The Public Sector Cuts - Anyone worried?

steveymp

36square wrote: »

Then why is it that the people making the most noise against cuts are those employed in the public sector (including the NHS).

A valid enough point too;)

We are obviously concerned about our jobs, but we are more concerned about the loss of our service to the people that most require it. As I have said there is scope for cuts throughout the Public Sector, I can see inefficiencies everyday by having a walk around the hospital where I work and I'm sure there is more in other sectors of Public Service throughout our wee country. I have said it before and will say it again, cut the Chiefs, not the Indians, but that won't happen because it is the chiefs that are asked to identify cost savings and they are most unlikely to flag up their own positions:o

Even the Muppets on the hill seem to agree with me these days
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11692971

Mind you they should step outside the greenhouse before throwing their stones:rotfl:

x12yhp

On a different section of the public sector - Policing.

What are the proposed cuts here? The renewed level of violence and highly elevated threat levels mean that there is trouble enough at existing staffing levels... it just won't be possible to maintain the overall level of policing if routine calls are needing extra staffing to keep staff safe. Safety will have to come first so that overall level will be forced to drop...

steveymp

x12yhp wrote: »

On a different section of the public sector - Policing.

What are the proposed cuts here? The renewed level of violence and highly elevated threat levels mean that there is trouble enough at existing staffing levels... it just won't be possible to maintain the overall level of policing if routine calls are needing extra staffing to keep staff safe. Safety will have to come first so that overall level will be forced to drop...

Full time reserve which was supposed to be done away with this year, have had contracts extended for anyone willing to do it, for another 6 months. This is due to current circumstances, further contract extensions are not being ruled out:o

x12yhp

steveymp wrote: »

Full time reserve which was supposed to be done away with this year, have had contracts extended for anyone willing to do it, for another 6 months. This is due to current circumstances, further contract extensions are not being ruled out:o

Well.... this is sensible. If only they would tie the budgets for policing and benefits.... there might be more co-operation in tackling the violent elements if people knew their payouts would go down everytime the violence went up!!**

**This bit was a 'throw away comment'. It was made in some level of jest... Just in case anyone gets confused and takes it seriously.

Golden_Anemone

x12yhp wrote: »

Well.... this is sensible. If only they would tie the budgets for policing and benefits.... there might be more co-operation in tackling the violent elements if people knew their payouts would go down everytime the violence went up!!

So let's get this right - you are saying that disabled people, the sick, those who have been made redundant in their 50s and can't get work, the elderly without occupational pensions etc. should have their benefits cut because a shower of drug dealing criminals decide to start a riot and get the neighbourhood disaffected teens to join in?

Nice world you want to live in where the most disadvantaged in society pay for the sins of the criminal few! * God I miss the Roll Eyes smiley *

x12yhp

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

So let's get this right - you are saying that disabled people, the sick, those who have been made redundant in their 50s and can't get work, the elderly without occupational pensions etc. should have their benefits cut because a shower of drug dealing criminals decide to start a riot and get the neighbourhood disaffected teens to join in?

Nice world you want to live in where the most disadvantaged in society pay for the sins of the criminal few! * God I miss the Roll Eyes smiley *

Frankly... what the hell planet are you living on?!

You honestly believe that the bulk of benefits seekers living in west belfast (for example) are disabled, sick or have been made redundant in their 50s!? I think you need a reality check.:rotfl:

icelandic_queen

I think this post has taken a turn for the worse!!

Golden_Anemone

x12yhp wrote: »

Frankly... what the hell planet are you living on?!

You honestly believe that the bulk of benefits seekers living in west belfast (for example) are disabled, sick or have been made redundant in their 50s!? I think you need a reality check.:rotfl:

I'll type this very slowly so you can keep up...

The latest complete statistics for people dependent on benefits are for February 2010. They say that:

1.53 million people were claiming jobseekers allowance

0.7 million were lone parents on income support

2.66 million were claiming ESA or incapacity and

2.74 million relied on Pension Credit

Hence over 5 million of the around 7.5 million people dependent on such benefits are sick or elderly.

Just because the Daily Mail says the vast majority of benefits are paid to the workshy it doesn't make it so.

I worked in a benefits office for 15 years and visited customers in their homes seeing terrible deprivation. You have never worked in one but know different. Yeah, right! Keep reading the right wing propaganda.

x12yhp

Oh I do hate when someone quotes a tertiary statistic and thinks that is the end of the story. I think it enough to say that you have provided a set of stats but you have not provided the context of just what the numbers mean. If you ran a poll on here, do you really believe the result would be an approximately gaussian distribution with a mean somewhere in and around 7-8% (as your statistics would imply)?

I should also point out that your experience makes you somewhat biased. You are as unbiased in view about this group as Bill Gates is when commenting about billionaires. In both cases there is an abnormal exposure to the groups in question. In your case even more so because it isn't likely that someone was going to make a great effort to prove their situation anything other than deprived when someone in your role came calling!

I will have to leave all debate about the daily mail to you and others. It is clear that you are biased compared to the mail. Quite what the truth is, I do not know. But I do find it amusing that the mail gets stick from a bunch of people who are sufficiently biased as to consider themselves free of bias. Maybe I'll pick up a copy tomorrow and see why you like reading it so much.

Golden_Anemone

Thank you for letting everyone see exactly what [or should I say who] you are always overestimating.

Anyone who believes that living on benefits means living the high life needs a reality check.

The only people who live well on benefits are the fraudsters and criminals but you recommend cutting benefits when violent crime rises. The criminals would continue to have their additional illicit incomes and wouldn't even notice. The only people who would suffer are those who play by the rules and live in abject poverty.

The fact that you attack me for stating such a simple truth speaks volumes - and not about me. Of course I'm not unbiased but my bias is based on real knowledge and actual witness whereas your "unbias" appears to be based on ignorance, generalisation and innuendo. I'll let others decide which is more reliable.