Innocents affected by this

lynzpower

Other funds are spent, not on meeting real public needs, but on recruiting an army of well-paid officials to impose the fashionable dogmas of equality and diversity. Among the publicly subsidised posts advertised last week were a "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Worker" in Southwark, on a salary of up to £30,267, a "Doctrine Developer', on £35,190, at the National Centre for Policing Excellence, and a "Head of the Awareness and Involvement Unit" at Scottish Natural Heritage, on £33,136.

With no clear service to perform, so many state bureaucracies create pointless hierarchies to justify their own existences and create the illusion of importance. A classic example of this disastrous approach can be seen in the recently established regional development agencies, which spend £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money on self-generating, paper-shuffling activities.

the thing is, that no matter how many times I read these sorts of jobs- and whats written about them aor HOW they are written about, it staggers me.

If youve ever worked in for example social care, then youll know that a lesbian and gay worker is a fundamental post when working with young people. As a social worker, I realised when i needed one, that there wasnt one in the authority that I worked in, and ther ewas no one else with specific group counselling skills that could perform this duty - or run the workshops that the young person needed to help them come to terms with the voilence meted out to him.

I think local government do in some respect make a rod for thier own back in calling the jobs what they are. EG, if this lesbian&gay worker was called Youthworker- Counselling ( which is likely to be to the main thrust of the day to day job) then most of us would see that as a valuble role within society.

Many jobs dont "pay" ie recieve or generate income, but its not to say that they dont add value, and indeed, many jobs particularly like the one above, will encourage economic activity, by supporting people to be able to co-operate & integrate into society. Otherwise the youngsters in question could end up developing restrictive lifestyles, hiding away in bedrooms on incapacity for depression & not participating in the labour market through lack of confidence/fear/ etc .

I agree that local authorities are wasteful, I worked in one for years and there is a serious amount of waste - the company I work for sells a poduct to local authorities for less than 10% of what they spend on the traditionl option- but they are "tied in" to contracts, thats the bigger waste IMO.

When I was a social worker, I managed to secure enough money out of the cash pot to bya cot & mattress for a family who had no money nor were not entitled to benefits. I could ONLY buy fom Argos or mothercare. Client sid heer mate had a cot thatshe was trying to sell for 30 quid, could she have the money to buy it diectly, or could I pay the freind for the item. Seemingly not, as the freind was not an "accredited" supplier. Needless to say 150 quid later a brand new cot bought from Argos :wall:

WTF?_2

PasturesNew wrote: »

It was the mid 70s, working class, female.
I didn't know what it was all about to be honest.

The careers teacher asked girls: secretary, nurse, hairdresser or work in a shop/factory?

Look on the bright side; Our society has 'evolved' to the point where these days 'celebrity WAG' is the actual height of ambition for a majority of young women

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/women-in-twenties-spend-1631000-a-month-on-the-wag-lifestyle-408395.html


Those with more drive presumably aspire to becoming a 'get rich and famous quick' reality TV star, which seems to be the other big goal of the young.


I'm off to find a handcart...... it's going to be needed pretty shortly.

lostinrates

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Look on the bright side; Our society has 'evolved' to the point where these days 'celebrity WAG' is the actual height of ambition for a majority of young women

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/women-in-twenties-spend-1631000-a-month-on-the-wag-lifestyle-408395.html


Those with more drive presumably aspire to becoming a 'get rich and famous quick' reality TV star, which seems to be the other big goal of the young.


I'm off to find a handcart...... it's going to be needed pretty shortly.

Sometimes I wish I could thank a post twice.

chimp_choker

dopester wrote: »

That story sounds a bit far fetched in places chimp choker, especially the scrounging food and compost bit.

Although I've just done a search for "helicopter" in your history and you do recount that tale back in March. If it's even half-true then that seems quite a journey you've been on.

It truly has been a roller coaster ride dopester and one I don't wish to repeat. Mind you to compound my bad luck I couldn't even get divorced !!! Stephen Speelberg phond me up the other day and asked if I could do a cameo role in his next blockbuster about a man down on his luck but fought back....

I don't need to worry if you believe me or not dopester as I'm more leveled and humble than that now but to clarify we didn't do all matches in the air. From recolection it was 3 matches in 03/04 Bristol, Blackpool and Plymouth ( torquay). Also Plymouth, Bournmouth and Cardiff in 04/05. As for the food bit try phoning your local dss crisis line and see how long it takes to get through. I believe it is a national system so I'm hoping all areas are the same. Bearing in mind you are in a crisis when you can't get through for days on end it does compound problems.

Please be my guest and have a look at your local supermarket delivery areas. Best times are generally after 12 am or before 6 am. You don't have to go in any compounds as that would be tresspassing but just watch and see what is thrown out.

Take care my friend,

Chimpy

fc123

I think it's great for Chimp to post his story. Many would never dare.
:T on the weight loss..where you really that many pounds?
I notice younger (under 35 mainly) hold the view that one should know better, or one should prepare etc etc.
Many live like that but if one has an element of risk in ones work ....well...anything can happen.
Plus.......
Ones well paid job relies on your intelligence (born with, then nurtured by education and good parenting) but one day, a car knock mucks it all up.
Life throws all sorts of stuff at people. Post 40 is good..one stops judging.

And the LBM that Chimp had may have saved his life if that was what prompted the 'No more pies' lifestyle...though, obviously, he couldn't afford many pies for a while.

Sir_Humphrey

dopester wrote: »

The public sector needs radical reform, not more tinkering at the edges. That is what Sir Peter Gershon recommended in his recent efficiency review of the public sector from which Mr Brown plucked the figure of 104,000 job cuts. But Sir Peter went far further than mere redundancies, arguing that public bodies should adopt a far more flexible, entrepreneurial outlook, one geared to achieving real value for money. In practice, this would require an aggressive re-engineering of the state's entire operations and structures, the kind of drastic changes regularly carried out by US corporations to meet new challenges.

I suppose you think you can employ more teachers without HR staff to back them up for example.

The Civil Service could operate like a commercial organisation. I could "charge" people for the services I offer, with the highest bidder winning. Such a free market system operates in many countries, such as Nigeria, Bangladesh and Kenya.

Of course people love to say "wouldn't it be great to have fewer public sector workers", until they see their kid in a class of thirty-five, no police on the beat, kiddies being killed by their parents etc etc etc. Public sector efficiency would be much greater if hospital wards only had one nurse each, and teachers taught classes of 100.

Of course you may also think that the government will try to increase unemployment during a recession, so increasing public spending on dole payments. After all, that was such a sensible policy in the early 1980s, which meant that we were able to enjoy the worst recession since the 1930s. Of course this would not have a knock-on effect on private sector employment as public sector workers never buy anything produced by the private sector, nor do public sector bodies ever procure anything from private sector companies.

You may like to argue that the public sector does not contribute to GDP. This is of course true, what use to the economy is a literate population that are sufficiently healthy to work? It is interesting how public utilities suddenly contributed to the economy as soon as they were privatised.

It is also interesting how useful it is to have thousands of people being employed in ad agencies, management consultancies, chain coffee shops and other such essential private sector areas. Perhaps we should reemploy Doctors as personal trainers for pets. It must be more useful as they would become private sector workers.

In case anyone is wondering, I am being sarcastic.

dopester

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Of course you may also think that the government will try to increase unemployment during a recession, so increasing public spending on dole payments. After all, that was such a sensible policy in the early 1980s, which meant that we were able to enjoy the worst recession since the 1930s. Of course this would not have a knock-on effect on private sector employment as public sector workers never buy anything produced by the private sector, nor do public sector bodies ever procure anything from private sector companies.

I sort of understand you. By firing all the people who've been given a "made-up", "non-value" job by Labour, with their income coming from our taxes, you're suggesting they wouldn't have the money to then pay for the goods from the private sector and so hit private sector profits.

It's just when the private sector really begins to suffer, I don't see how we can afford to keep all the waste in the public sector in their fancy soft jobs on their top-whack pay.

Sir_Humphrey

dopester wrote: »

I sort of understand you. By firing all the people who've been given a "made-up", "non-value" job by Labour, with their income coming from our taxes, you're suggesting they wouldn't have the money to then pay for the goods from the private sector and so hit private sector profits.

It's just when the private sector really begins to suffer, I don't see how we can afford to keep all the waste in the public sector in their fancy soft jobs on their top-whack pay.

If you read a certain poster over on HPC, you may get the impression that all Civil Servants earn £130k a year. Well, yes if they are a director in charge of a budget of £100million+. Most Civil Servants are AOs or EOs earning 12-22k a year (a few grand more if in London area). Until recently there was an even lower grade AA (Admin Assistant). I believe this was largely abolished when the minimum wage came in.

In the 1960s, it made little difference if you worked in the public or private sectors. From the 1970s onwards, private sectors lost employment rights and pensions, whereas public sector workers were either privatised (with cuts to pay and benefits) or lost up-front pay.

You should not be surprised if the average wage in the public sector is higher than the private sector, as the really cr***y jobs have been privatised (binmen, cleaners, street cleaners). Also, there are no "McJobs" in the public sector. You need to compare comparable jobs.

I posted a link to the main Civil Service careers website, so you can judge for yourself.

I also refute that there are any more made up jobs in public organisations than in large private sector firms. Just because they do not benefit you personally does not make them useless. We are not all white English males.

LillyJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

It was the mid 70s, working class, female.
I didn't know what it was all about to be honest.

The careers teacher asked girls: secretary, nurse, hairdresser or work in a shop/factory?

Then you're out in the world of work and having to pay your way.

There was no careers fairs, consultations, information. No work experience. I knew very little of the world/jobs. I just thought you went out to work, worked hard, got promoted and everybody was the same. I had NO idea people earnt such different wages etc.

Living in a village in East Anglia in those times there was a very limited view of the world.

I was about 35 when I was helping somebody with CVs for a well paid job and everybody applying was my age and it was a £250k job. And I was gobsmacked... these people were my age and the only difference between them/me was they had a degree and had started off in good/top jobs right from the off.

It was only then that I found out what a degree was: a way to get to doing bigger/better jobs right from the start.

I had no idea. Registered with the OU straight away. Only got through half of that though before life was too distributed/changeable to keep it up (and I couldn't afford it).

That is a shame, my Mum is in her late 40s and is from a small town in the North where she went to a comprehensive school. She lived in a council house with her miner Dad and dinner lady Mum. She went to teacher's training college away from home, and became an English teacher. (That's where she met my Dad, he was at Uni at the time).

My father is from a similar background to my Mum but in London, and his older sister also went to University.

It seems that your school let you down in some ways as the oppurtunity must have been out there, you just weren't given a fair shot.

sho_me_da_money

pickles110564 wrote: »

I agree totally with what you have said, but certain people in your industry give you ALL a very bad name.
Only the other day I was quoted £900 to replace and repair a large area of decking at one of my rentals.
After visiting the site myself I realised he was taking the P*ss, it only took me the morning and £20 to fix it myself.
If he had quoted me £250 I would not have even bothered ckecking for myself.

Thank you Europeans! I've saved a packet with you guys.