Companies are to get tax breaks to take on X offenders why should they have an advantage over a person who has never broke the law and is desperate for a job, if you don't want to do the time (and have a criminal record) don't do the crime.
X - offenders.
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
We used to get them as labourers thru' the agency at our works until a few years ago. Useless all of them and I for one felt distinctly uneasy in their presence. Any one of them could have been a psychotic murderer for all I knew, capable of turning at a slight, imagined or real.
The money grabbing employers will realise the folly of their ways when something goes badly wrong or half the company's stock mysteriously disappears.
The money grabbing employers will realise the folly of their ways when something goes badly wrong or half the company's stock mysteriously disappears.
Pope
Regular.
It's a difficult one.
I agree that criminals should be punished and rehabilitated. However, taking emotion out of the debate; once they have served their time, they will need to be able to sustain themselves. If being an ex convict prevents someone from getting work, then they'll need to sustain themselves via illegal means or permanently via the welfare system (not to mention, they're being punished twice for the same crime if that crime prevents them getting work after they've served their time). If it is via illegal means and assuming they get caught, it's going to cost the victim(s) of the crime, the police time and money investigating the crime, the CPS and courts money convicting them and the prison system money incarcerating them. I think most people would agree, that vicious circle suits nobody.
That said, I am not one for giving tax breaks to companies and oppose giving an ex convict an advantage over another person applying for the same job. Not only is that unfair, it creates even more division amongst the working classes*.
*Maybe this is the end game - divide and rule.
I agree that criminals should be punished and rehabilitated. However, taking emotion out of the debate; once they have served their time, they will need to be able to sustain themselves. If being an ex convict prevents someone from getting work, then they'll need to sustain themselves via illegal means or permanently via the welfare system (not to mention, they're being punished twice for the same crime if that crime prevents them getting work after they've served their time). If it is via illegal means and assuming they get caught, it's going to cost the victim(s) of the crime, the police time and money investigating the crime, the CPS and courts money convicting them and the prison system money incarcerating them. I think most people would agree, that vicious circle suits nobody.
That said, I am not one for giving tax breaks to companies and oppose giving an ex convict an advantage over another person applying for the same job. Not only is that unfair, it creates even more division amongst the working classes*.
*Maybe this is the end game - divide and rule.
Most of the people running the shoe and key shops Mr minute ?? I have heard are ex cons...
Spot on.
Pope
Regular.
Hardly. It's an oversimplification and conflation of two separate issues. For a start; as the Tories love to tell us, unemployment is very low*. Also, the phrase "long term unemployed" people can include people who are too disabled to work, too ill to work and are full time carers for family members (who save local authorities a fortune on social care costs).
Additionally, it doesn't address the issue at hand - employing ex convicts, rather than a cycle of reoffending and imprisonments at the taxpayers expense.
*Food banks are being used by employed people who are barely getting by, but so long as unemployment figures are down, then who cares!?
MarkBowie
Regular.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2016
- Messages
- 408
- Reaction score
- 139
Yes long term unemployed is a generalisation but it is not two separate issues. Neither does it need to not be simple. There always needs to be allowances for carers, disabilities, learning difficulties etc but I did not say they should be made to work. That is a different discussion. What I said is people who have struggled to find a job may find it easier if employers were given a tax break for employing them. And I think a period at her majesty’s leisure would probably render them unemployed for a period considered “long term” so solves both problems. I was merely saying committing a crime shouldn’t put you to the front of the queue in front of law abiding citizens who haven’t got a pot to piss in.
MickDundee
Landlord.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2016
- Messages
- 5,493
- Reaction score
- 4,056
I think Wolverine would be pretty good in some jobs - butcher, confidential shredding man, hedge pruner.
Pope as I said if anyone should get a leg up to get back into work it should be long term unemployed who didn't choose to lose their job by committing a serious crime and getting locked up.
Pope
Regular.
I'd say they are separate, because one issue is talking about employing ex convicts, preventing a life of reoffending, etc, and the other is employing long term unemployed who aren't necessarily ex convicts. However, I'm probably arguing semantics there.
I'm in agreement, that those who can't work shouldn't be made to. I'm glad you clarified that, I was worried you were going down the "scroungers, grrrrrr", lazy argument.
As previously stated, I'm no fan of giving companies tax breaks. "And I think a period at her majesty’s leisure would probably render them unemployed for a period considered “long term” so solves both problems". By this statement, are you suggesting that both the long term unemployed and ex convicts should be given an advantage, through tax breaks for potential employers.
I'm also in agreement that ex convicts shouldn't be given an unfair advantage over other jobseekers, for reasons I gave in my initial response.
Pope
Regular.
Agreed that they shouldn't be given an advantage over others. However, ex convicts shouldn't have their job prospects prevented* when they've already paid their debt back to society. Otherwise, it just leads to the vicious circle mentioned earlier.
*Obviously there are exceptions.
simon12
Landlord.
I think there should be extra support for ex offenders to get into work but paying companies to take them via tax breaks (or any other way) is not the best way. Volunteering at a local drop in centre and in winter the night shelter you see many people who come out of prison who can't get any benefits for 6 weeks+ theres almost no private housing that will take them anyway and it takes months if ever to get housed by a housing society so they are almost forced to shoplift to survive and then go back into prison instead of work.
How about bringing back workhouses?
I agree and it will be interesting to see how many of those bosses who would rather employ a person with no criminal record will change their minds because of this tax break.
Alex.mc
Regular.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2018
- Messages
- 315
- Reaction score
- 194
These debates are always too easy to allow to descend into minutae and multiple pathways of sematics. That's probably because it's a very complex problem!
My broad take on it is that the UK is a very rich country, and it's pretty damn shameful that the long term unemployed are treated so poorly, I have known a few guys who were in this bracket, and it's more difficult to escape than people imagine. They need support, and yes.... I'd like to see companies given invcentives to help them.
However, ex-cons..... we cannot remove or prevent, or make very difficult someone's ability to rejoin working life and expect there not to be consequences. If we remove that all we do is turn them into long term unemployed.
Some ex-cons are lost.. and will never not be a criminal. They will be a drain on society either way, either through being in prison, or being unemployed. Some however, had made bad decisions in life, and want desperately to leave it behind and change. They need help to do so, so they can become contributors to society rather than drains.
My broad take on it is that the UK is a very rich country, and it's pretty damn shameful that the long term unemployed are treated so poorly, I have known a few guys who were in this bracket, and it's more difficult to escape than people imagine. They need support, and yes.... I'd like to see companies given invcentives to help them.
However, ex-cons..... we cannot remove or prevent, or make very difficult someone's ability to rejoin working life and expect there not to be consequences. If we remove that all we do is turn them into long term unemployed.
Some ex-cons are lost.. and will never not be a criminal. They will be a drain on society either way, either through being in prison, or being unemployed. Some however, had made bad decisions in life, and want desperately to leave it behind and change. They need help to do so, so they can become contributors to society rather than drains.
Last edited:
simon12
Landlord.
The problem is complicated because every individual is an individual and government policies can only be aimed at a group. Thats what I like about the drop in centre as being a charity it can treat people as individuals and refer then to the correct groups which can be a mix of council, housing associations, food banks, rehab etc, and if nothing else give them something to eat. It would be great if councils would be more supportive of this type of organisation but they seem to work against them more than with them.
ACBEV
Old Member
Gainful employment or more criminal activity... Such a hard concept to get your heads around!
So give all the X cons the majority of the semi skilled jobs because if they don't they might break the law again and **** the law-abiding long term unemployed. 
BeerisGOD
Landlord.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2016
- Messages
- 1,436
- Reaction score
- 342
I saw a short clip of a young (late teens) homeless guy who wasn't taking drugs and boozing but just trying to find a place to live and a job
He'd applied for jobs, housing etc
Even the reporter had to comfort him as he was at tipping point
It's these cases I feel we need to put money by for as more a priority over ex con's
It shouldn't be like this today
Makes me sad that without help he will just be another hopeless casualty that we could have prevented
He'd applied for jobs, housing etc
Even the reporter had to comfort him as he was at tipping point
It's these cases I feel we need to put money by for as more a priority over ex con's
It shouldn't be like this today
Makes me sad that without help he will just be another hopeless casualty that we could have prevented
Similar threads
