. It meant a lot that someone in authority actually replied and acknowledged me. I want to make the Queen aware of the situation people are facing. I know she can’t personally act for me but it made me feel better.’

The Queen has a significant and formal romance with Parliament. The expression ‘Crown in Parliament’ is used to describe the British legislature, which is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and, the House of Commons.

Of these three contrasting components, the Commons, a number of who usually support the chosen Government of the day, has the presiding political control.

The role of the Monarch in the passing of legislation is nowadays entirely formal, even though The Queen has the power ‘to counsel, to support and to notify’ her ministers through regular audiences with the Prime Minister.

The Sovereign’s approval is needed to all bills passed by Parliament in order for them to become law. Assent (agreement to an action being appointed law) has not been declined since 1707, but could if The Queen so wished it to be.

It is as well a long accepted custom that The Queen is requested by Parliament to provide approval (which is different to assent) for the debating of bills which would affect prerogative or interests of the Crown.

Where Queen’s Consent is given it is signified in each House of Parliament and recorded in Hansard. Consent has not been refused in present-day times, except on the counsel of Government.

The Queen as well performs a vital part in the ceremonial opening and disbanding of Parliament. In the yearly State Opening of Parliament ceremony, The Queen opens Parliament in person and, talks to both Houses in The Queen’s Speech. Neither House can go ahead with public business until The Queen’s Speech has been read out.

This talk is drafted by the Government and, not by The Queen. It profiles the Government’s plans for the coming assembly of Parliament and points out forthcoming rulings.

In addition to opening Parliament, only The Queen can convene Parliament and, terminate it without dissolving it, or dissolve it.

When a Prime Minister wants to disband Parliament and summon a general election, he or she is required to ask the permission of the Monarch to do so. For this purpose, the Prime Minister usually journeys to Buckingham Palace prior to publicising a general election.

The Queen’s role in Parliament is:

Agreeing to Bills passed by Parliament, on the guidance of Ministers;

Giving audiences to Ministers, at which Her Majesty may be consulted, encouraged and warn;

Opening every new assembly of Parliament;

Proroguing or disbanding Parliament before a general election.

It appears that The Queen’s role in the lawmaking process is ceremonial, as her reserve authorities are seldom exercised, even though I’m sure they could be if she so desired. Theoretically she still possesses a substantial amount of control in international transactions and, The Queen, as the Head of State, has the control to declare war and, make peace, to acknowledge overseas countries, to conclude agreement and to take over, or give up territory on behalf of the United Kingdom.

In her additional realms she leaves the exercise of these powers to her representatives, who also exercise it at the instruction of chosen governments. In observation, it seems that even though The Queen is an extremely valuable person and, always will be, that her role is just ceremonious and, even though she does have significant authority, she does not utilise it and, that the responsibility of the United Kingdom is left merely down to the Government.

When Roger Davis sent his correspondence to The Queen, the reply from the Palace said: ‘The Queen has asked me to thank you for your letter from which Her Majesty has taken careful note of your comment about your current housing situation.

‘However, this is not a matter in which The Queen would personally intervene. Nevertheless as a constitutional sovereign Her Majesty acts on the advice of Ministers and, I have been instructed to send your letter to the Prime Minister so that he may know of your approach to The Queen on this matter and, may consider the points you raise.’

What an entire waste of time that was and, should be an education to people out there that believe that they may get something done by approaching The Queen. She may be the Monarch of this nation but she unquestionably does not have jurisdiction over it, the government do.

I am, as a person, not patriotic at all, that doesn’t mean that I don’t like them, it just means that I have no feelings with regard to the Royal family, the same as I would have no feelings towards my next door neighbours, but I do believe as The Royal family that they should have more claim on what goes on in this country, after all The Queen is the ‘rule of one’ and, having the standing of A Queen and, her ancestors before her, she has the right to have a claim on what goes on in this country and, not just ceremonially.

Company Businesses Get Profit From The Unemployed

The long term out of work will have to engage in work placements in return for their social security, under strict rules launched by the Chancellor George Osborne.

Workfare is an unorthodox design to orthodox social welfare techniques and, was first announced by civil rights pioneer James Charles Evers in 1968, but, it was made popular by Richard Nixon in a broadcasted address in August 1969.

Oh, you didn’t actually think that George Osborne really thought of the concept, to think, he would require a brain.

Long established welfare benefit designs are usually given based on particular circumstances, such as hunting for work, or founded on meeting a standard that would situate the recipient as unavailable to search for work, or be working.

Workfare means that recipients have to fulfil certain participation requirements to carry on receiving their welfare benefits. These conditions are frequently an amalgamation of activities that are meant to make better the recipient’s employment possibilities, such as education, rehabilitation and, employment skills and, those nominated as playing a role in the community, such as voluntary, or low paid employment.

These programmes, which are common in Australia, Canada and, now the United Kingdom, have caused substantial discourse and disagreement.

There are two main types of workfare schemes, those that encourage direct employment to get people off the welfare roll and, straight into the workforce and, those that are intended to increase social capital by providing guidance and education to those currently in the welfare structure.

In the Third World, similar schemes are invented to reduce rural poverty between day labourers by providing government subsidised temporary employment throughout those times of the year when little agricultural jobs are obtainable.

Although we don’t live in a Third World nation, well not yet anyhow. Nonetheless, are we now living is what is classified as a Third World, I’m not sure. The word as far as I was concerned was merely differentiated as such countries that were poverty-stricken, but I was incorrect because Third World countries are as well differentiated by the worst records for political rights and civil liberties and, in the United Kingdom at the moment; we don’t appear to have much of either.

The intention and objective of workfare is to create a net contribution to the general public from welfare recipients. Most often, this means getting the jobless into paid employment, reducing or removing welfare payments to them and, consequently bringing about an income that creates taxes.

What’s more, it’s disputed that once a person has new job skills, even at entry level, they’re better able to get profitable long term employment.

Welfare to work programmes works toward breaking the cycle of poverty in which welfare dependency can turn into a way of life but Workfare in the United Kingdom refers to government workfare plans by which people must undertake employment in return for their benefit payments or risk being deprived of them.

Workfare strategies in the United Kingdom are an issue. Backers assert that such plans will assist people in moving off welfare and, into work, whereas critics bicker that they’re comparable to enslavement and indentured servitude and counterproductive in reducing unemployment.

In November 2011, the Prime Minister’s Office made public a scheme under which Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants who haven’t located a position once they have been through a work programme will do a 26 week position in the community for 30 hours a week.

As stated by The Guardian in 2012, under the Government’s Community Action Programme, people who have been out of employment for a number of years, are obliged to work for six months unsalaried, incorporating money making companies, in order to retain their benefits.

These developments shadowed years of worry and talks by people both for and opposed to such plans of action. In 1999, the UK charity Child Poverty Action Group communicated worries that a government report that single parents and the disabled might have to attend recurrent interviews for jobs under danger of being deprived of benefits and, was a step towards the US model of the workfare system.

This as well means that the government had already thought of this master plan even prior to David Cameron and his posse having got into power.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC), a federation of trade unions in the United Kingdom, has declared that workfare is taking advantage of the jobless, paying them less than the minimum wage.

The TUC as well points out that workfare is biased to the paid employee who find themselves in conflict with voluntary workers, after all, if you were the owner of a business and, required workers, who would you take the unpaid workers, or one’s that you had to pay?

In these situations the consequences would be work deficits and, the decline of pay, overtime or other conditions and, employers who choose not to utilise workfare workers would as well find themselves wrangling with other companies who are effectively being subsidised.

There is little proof that workfare increases the probability of locating employment. It can even lessen employment opportunities by restricting the time obtainable for job search and, by failing to supply skills and experience valued by employers.

Nonetheless, this is what the government want because free labour is more advantageous than having to reward someone a full salary for the week, when they can pay them next to nothing for a full weeks work.

In the end we will see almost everyone out of work and, being fed off the state for a minimum wage. They will end up paying us less than minimum wage because almost all people will be out of work and, over time, no one will think to act upon this since our children would have been conditioned to think that’s is how it should be.

It does not matter how much we believe that we’re not, we are all ruled over and, conditioned to do as we’re told. I don’t have to prove or disprove this, our TVs, the newspapers and ads on the TV do this daily, they tell us what we should do, what we should purchase, how we should consume our food, what we should ingest and, almost all of us are convinced it’s true.

This has become our way of life and, we’re living a life of restraint and, it’s not a life that we control, but one that other’s control for us, without us even realising it.

Benefits will be taken away from the long term unemployed, unless they work full time, picking up garbage, cleaning off street art, or cooking meals for the elderly.

Some might believe that workfare is okay and, in some situations it might be, but the ordinary person gets £71.80 a week on benefit, the average person who works on minimum wage gets approximately £246.09 before tax, working a full week, which is way more than the meagre £71.80 the government want to give in benefits and, as well make the benefit claimant work 40 hours a week – Slave labour is disparaging to human life when the government are exploiting human beings, no wonder the people of the United Kingdom are becoming annoyed with what’s going on.

George Osborne blamed Labour of permitting people to linger on benefits for years, while allowing uncontrolled amounts of immigrants fill low paid jobs. Migrants have been permitted to come into the United Kingdom for numerous years to do unskilled jobs for little money.

All governments past and present appear to like servitude and, they don’t appear to be able to wake each day without controlling something, it’s practically what makes them tick, this control and supremacy.

Mr Osborne said: ‘From now on, people are going to have to do something in return for those benefits.’

There is getting people to do something, but not something for nothing. Had Mr Osborne said that people would have to work part time for their benefits, then that would have been fair and, why is it called ‘Workfare’, is it because it’s not fair?

Should UKIP be excluded from TV election debates – David Cameron seems to think so!

Is David Cameron shitting his pants…

The Prime Minister is giving backing to general election discussions, but expresses they should be restricted to applicants likely to be the winners.

As he voiced his support for general election television discussions, he as well pointed out that Nigel Farage should be left out of those debates.

The Prime Minister claimed he believed the discussions, which took place on three successive weeks in 2010, worked well, even though they took up too much time.

The Prime Minister, who not so long ago turned down a challenge from Alex Salmond to discuss the Scottish Independence Referendum, pointed out that Farage should be eliminated from the discussions.

David Cameron said that he thought that the debates predominately should be with regard to people who have the possibility of becoming Prime Minister, or is it that he believes that they do have the possibility of being victorious and, that’s why Nigel Farage has been left out from the debates.

Some Tories think that eliminating Farage would kill off the discussions and, that the UKIP leader would probably organise a legal challenge to any intention of excluding him after next year’s European parliamentary elections, which he is anticipated being the winner of.

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this: