When will the Taxpayers' Alliance – that band of shady, unelected, unaccountable Tory supporters – condemn this use of taxpayer's money to subsidise big business?

Why should a probationary period for a job be unpaid – or paid by the state rather than the company, if it actually requires someone to do such a job?

Spot on. Plus there's 8 of them on this trial and there aren't 8 jobs available at the end of the trial. There's 3 or 4 max. So 4 people will have done 2 weeks work for free.

Indeed.

And the question that this begs is how, if it's a trial, they are 'judged' and how those who do not get jobs at the end of it are 'judged' and whether that will have an impact on their benefit status. After all, if there are only four jobs and you have eight candidates, they might all be equally good, so you'll end up picking for something unrelated to the job – effectively, you have to invent another criteria. If that impacts on a benefit claim, what criteria would be used?

It's not advice. Universal credit isn't brutal. HTH

It helps a great deal.

It reveals that you have no intention of contributing to any discussion, as has been suggested.

Thank you for your opinion.
I shan't be taking it as advice.

Indeed Mintball. perhaps they could start with this rlpreening jackassrl?

Paying someone a set fee to provide a service is not subsidising them, if it were I would be subsidising Greggs this lunchtime...

The whole of that article is agenda written, then again so are most newspaper reports whatever the political views of the publication.

But just to focus on The Mail - what evidence in that article is there that the barrister in question is "left wing" or "celebrity" and why should either name tag be a problem to a newspaper anyway or have anything to do with the fact that his chamber has been hit by government cuts ?

Is it because the headline cases that the article mentions as being the "left wing celebrity barrister's" most well known cases were also ones in which the governments and/or "establishment" of the day were shown to be inept and/or corrupt and/or covered up evidence to force their own agenda ?


And another minor issue - the statement from the Ministry of Justice at the end of that article, its another example of a highly politicised statement that could in fact have come from Tory central office in order to support themselves, is it just me who expects the civil service to at least try to be impartial in their statements rather than just publicise the party in power ?

I personally don't agree with expecting those on the dole to work for commercial organisations for free that creates an unfair advantage to those who participate.
Playing devil's advocate how do you incentivise employers to take labour they don't really need and wouldn't employ in the normal course of business?

We have had this discussion many times as to what society should expect from the unemployed - many, me included, find it very frustrating watching the unemployed kick back whilst those who provide their monies have to work. I have never been unemployed and maybe I would have a very rude awakening if I had to join the queue looking for another job.

In general they should at least have to pay NMW for all of the hours worked, the employee should be kept on the unemployed register and have their JSA deducted from their wage during the period of employment, this would ensure that when the trial comes to an end they don't have to go back and reregister and wait another four weeks to get their JSA - its similar in a way to the old administration of statutory sick pay where the employer paid it out and then deducted it from their monthly HMRC income tax payment.

Thats all the encouragement that the unemployed should need, to encourage the employer you could provide tax deductions from corporation tax in the same way as governments in the past have made allowances for capital investments.





I've never been unemployed in 40 years but my wife has and I have seen in side a job centre from both sides of the desk as they used to be clients of mine - I would hate to be reliant on the service to provide me with guidance to get back into the workforce and indeed probably wouldn't go down that route at all, its a horrible experience, often unhelpful, often overly bureaucratic and the realisation that no-one can support a family and a lifestyle on JSA should be obvious to all but often never is.

The frustration is that many see the unemployed being able to afford things that those that work cannot - I see in my own in-laws they don't work but are currently out in Turkey enjoying the sun for the second time this year - something that many employed people cannot afford. Whenever they turn up for a family bash they are wearing expensive designer fashion - this is what I mean by the frustration the working population have with 'some' of the unemployed.

You whinge on and on yet you are complicit, I suppose if you are going to have standard best make them double...

Let's do this again, then. When did you report them to the relevant authorities for having all these things, presumably in some dodgy manner, as you have previous suggested?

You didn't?

Then you're as much as fault as you claim they are. In addition, though, you're a hypocrite.

See Big Graeme's point. If you're genuinely interested.