They Are Coming For Our Kids! Jobcentre Harassment To Start From 12 Years Old.


A disgraceful any sneaky attempt to force our youth into wage slavery.

the void

ids-dead-teddySchool-children as young as 12 are to face Jobcentre harassment coercing them to join unpaid work schemes when they leave education the DWP have announced today.

Jobcentres busy-bodies are to be sent out into schools in a chilling move that  Iain Duncan Smith has pledged  will have a ‘dramatic’ impact on the nation’s children and encourage social mobility.  Yet this, of course, is a bare-faced lie.  There is no mention of going to college, university, or even starting a real job in today’s gushing DWP press release announcing the scheme.  Instead children will be encouraged into unpaid Work Experience, unpaid traineeships, or poverty paid so-called Apprenticeships which are little more than an excuse for companies like McDonalds to dodge paying young people the minimum wage.  This is nothing more than a shabby attempt to indoctrinate young people into accepting the life of low paid, insecure, shitty jobs – or…

View original post 398 more words

Conservatism in a nutshell.


The Tories engineer this socio-economic situation every time they are in office. Think back to the Thatcher era, she did it, Major did it – it’s a manufactured recession and a large reserve army of cheap labour every time. ALWAYS the same with the Tories. Because it suits their “business friendly”agenda.

That’s another Tory slogan that means corporate greed, profit before people and Tory donations – see the Beecroft Report, for example, written by a British “venture capitalist” that has donated more than £500,000 to the Conservative Party. The overdogs write policies to make sure that we remain the underdogs

Source: Conservatism in a nutshell.

Despotic paternalism and punishing the poor. Can this really be England?


The perverse logic runs as follows: welfare for the poorest citizens – those who require collective responses to poverty – can only retain public support by threatening to, and by actually making the poorest even poorer. Is this really welfare?

Source: Despotic paternalism and punishing the poor. Can this really be England?

 

Everyone should read this…

Featured Image -- 70629

Dr. Aroup Chatterjee & Hemley Gonzalez discuss Mother Teresa, Christopher Hitchens and the negligence and fraud of the Catholic nun.


I re-blogged this sometime ago but I would be remiss in not keeping this in people’s consciousness. The neglect and malpractice which is prolific within the walls of these houses and hiding behind the claim of charitable works has been witnessed time and time again by people who have been brave enough to come forward only to be vilified by other members of the public who would rather believe the illusion than the truth. This needs circulation and in the next few weeks I will be working directly with the participants to make sure this interview, a primary source of evidence in historian-speak, does not get lost behind bigger names.

STOP The Missionaries of Charity

Join us on Facebook: www.fb.com/missionariesofcharity

After a few years of following each other’s work online, Hemley Gonzalez and Aroup Chatterjee finally met in person in Calcutta. This is the transcript of their candid conversation about Mother Teresa, The Missionaries of Charity, Christopher Hitchens and the case of medical negligence and financial fraud by the Albanian Catholic nun in India.

Hemley Gonzalez: How and why did you become an outspoken critic of Mother Teresa and her charity?

Aroup Chatterjee: In February of 1993 I approached a film company called Bandung Productions, which was owned by Tariq Ali, a well-known writer and broadcaster in England. I spoke with Vanya Del Borgo, his associate producer at the time. I was angry and agitated about the fact that Mother Teresa was causing generations to grow up with a false and extremely negative image of our city.

Vanya Del Borgo listened to my proposal to…

View original post 4,068 more words

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPSvzcDysMcCFQY9FAod7lsNNw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeministmormonhousewivespodcast.org%2Fepisode-14-global-feminism-and-poverty%2F&ei=vTvSVbTdKob6UO63tbgD&bvm=bv.99804247,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNE7Dxy9TXigB1bT0jyc-DFiL4lLTw&ust=1439927581792887

The Tory rape exception for tax credits is worse than you thought


The Tories achieve a new level of depraved patriarchy…

The modern Tory MP seems, to me, indistinguishable from the Victorian stuffed-shirts who viewed poverty as a sin and filled workhouses with a ready supply of bonded labour who were fed enough to barely survive (if they were lucky).  In this case they are targeting their old favourite scapegoat: th single or unwed mothers rather than the actual cause of the economic mess, their chums pushing buttons in banks.   The likelihood of assistance for these women depends how well they prove that the child they carried to term and did not then give up for adoption is actually the child of the man who subjected her to a sexual assault.  This not only places an out of date stigma upon children, well as the mother, but also holds the children accountable for the means of their own conception.

The Self-servatives are quite willing to claim 300 GBP (my keyboard is being weird since the Windows 10 upgrade and my pound sign is missing) per day just for showing up (or not), not to mention exorbitant expenses (often paid to spouses on their own payroll) seem oblivious to the hypocrisy of deciding that a mother is not entitled to an extra 20 GBP per week (or any child related benefits after the 2nd child at all after 2017) because they don’t approve of her ‘relationship’ status. I have a number of objections to the Tory ideology against mothers in all forms.  Their main issue appears to be with women acting at all on their own agency and making decisions about their own lives without input from those who deem themselves fit to be our keepers.  It holds us simultaneously responsible for our own hardship, while stripping us of the ability to make our lives our own.

Firstly, it places all of the responsibility and financial burden of raising children entirely on the shoulders of the mothers.   The ‘exemption’ from the rule also assumes that fecklessness is the default position of all working class parents when it comes to planning the size of their families.  It places the very normal act of raising a family in the realms of a hobby for the rich who can afford nannies and childminders with their six figure salaries by making it clear that, in their view, the only acceptable reason for a woman  to be caring for a child born out of marriage is that the child was a product of rape (note the absence of accountability expected of male single parents which is also the clue that the policy is specifically anti-woman). Need I make it clear that a child is never at fault for having been born yet the Conservative party seem to think otherwise, and are willing to punish children for what they deem to have been the sin of the parent: daring to be poor.

Secondly, there is the expectation (and double standard) of women being the sole or primary carer.  It is still thought of as unusual if the father is in that position (but that is another post) which either sees stay-at-home-fathers as somehow emasculated, and puts dual-income families in the impossible position of either having to pay for expensive childcare that many cannot afford, or forcing women into a long period of dependency on a partner for financial support regardless of the stability of that relationship or size of the income. It is women who carry the penalties of a family through the gap in our work history and the break from NI contributions while not working.  The responsibility of the actual care (not just earning a wage) is yet to be seen as genuinely equal for both parents. It takes more than money and ‘aspiration’ to raise children, it takes time, attention and patience, but fathers are generally spared the dual expectation to be both care-giver AND breadwinner. No matter the choice, someone has to care for and raise the next generation (who will eventually be caring for the very people who would happily let them starve). Thirdly, when is it the business of government to manage the intimate details of our lives through monetary carrot-and stick tactics (though its less the offer of a reward and more the beating with the stick for daring to even think about asking for the carrot these days)? A government which claims to deplore interference in individual lives, seems to be rather keen to intervene, and use tax-funded benefits (benefits which are also taxed by the way) in order to legislate their own form of morality and make non-conformity to these out-dated rules financially crippling.

Whether children are cared for by childminders or parents, either choice is regarded as lazy by one portion of society or the other so mothers are already in a no-win situation. The current fashion, as exemplified continuously by the gutter-press, is to pour scorn on all stay at home mothers as either indolent sponges who do nothing but watch TV, or as affluent middle/upper-class women who have consciously made ‘a lifestyle-choice’, so it is not really surprising the Tories are going after the ones with the least power and the most to lose from their regressive new rules. In the eyes of the Tories, the only acceptable mother must be married, with the government approved number of children according to income bracket, and able to divide herself equally between her family and a taxable full-time occupation, care if she has no time left to herself. In this economic climate of redundancies and zero-hours ‘contracts’, fortunes can turn on a penny and it is unfair to condemn parents and children to destitution for making family planning choices which may have been entirely reasonable four months ago.