Please Answer No One Is Answering
Family & Relationships0 min ago
Do you agree or disagree with today's public Sector protests?
67 Answers
http://
With the Private Sector also experiencing cuts and other changes to their less generous pension schemes, can the general public find any sympathy for these Public Sector workers?
Since it is illegal for Prison Officers to strike will they all be prosecuted, if not perhaps our Armed Forces should also down weapons because their pensions have also took a hammering, not to mention the conditions they have to work under?
With the Private Sector also experiencing cuts and other changes to their less generous pension schemes, can the general public find any sympathy for these Public Sector workers?
Since it is illegal for Prison Officers to strike will they all be prosecuted, if not perhaps our Armed Forces should also down weapons because their pensions have also took a hammering, not to mention the conditions they have to work under?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I was in the public sector for many years until I had to retire due to ill health, what alot of people do not realise is that public servants have to pay a large sum every month towards the salary, also many times you found yourself covering for collegues on holiday or ill. No temps in the public sector, just get the other staff to do more, work unpaid overtime.
I support them entirely, the pay is not as good as some private sector, many choose to be public servants as they want to help their local community and having a decent pension is the right of all. If not we could end up having to work until we drop, and I do not want to live in a country where everyone has to work without some time at the end to relax and enjoy the older years.
I support them entirely, the pay is not as good as some private sector, many choose to be public servants as they want to help their local community and having a decent pension is the right of all. If not we could end up having to work until we drop, and I do not want to live in a country where everyone has to work without some time at the end to relax and enjoy the older years.
-- answer removed --
Totally agree, if you pay into an insurance (which is what Pension is really) you would not expect to claim and to be told that you could only have half an item was worth, because the insurance company didn't have enough money to pay what they owed you.
Mind you its alot like change of contract , both myself and husband has contracts changed every year or so. You either sign and agree or effectively make yourself unemployed.
People should stick to agreements.
Mind you its alot like change of contract , both myself and husband has contracts changed every year or so. You either sign and agree or effectively make yourself unemployed.
People should stick to agreements.
dinky....you Insurance Company analogy.........the company has never had enough money to keep your contributions, but it maintained them by using the pensions from the private sector. In 1997 or thereabouts Gordon Brown creamed the top off private pensions to support the public sector pensions and hence reducing them.
I didn't hear the public sector coming out against that reduction in pension funds.....not a peep groom the public sector workers.
No......I don.t support their actions.
I didn't hear the public sector coming out against that reduction in pension funds.....not a peep groom the public sector workers.
No......I don.t support their actions.
// That must be the most absurd analogy you have ever made Gromit. //
I knew you wouldn't like it. So you think it is acceptable to change public sector employees pensioners but not yours. You (probably) retired at 65. What is to stop thew Government saying we have changed our minds and you now have to work and move into a cheaper house?
http://
I knew you wouldn't like it. So you think it is acceptable to change public sector employees pensioners but not yours. You (probably) retired at 65. What is to stop thew Government saying we have changed our minds and you now have to work and move into a cheaper house?
http://
Gromit
/// I think you missed the reference to Workhouses. Something that existed until the socialists under Clement Attlee's Labour Government scrapped it in 1948. ///
And almost re-introduced by the Brown Labour Government.
/// Brown announced that “from now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes”. ///
/// I think you missed the reference to Workhouses. Something that existed until the socialists under Clement Attlee's Labour Government scrapped it in 1948. ///
And almost re-introduced by the Brown Labour Government.
/// Brown announced that “from now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes”. ///
I understand why people may be pee'd off.. but I dont support these strikes. We are all taking a hit and having a hard time - and if we are in this together then no-one should be ring-fenced to protect their pockets.
The pension pot cannot possibly support the amount of public workers out there - the maths doesnt add up... so where do they expect the difference to come from?
I know.. raise taxes on the private sector and get them to swallow the costs!
The pension pot cannot possibly support the amount of public workers out there - the maths doesnt add up... so where do they expect the difference to come from?
I know.. raise taxes on the private sector and get them to swallow the costs!
// Seems like the support for the public sector strike action on AnswerBank, doesn't tally with the Telegraph poll. //
Torygraph readers are bound to vote against it. Ask the same question in the Morning Star and the vote result would be reversed. Both are biased. AB is probably more representaTive of the general public as it does not have one political party to support.
Torygraph readers are bound to vote against it. Ask the same question in the Morning Star and the vote result would be reversed. Both are biased. AB is probably more representaTive of the general public as it does not have one political party to support.
I can sympathise with the pension situation but agree with the government that the public sector pensions are no longer sustainable.
I worked for BT (GPO telephones when I joined) and kept on working for them even when working conditions deteriorated purely to qualify for my final salary pension.
The scheme was closed to new entrants, I think about 10 years ago, and my understanding now is that the staff who have been there years, paying into the final salary scheme, are now going to receive an average salary pension.
One of the myths was that public servants put up with lower salaries than the private sector purely because of the gold-plated pension, but I understand that in fact their pay overall, was actually higher, not lower.
Unfortunately, I think it's time the public sector smelled the coffee and emerged into the tough world the private sector has faced for years.
I worked for BT (GPO telephones when I joined) and kept on working for them even when working conditions deteriorated purely to qualify for my final salary pension.
The scheme was closed to new entrants, I think about 10 years ago, and my understanding now is that the staff who have been there years, paying into the final salary scheme, are now going to receive an average salary pension.
One of the myths was that public servants put up with lower salaries than the private sector purely because of the gold-plated pension, but I understand that in fact their pay overall, was actually higher, not lower.
Unfortunately, I think it's time the public sector smelled the coffee and emerged into the tough world the private sector has faced for years.
AOG
/// Brown announced that “from now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes”. ///
That was not compulsory. Teenage mums could opt in or not as they wished.
Edition: [email protected] outMobile About us Today's paper Subscribe
News
Sport
Comment
Culture
Business
Money
London 2012
Life & style
Travel
Environment
Video
Apps
Offers
Jobs
News
Society
Teenage pregnancy
Confusion over Labour's plan to house young mothers in supervised homes
Share 18
Email
Amelia Gentleman
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 20.18 BST
Pregnant woman. Photograph: Katie Collins/PA
The prospect of supervised homes for teenage mothers was one of the most eye-catching policy announcements Gordon Brown made in his speech, but the absence of any clear detail about how the commitment would be implemented triggered unease from charities who support young parents.
"I do think it's time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of 16, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own," Brown told the conference.
"From now on all 16- and 17-year-old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That's better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run."
Many such supervised homes exist already, but currently the decision of whether or not to be housed in one is left to the individual young parent. The government's teenage pregnancy strategy, launched in 1999, has already pledged to offer sheltered housing to those young parents unable to continue living at home. Despite this commitment, teenage parent support groups say sufficient resources have not so far been made available to fund enough buildings to be fitted out as mother-and-baby hostels – some areas have good provision, others have opened fewer homes.
The commitment to providing more of these homes was met with clear support from charities, but the suggestion lingering underneath that there might be an element of compulsion to the scheme elicited alarm.
No details of how the policy would work were immediately available from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, prompting one campaigner to ask if there was to be "compulsory internment" of teenage mothers in hostels. There was no information available about whether there would be extra funding for such a scheme, or whether there would be any obligation for teenage parents to move into supervised housing.
The Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group welcomed the prime minister's announcement that there would be more support for young parents, adding: "Many young parents are still living in unacceptable housing conditions and we welcome the government's commitment to address this situation."
However, in the absence of further details of the commitment, other charities were concerned by the tough tone that accompanied the pledge, which several saw as an attempt to engage with a middle-England contention that teenage girls get pregnant in order to get council accommodation.
Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: "This is an ill-thought out sop to an ill-informed section of public opinion that misunderstands the causes and consequences of teenage pregnancy."
Hilary Pannack, chief executive of Straight Talking Peer Education, a charity that works to reduce teenage pregnancies and to support teenage parents, said: "There is an assumption in Gordon Brown's speech that all teenage parents are bad parents but this is not the case."
In 1998, Labour announced a target of halving teenage pregnancy by 2010. Since then, overall rates of teenage pregnanc
/// Brown announced that “from now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes”. ///
That was not compulsory. Teenage mums could opt in or not as they wished.
Edition: [email protected] outMobile About us Today's paper Subscribe
News
Sport
Comment
Culture
Business
Money
London 2012
Life & style
Travel
Environment
Video
Apps
Offers
Jobs
News
Society
Teenage pregnancy
Confusion over Labour's plan to house young mothers in supervised homes
Share 18
Amelia Gentleman
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 20.18 BST
Pregnant woman. Photograph: Katie Collins/PA
The prospect of supervised homes for teenage mothers was one of the most eye-catching policy announcements Gordon Brown made in his speech, but the absence of any clear detail about how the commitment would be implemented triggered unease from charities who support young parents.
"I do think it's time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of 16, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own," Brown told the conference.
"From now on all 16- and 17-year-old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That's better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run."
Many such supervised homes exist already, but currently the decision of whether or not to be housed in one is left to the individual young parent. The government's teenage pregnancy strategy, launched in 1999, has already pledged to offer sheltered housing to those young parents unable to continue living at home. Despite this commitment, teenage parent support groups say sufficient resources have not so far been made available to fund enough buildings to be fitted out as mother-and-baby hostels – some areas have good provision, others have opened fewer homes.
The commitment to providing more of these homes was met with clear support from charities, but the suggestion lingering underneath that there might be an element of compulsion to the scheme elicited alarm.
No details of how the policy would work were immediately available from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, prompting one campaigner to ask if there was to be "compulsory internment" of teenage mothers in hostels. There was no information available about whether there would be extra funding for such a scheme, or whether there would be any obligation for teenage parents to move into supervised housing.
The Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group welcomed the prime minister's announcement that there would be more support for young parents, adding: "Many young parents are still living in unacceptable housing conditions and we welcome the government's commitment to address this situation."
However, in the absence of further details of the commitment, other charities were concerned by the tough tone that accompanied the pledge, which several saw as an attempt to engage with a middle-England contention that teenage girls get pregnant in order to get council accommodation.
Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: "This is an ill-thought out sop to an ill-informed section of public opinion that misunderstands the causes and consequences of teenage pregnancy."
Hilary Pannack, chief executive of Straight Talking Peer Education, a charity that works to reduce teenage pregnancies and to support teenage parents, said: "There is an assumption in Gordon Brown's speech that all teenage parents are bad parents but this is not the case."
In 1998, Labour announced a target of halving teenage pregnancy by 2010. Since then, overall rates of teenage pregnanc
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
"they are responding to the idiotic government plans"
well then the current idiotic government are thus responding to the previous idiotic government who spent all our money and promised pots of gold that could never be delivered!
Someone wonderfully fluffed up BIG time somewhere.. and not just in the last 2 years!!!
well then the current idiotic government are thus responding to the previous idiotic government who spent all our money and promised pots of gold that could never be delivered!
Someone wonderfully fluffed up BIG time somewhere.. and not just in the last 2 years!!!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.