Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Steelworker

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I had no idea those on furlough weren't happy with it, if that's the case we should scrap it. This money obviously has to be paid back by someone, if not those that are receiving the money then it means everyone paying it back. It's clearly unfair for those working through this to pay for those that aren't. It keeps getting repeated that those furloughed had no choice but many employees pressured employers into furloughing. Next warehouse tried to stay open and offered an extra 20% pay to get people to come in, but they had to furlough because the staff refused. What realistic alternative did they have. Lots of other places have offered premiums to keep people coming in, otherwise closure and furlough looks the alternative.
  2. You're spot on mrcharlie. Some will say they would rather work than furlough, in which case the employer should ask for volunteers, who wants to work and who wants to stay home on 80% pay. The furlough scheme has a minimum of 3 weeks and with you talking about July, they could do a rota to make it fairer. Half the workforce works the next 4 weeks and then the other half works the following 4 weeks. Your point about the different tax code for those receiving furlough seems reasonable. Those working through this with no choice and receiving no help from the government, shouldn't have to pay for this when taxes go up.
  3. All local authorities were told a few weeks ago to do whatever they can to get the homeless inside, empty hotels were suggested. The government only put a few million £ into this scheme specifically, but referred to an extra £1.6bn in funding for councils to respond to coronavirus pressures. There's still plenty of homeless (or beggars) about in Sheffield not sure why this is. Empty hotels and apartments should be plentiful, money perhaps an issue but if other places have enough why not us, perhaps some of the homeless are refusing the help.
  4. You have no idea of his circumstances. How do you know he was homeless? The Big Issue is classed as self employment and Romanian and Bulgarian migrants have been able to come to the UK to sell the big issue on self employment visas. Over half of big issue sellers in 2011 were from Romania or Bulgaria. Importing poor economic migrants to compete with the domestic homeless in selling magazines doesn't help the domestic homeless or reduce beggars in the street, it does the opposite. With an increasing homeless population the big issue is most effective if people use it as a stepping stone to move on when they're back on their feet, so other homeless people have the opportunity. If someone is working for the big issue for 8 years, the big issue has failed to give them support and help to move on so the next homeless person can step up. Seems like the big issue system has broken down, it's not getting people off the streets and it is actually drawing in more homeless from across Europe.
  5. The Big Issue is clearly failing if someone can sell it for 8 years without their situation changing. The blokes making a career out of an opportunity that is supposed to be reserved for the homeless, and therefore he is hurting the homeless in the same way fake beggars do. Either he is gaming the system and using it as an alternative to other low skilled work or the big issue has failed.
  6. Because it goes against all the ethos of the big issue which is supposed to help the homeless. It's not supposed to be about competing with or providing an alternative to other low skilled work. If he struggles with an environment like you suggest then he needs help and therapy to overcome it.
  7. If true, after 8 years of continual income from selling these magazines he should have moved on to work he wouldn't have been able to acquire before. I thought the big issue was all about giving people a start and a first step, not for long term careerists. He's hurting people, he is hurting other homeless who are selling the big issue or want to, by competing with them. Perhaps they have just taken the opportunity and it's all they have available, whereas this guy should be able to move on to a supermarket or warehouse job after 8 years, surely.
  8. I have some sympathy for both employee and employer. If the employer didn't deduct the amount they were owed from the final wage, they would probably have to chase it through the courts which would be expensive and time consuming. The holiday pay and hours worked have been paid but they have offset it against the money the employee owed them. I don't know what the law says or if it's clear.
  9. Cycling on the Moor - doesn't bother me at all, in fact I've never noticed it. People looking down at their phones not looking where they are going are the biggest hazard, along with people running too fast.
  10. I think they must be really struggling to make money and keep shops open anyway, the cashgenerator shop opposite wilkinsons closed last year, that should have created more business for the cashconverters store on west street but that closed a few months ago too. The truth is for outright selling there's always a better place, usually ebay which is where the stores sell most of their stuff.
  11. It's hardly surprising that a second hand retail shop can't compete with a specialist gold trader. I've sold gold to Chapel jewellers in the past because they offered way more than the other jewellers who weren't much better than the pawn shops, Chapel state they pay the highest prices in Yorkshire. You should always shop around and find the places likely to pay most for the item, it's horses for courses. Just like CC wont compete with The Chapel on gold buying, the Chapel Jewellers wont compete with CC on used laptops and vacuum cleaners. Oops just re-read and understand that you didn't sell to Chapel but other gold buyers they recommended, but the point still stands that specialised gold buyers pay more than second hand pawn shops.
  12. Not at all. I look at ability to do the job. I believe you can learn a trade or do further education if incarcerated, and get help for addictions, this would greatly improve his job prospects and could perhaps turn his life around. Perhaps a talk with the cops will scare him into changing if he hasn't been in trouble with them before. There's a lot of baseless assumptions being made that the gym owner can do a better job turning this persons life around than the professionals. He's not qualified as far as I see, if he finds himself with a new employee that has a bad attitude and addictions will he stick it out or move him on? The whole ideal is flawed and if we replaced our justice system with this 'restorative justice' ideal we would be worse off. It would be every person for themselves, the thief would only ever be accountable to the victim (if caught) and would have infinity chances.
  13. He wants the thief to work off the roof repair costs. He may be well intentioned but why does he think he can do a better job than the justice system and professional rehabilitation workers. If he really wants to help young criminals and he can do better than the current professionals he should change career. Is he willing to accept responsibility if the thief robs my house under his care? He is wrong when he says not many people would do what he's offering. If you get robbed the chances are you don't get your things back. What he has offered is for the thief to repair his roof so it puts him in his previous situation and in return he wont go jail. It's selfish and misguided, a good deal for him and the thief perhaps, but what about anyone else who may get robbed.
  14. Go ahead and explain what the difference is instead of pointless insults. I can only assume you think there's some significant difference between the victim contacting the criminal and naming his price to be bought off, and the criminal contacting the victim and asking what he wants to keep quiet. There isn't. If this justice ideal became widespread thieves would pay the costs on the slim occasions they're caught and bank the profits when they're not, I imagine a lot more would take up the trade. Is that what you want?
  15. It's exactly the same thing which is why I said it was a slippery slope. How is someone working to pay off the roof costs (which could be substantial), any different to someone paying the victim some money to cover the costs. The courts and justice system should decide what the punishment is. If the gym owner successfully negotiates his own justice with the criminal instead of prosecuting, will he take responsibility if the criminal breaks into another building next month, doubt it.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.