Skip to main content

Ga Ga Grayling!

Well he's back, our rat faced overlord; the dull eyed and dull witted employment thug and capitalist extraordinaire, Chris fucking Grayling. This creature really does make my blood both run cold and boil at the same time. There's not many people I hate, but he's definitely one of them. A man in charge of not only ignoring both fact and wisdom, but of advocating blatant hypocrisy. A man happy to abuse the parliamentary expenses system (if only ethically - because these people make the rules in their favour anyway) but lecture the poor on their perceived obligations to his view of society; the Tory view where the poor are just serfs on their land. Same as it ever was.

Over the weekend he came out with this cock and bull, as reported in the Guardian. The nation says NO to workfare, but Grayling hears the opposite, emphatically. No doubt his corporate paymasters have cottoned on to how sweet the deal is for them (not for the slaves sent to these gulags) and are petitioning him to get them as many as their voracious corporate appetites can find. Feed me, Grayling! Like the plant in Little Shop of Horrors. 

Not only that but anyone that signs off the dole in (perceived) anticipation of this nonsense is deemed to be 'gaming the system' - which I suppose is a subtle way of accusing them of benefit fraud. This from a man that could very easily be accused of exactly the same thing, and also happy to enjoy a property portfolio of buy to let (you know, that thing that fucks up communities and hikes up rents and causes Tories to oppose rent controls, fuckers). More people are being referred to state sanctioned servitude than to Grayling's beloved Work Programme! So there's work people could do for a wage clearly!
As a result of this another few million quid has been found to pay fr all this. Clearly Labour didn't spend all the money then; or perhaps that note was so big and heavy that it hid all this extra money the coalition magically finds for its batshit hateful schemes of social engineering.
The article even includes some dull witted nonsense alleged to come from the mouth of a young Jobseeker called Lee Sproat who has had some kind of epiphany about workfare. Initially adamant to refuse his sentence, he decided that instead it would be a good thing. Apparently this has directly led to him getting a job:
"The interviewer was quite impressed, [with] the fact that I'd done the voluntary work. [But] I didn't say, 'oh it was mandatory voluntary work'… but it was very positively taken at the interview." 
Right, he didn't tell them it was MANDATORY. That makes a huge difference. Employers are impressed because it sounds as if the candidate made the effort to do something for himself (although not in my experience; no employer gave two shits after I worked at Oxfam for a while - they just hired people with 'proper' experience instead). None of this proves that workfare was the deciding factor in Sproat's subsequent employment, nor does the anecdote explain what the job is or who it's for. So this is just another gullible lad suckered into providing the government with its own publicity.
At the same time, it's been revealed that research into workfare demonstrates its uselessness:
"Thousands of jobseekers have been referred to a mandatory work scheme that has done nothing for their employment chances, has made them more likely to claim benefits in the long run, and may have had adverse consequences on their physical and mental health, government research has found."
Pretty damning you might think. So what does ratface want? That's right, he wants MORE workfare. So that means he's happy for all of that negative unhelpful life destroying shit to be heaped onto people he clearly doesn't give a stuff about, all so he and his cunt friends can carry on in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Correction: to which we have allowed them to become accustomed. That's the sad part in all this. We have the power, but of course, through media driven divide and rule, we don't use it, nor do we believe it a good thing to exercise it. People that do, those that campaign against workfare, etc, are branded as trots and scroungers.
An, but hold on, the Daily Fail has come to our hero's defence, with this stirling piece of shit. Apparently people are not only committing fraud to avoid the workfare schemes, but are working in the black economy. They are all working on the sly apparently. By way of proof, Grayling sat in on an interview with a young man at the jobcentre that had been working a 'few hours a week below the benefit threshold' at a local nightclub. A few hours? And he deserves your special attention Chris? As pointed out here the benefit threshold is a fiver, so again Grayling's arse is speaking on his behalf. Now why was this young man singled out for your attention? Did he have any say in whether Grayling sat in on this discussion, most likely causing a great deal of stress and with far reaching consequences? When was the last time we got to sit in on your discussions and examine them? According to the article the man was told he'd lose a week's money for missing his previous signing appointment (that'll learn him huh!). In return, and to Grayling's apparent astonishment, he shrugged: "Noone just shrugs if they lose a week's money!" says our hero, clearly demonstrating a lived-in knowledge of life on the dole. So obviously he's a fraudster, yes? Consequently what this feckless lollygagger needs is a stint working for nothing. That'll certainly help: unlike supporting that which he is doing that gives him some money (if any of this Nazi shit is remotely based in fact).
So here we have it, beyond the bluster of the figures quoted by the Mail, this is just a means to persecute perceived benefit fraud, even though benefit fraud is still a complete non-issue as the likes of Vodafone know full well...if you catch my drift.

Comments

  1. Its turning all the unemployed into benefit fraudsters. If you are unemployed you according to the Fail 50% of you are scroungers and fraudsters.. This guy shrugged as you know you have no recourse.. if you go through a decision maker that could be 6 weeks, or more..and you know since old fish face was there no matter what was said on his behalf he would be punished..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't imagine anyone would feel particularly forthcoming if they were told Chris fucking Grayling was going to sit in on a personal and quite serious meeting like that. I think it's outrageous and no doubt that anecdote has been tweaked to suit his agenda.

      Delete
  2. well.. I would be tempted ;) but then i am an evil bugger. Just the chance to tell him the truth would be worth a sanction ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd be torn between spitting in his dead eyes or refusing the appointment for fear of the consequences of being sorely tempted to slap him.

      Delete
  3. Me too. I would have the odious small minded idiot squeaking like the rat he is as he scurries away from the truth. Sanctioned for telling the truth? Hmmm? That sounds about right to me. Guilty until proven innocent. Horrid.

    One day they will go too far. And on that day I truly hope that enough people will actually see the psychopathic behaviours of those that push this societal control.
    There are still many good people out there, at least I like to think so. And yes, many are just too comfortable or distracted at the moment, decent people or otherwise, but hopefully the powers that be underestimate the inherent good in people. I truly hope that there are enough good decent human beings out there. Who are at least capable of some rational thoughts and of robust enough character to speak out when the legislators get a little too overconfident.

    In other news, I have to respond to a sanction doubt rather soon. I still have a little fight left in me, the anger is hard to suppress, but It gets easier if you try, I am tired of being angry and stressed. I can achieve calm, but it actually takes a bit of practice! Good days, bad days.
    I will just do what I can, defend my position and assert what i know to be right on a moral level. Not according to some words that a bunch of idiots collectively and progressively come up with and called it legislation.

    A hint of rant there, but I think it's minimal on ramble. ;-)

    Take care folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The good folks need organising. Labour are clearly not interested and the unions seem little better. They are not coordinating nationwide activity; just the odd action here and there. It's not going to work. IDS threatening strikers with no benefits for striking won't help either.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.
My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 
Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.
What's an EEC? Employm…

U.N. and Them

What are my thoughts on this?

It's a humanitarian crisis. Is that a phrase we should only reserve for famines in Africa or force majeure? We seem to have a blind spot to these things when they are on our own doorstep - it couldn't happen here, could it?

Yes.

Seven years of the most brutal selfish and greedy governance, not to mention the least competent, has brought us to the point where the United Nations are telling the Tories they are causing a 'human catastrophe' amongst the disabled and the sick. This is not the first time, and even that doesn't include their comments on the hated and spiteful (not to mention ineffectual) Bedroom Tax.

Do the Tories persist with these policies because they actually believe they are correct or even moral?

Or is it because they have no other way to appease the media attack dogs and/or the braying Shirefolk that delight in persecuting the poor as they do torturing foxes and badgers?

Is it both?

We have a government, in a first wor…

Anybody Out There?

Just so I can be sure this is being read at all and decide whether it's worth continuing, please shout out in the comments. Even if you think I'm talking barmy bollocks, it'd be helpful to know if there are people reading this and not weird bots from phishing sites or Russian hackers or some weird sentient algorithm.

Apologies if you are none of those things, but I'm considering what to do with this blog.

Thanks