What is Lord Freud worth per hour?

I can't believe he said that! Did he really mean what he was saying?

Well - he's apologised..... So he said it. Apparently he's got form in this area - has previously muddled up mental illness and learning disability

Oh dear, didn't know he had previous GrannyTwice. I should have though, because if he can not only think that, but put it into words, it isn't difficult to work out his likely views on other subjects that involve people who are disadvantaged.

Time he was put out to grass.

To answer the question posed by GrannyTwice - he is obviously not worth anything near what he is being paid. There may be someone out there who is at present on the minimum wage who could do the job better.

How come these unelected peers are in more and more Government jobs?

I've just read the Wiki article about the said Lord. What a crook

Five minutes ago it said that Cameron insisted he apologised, so he did not do it after thinking better of what he had said.

Wonder how many minutes it will take him to resign?

It's very bad timing of Freud, just before the March for a pay rise at the weekend that's mentioned in this;

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/15/stand-up-for-people-on-benefits

Just read it myself MiceElf. His conduct throughout his career in finance/investment banking (surprise surprise) seems to have been fairly disreputable and entirely self-seeking.

That fine upstanding chap Mr Blair appointed him to provide a review of the British welfare to work system. Freud apparently acknowledged that he "didn't know anything about welfare at all". Amongst his recommendations was a call for greater private sector involvement in the welfare to work sector (again surprise surprise). This presumably was the precursor to organisations like the discredited A4E getting in on the (very lucrative) act.

In 2009 Freud joined the Conservative Party and was later made a life peer.

There may well need to be more examination and discussion of the particular challenges faced by disabled employees and potential employers. But the choice of words used by this minister for welfare (whose own employment record seems to have been at best ineffective and at worst "dodgy"), I feel calls into question the way political appointments are made and peerages bestowed. He seems to view people as if they are not human beings but mere "economic units", and his "unreserved apology" for his "foolish and offensive remarks" should not, in my view, let him off the hook. What he said presumably reflects what he thinks.

Maybe he thinks he and his chums in the murky world of finance and big business are "worth" the recently reported 120 times more than the average full time salary. Judging by the mess they've made over the last few years, I doubt it.

I don't think an apology is enough. The man obviously still thinks the same but given the bad publicity though he had better back track. Anyone can apologize it's easy..... Two little words. The difference is in the sincerity of the apology. Why are we allowing these vile people to run the country and tell us what we we should and shouldn't do?

Why haven't they kicked out this Upper Class Twit. Never mind his apology, it's too little, too late. He should have thought, before making those remarks. I have a lovely niece with learning disabilities who works part time at Next. She loves it and is now a valuable part of the team, so much so, that during the holiday season she had lots of overtime, as she was the first one to be asked.
Why hasn't David Cameron sacked this person!!!

Does he get paid? Not, for one minute, condoning what he said, just wondering.

He must be an idiot.

He must get a salary as a Government Minister, Ariadne. Alongside his House of Lords expenses, and all on top of his own private wealth. Not that I am suggesting for one moment that someone who is wealthy should work for nothing, of course, or even less than the minumum wage.

IMO it is unfair both to disabled and abled employees to suggest that disabled employees should be paid less than the minimum wage.

An explanation given on Radio 4 this morning was that employers might be expected to pay the £2 an hour, whilst the government makes up the rest to the minimum wage. Probably a fair point. It mean the disabled person is doing a worthwhile job and getting out into the world, but still being "looked after" financially partly from a form of benefits

It depends entirely on how much work the disabled person is able to do. You have to be realistic. The government want firms to employ disabled people, so the firms should be helped to do so. Then everyone benefits.

He should have expressed himself more clearly.

They should never have shut down the Remploy factories; they provided a safe and secure working environment and people felt that they were doing a worthwhile job as well.

I can understand the reasoning behind it, that disabled people should be integrated into mainstream work and not 'segregated', but a lot of disabled people were very upset and naturally apprehensive when they closed.

So Ed caught Dave squarely on his polished little public-school jaw and flawed him, and all petulant little Dave could do was conjure up once again the memory of his poor, dear departed infant. What a shabby thing to do, and not for the first time. The truth is that Freud, no doubt in the company of other similarly out-of-touch parasites and sycophants, made a number of derogatory remarks about the handicapped. I note that Dave soon pushed Freud out to apologise, but he should have been sacked. The thought of this loud-mouth Tory Lord being paid £300 a day from the public purse makes me sick, but well done Ed. Keep taking the cough mixture, its doing you good!

I disagree, papa.

EM tried to hit Dave in the solar plexus (quite a cowardly attack I thought) - DC was very angry with Freud and the only thing he did wrong was not to fire him. Freud is an idiot and this is NOT government policy.
DC's father was also disabled - and successful in life- and so DC has more personal experience than Ed will ever know about coping with disabled family members. He did not mention his son but EM well knows and was very wrong to taunt DC.

I agree with you rosequartz, about the sad demise of Remploy, but as regards Freud, no. He is a Conservative party politician and life-peer, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Government adviser on welfare and mastermind of much of the shambles and callous treatment that the Cameron Government has inflicted on the handicapped and other deserving recipients of state assistance. Freud's record in the city and the world of banking is said to have teetered on the edge of legality and his experience of welfare and the handicapped is, by his own admission, nil. So I think Ed was quite right to put the boot in. Cameron's own family experience of handicap was at least eased by their personal fortunes, a benefit denied to most others in that very sad position.

"all petulant little Dave could do was conjure up once again the memory of his poor, dear departed infant"

That is a bloody awful thing to say.

"Cameron's own family experience of handicap was at least eased by their personal fortunes"

Unbelievably crass.

I agree with you rosequartz, about the sad demise of Remploy, but as regards Freud, no

papa I hope you are not trying to imply that I am in any way defending Freud! If you think I am, then please point to me to a post where I have said this so that I can correct myself.

Thank you, jingls, because papa's remarks were making me feel very uncomfortable, in fact quite nauseous, and I wondered if I had misheard what was said in the H of C.

Perhaps, papa you have had no personal experience of anything like that in your own family which may explain your lack of empathy. If you have not, then you are fortunate.

Either way, your sarcastic and quite nasty post was uncalled for and does you no credit, papaoscar.

Nothing! He should have been sacked immediately .I see each week in my volunteering just how badly disabled people are treated generally in this country and how hard they have to fight for what should be their rights.

Lord Freud, no doubt he will be promoted by d.c..after all he probable only says what a lot of the nasty party think!!!!
He will carry on collecting his 300£ for
signing the book in the lords and the tories will rally round and defend him.