What is Lord Freud worth per hour?

You seem to have backtracked a little on your assertion that some threads aren't worth joining in with, rosequartz!

And there was me thinking that you, too, were fed up with the constant criticism of 'this government' by posters who refuse to accept that the last Labour government contributed in any way to the country's problems.

They all look the same to me (apart from a few outrageous far-out ones I couldn't vote for anyway).

Well said, rosequartz. I seem to remember that years ago employers were statutorily obliged to offer a certain percentage of jobs to the registered handicapped, and I can indeed remember many such handicapped people doing a first-class job over many years in all sorts of occupations. That all seems to have gone by the board these days and now discrimination at the workplace seems to be the only priority, which puts the onus of protest very much on the handicapped person. As you say, fed up with all politicians.

Fed up with them all.

speye.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/lord-freud-is-not-the-loreal-man-his-worth-time-he-was-fact-off/

Why are the Tories carrying on with some of the damaging policies that Labour introduced? (eg shutting Remploy factories, now Camphill Trusts, etc). What Freud was chatting about (not incidentally Government policy, just an informal discussion) was something which the Labour Government had thought introducing about 10 years ago. Which, if it means helping disabled people into meaningful employment with Government support, is worthy of consideration.

Is it because, no matter what Government is in power, even if the spots change to stripes, they all employ the same advisers? Many of the Government's advisers and chairpersons of committees are Labour, so quite frankly what is the point of voting for any of them?

Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose (with accents before someone points out my failure to include them)

Yes, papaoscar. When we had a guest house in York, we sometimes had co-workers to stay from Botton Village. We used to get deliveries from Suma Wholefoods and buy Botton apple juice. They have a bakery where they make and sell their own bread.
These are just the sort of places that make disabled people feel their lives are worthwhile. Now they are to be sold off, against the wishes of the population there, to make a profit for anyone but the people who live there. The whole ethos will be changed.

An interesting article in yesterday's Guardian for those who want to read it. "Disability means expense."
A report from Scope said that disabled people are twice as likely as others to live in poverty as their costs are much greater, in fact £550 per month on average.
£2 per hour doesn't give them much dignity, does it?

A very disturbing read about Camphill, durhamjen. I get the impression that 'caring' Cameron, Freud and their cronies are preparing to do domething nasty there subject, of course, to Cameron still being being PM should Rochester go belly-up for him in a few weeks time.

If an unemployed disabled person is paid £2 per hour and the wage made up by the government, is s/he counted as in employment or just another benefit scrounger?

So what do you think about what's happening at the Camphill Village Trusts, then, Ana?

You're so right, rosequartz!

It's not just Remploy.
The CQC is now threatening the way of life at all Camphill Village Trusts.
Too much to put on the website.
Here's a link.

www.actionforbotton.org/botton-needs-help

By the way the CQC is the present one which has a political head in the form of an ex-Tory MP who was voted out.

Some posters can put a political spin on any situation!!

So Labour started closing down the Remploy factories, the Tories continued what Labour had started. However, it seemed to have been OK for Labour to do this, but not for the bad Tories.

(unbelievable! said in the disgusted tone of voice that only my Aussie relatives can manage. There is no point in joining in with some threads.)

I am just listening to Radio 4'S any questions phone in Any Answers.

Most of the people agreeing with Lord Freud's statement were the parents of adults with severe learning difficulties. Who from their parents statements realistically just cannot progress within a workplace environment and are not capable of effectively earning the minimum wage.

There was a garage owner talking who said he "employed" a disabled lad who could do basic cleaning, car washing and a few other task for half a day and he paid him about £10 a day for that help.

He was basically doing the lads mum a favour and the boy enjoyed his "job".
Small businesses cannot just carry employees who cannot earn a living.

Remploy - I've now had a chance to refresh myself about its sad demise. Set up in 1944 it led to the creation of 83 nationwide factories for handicapped people but in 2008, 29 of these factories were closed by the then Labour government who decided to redirect the handicapped back into mainstream employment, which they successfully managed to do. However, in 2012 after consideration for two years, the Coalition government headed of course by Cameron, announced the withdrawal of further subsidies and Remploy closed down 33 of its least viable remaining factories with the loss of 1,752 jobs. Of the remaining 20 factories 5 more have since been closed and the fate of the rest is uncertain. That's the effect Cameron and his cronies have had on Remploy, not to mention all the other changes forced on handicapped and unemployed people. So Milliband was quite right to take Cameron to task over Freud's utterances. Cameron's concern about the handicapped in general is paper-thin and not worth our further consideration. I rest my case.

I agree with previous comments, the government was wrong to close down Remploy.

I find it offensive that huge profits can be made, yet many employees have to claim tax credits to top up their wages. How can that be right? Tax payers funding the profits of multi nationals, many of which do everything they can to avoid paying tax.

Is it too much to expect large organisations like the supermarket/coffee house chains to employ staff with disabilities. Access to Work would assist in identifying what support the employee would need. If practical items like voice activated computers, ergonomic chairs etc are needed, access to work pays half the cost.

It was me, I think.

Getting worried about all the things DH and I are forgetting, losing, etc these days (lost my glasses, jings so please excuse me, another
bloody £200 to find).

Some of us are getting older jinglbellsfrocks so truth to tell we are likely to repeat things. My apologies if I missed what you said

#thatwasyesterdayandIhavehadtwoglassesof sincethen
#mymemoryisnotwhatitwas

Not at all, you are NEVER ignorable!!

" I think you have a point there, Gracesgran. I think what he was saying (very clumsily) is that an employer could be reluctant to take on a disabled person but could be encouraged to do so if he could pay less than the minimum wage, and the rest of the wage be made up by the Government. "

I could have sworn I said that yesterday.

#wonderwhymypostsaresoignorable

I would also add that perhaps you think the trauma and anguish of having a disabled family member or losing children can be measured on how well-off that family is? An interesting graph to be pondered on?

papa Just to say that I regard any handicap as a terrible thing to happen to anybody or any family whatever their status
Really? From your quite nasty remarks I would doubt that. I would assume from your posts that you think that having wealth or money of any kind shelters people from the trauma of bringing up a disabled child and the anguish of that child's death.
Shocking remarks!

Gracesgran If you actually listen to it, it is obvious that he (Freud) did not mean that people with any sort of challenge were personally worth less but that their economic contribution might need support to make them attractive to an employer.

I think you have a point there, Gracesgran. I think what he was saying (very clumsily) is that an employer could be reluctant to take on a disabled person but could be encouraged to do so if he could pay less than the minimum wage, and the rest of the wage be made up by the Government.

I do not personally think this is the right stance to take and it is not Tory party policy, but nevertheless I can see some reasoning behind it.
It is encouraging employers to take on disabled people and give them a worthwhile job and sense of worth and at the same time the Government will help by taking up the slack.

Not necessarily the right way forward but worth discussion without left-wing hysterics, surely? Even if the idea is discarded as unfeasible and patronising perhaps any ideas are worth consideration.