[size=150:2qlk0geh]I've put this here for discussion, I have raised 2 issues! so tell me has the uk got its priorities wrong :shocked1:or do you think this is right?

Prisoners to earn minimum wage, Prisoners should get £12,000 a year to work full-time, says Ken Clarke
[size=85:2qlk0geh]Prisoners will get a substantial pay rise in a reform of behind-bars work

Prisoners who agree to work full time will be paid the minimum wage worth up to £12,000 a year tax-free, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke will announce today.

The convicts would receive £5.80 an hour – compared with the current maximum prison wage of £9.60 a week – and be allowed to keep about £20 a week.

The idea is for the rest of the money to be shared among the inmates’ families, victim groups and the prison service to help cover bed and board.

One idea is to pay some of it into a pot to which burglars, muggers, rapists and other criminals can gain access after going straight for two years.

New prisons could be built around existing factories to give the criminals easy access to jobs in a secure section.

Their expected tasks would include repairing shoes, recycling and inputting data for big private firms such as Cisco systems.

The Justice Secretary, who has already stoked controversy by calling for fewer convicts to be imprisoned, said he no longer wanted jails to be places of ‘institutional idleness’.
Pugh

Mr Clarke can expect criticism that prison is supposed to be a place of punishment, where inmates work for the bare minimum.

But he will claim that – by making prisoners work for 40 hours each week – they are more likely to be able to gain a job on the outside.

He will say: ‘Most prisoners lead a life of enforced, bored idleness, where getting out of bed is optional.

‘If we want to reduce the crimes these people will commit when they get out, whilst boosting the amount that can be provided for victim support, we need as many prisoners as possible to work hard for regular working hours.

‘We have to try to get those people who have the backbone to go straight. To handle a life without crime when they have finished their punishment.

‘So we will make it easier for prison governors to bring more private companies into their jails to create well-run businesses, employing prisoners in regular nine to five jobs.’

The Ministry of Justice plans to enact dormant legislation – the 1996 Prisons Earnings Act. It would allow prisoners to have deductions made from their wages.

At the moment they do not pay taxes.

The plans received the backing of the Howard League for Penal Reform, which argues that the coalition should go further by allowing prisoners to pay taxes to the state.

Director Frances Crook said: ‘I am so pleased we are getting somewhere at last.




Child benefit cuts for better off are fair - Cameron

David Cameron has defended plans to cut higher rate taxpayers' child benefit, saying it is fair to ask them to contribute to cutting the deficit.

He said he knew cutting the benefit for people on more than £44,000 would not make him popular - but it was the "
right thing to do"
.

The prime minister said he wanted to protect the poorest and neediest as the government tackled the £155bn deficit.

On Monday Chancellor George Osborne said that from 2013 the benefit would be removed from families with at least one parent earning more than about £44,000 a year.

Hours later children's minister Tim Loughton told Channel 4 News the move to cut the benefit from 1.2 million families might need revising, with possible compensating measures for those "
genuinely in need"
, and he raised the possibility thresholds could be adjusted.

But he later wrote on the social networking site Twitter that people were "
over-excited"
by his comments adding: "
Calm down. Of course I'm not calling for review. Yes it's tough but fair."


Ms Cooper, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said the government's policy was "
now unravelling"
adding: "
They have clearly been taken aback by the reaction of parents across the country.

"
George Osborne and David Cameron obviously don't understand what it means for families on middle incomes to lose thousands of pounds a year."


The child benefit threshold was aligned with the higher-rate 40% income tax threshold to avoid complex means testing but there has been criticism that the move will penalise some families where one parent stays at home to look after the children.

While families with two earners on just under £44,000 each - but collectively about £80,000 - would keep child benefit, those with one earner on more than £44,000 would lose it.

The BBC News Channel's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg said many Conservative MPs were nervous about the change and a couple had suggested it could be the government's "
10p tax moment"
- a reference to Gordon Brown's decision to axe the lowest tax rate, which proved hugely unpopular.
'Makes sense'

And Conservative former shadow home secretary David Davis told the Daily Mail: "
It would be fairer to consider family income rather than that of individuals.

"
As it is, this does encourage wives or mothers to go out to work. It is an accidental piece of social policy."


Mr Cameron told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that while people on £44,000 were not rich - they were "
a lot better off"
than those trying to raise a family on £25,000 a year adding that the cut - estimated to save £1bn a year - "
makes sense"
.

"
In the spending round we're having to make difficult decisions. This is £1bn I don't have to take off the education budget.

"
I want to make sure in Britain we have real social mobility and life chances given to the poorest children in our country so they can go to the best schools and the best universities and we can have a truly mobile Britain.

"
That does mean in a spending round you have to ask better off people to make a contribution so you can protect the most vulnerable and help them have a better life."


He said it was "
an argument about fairness"
and pointed out Mr Osborne also planned to cap the amount of benefit people could receive - so they never got more than the average working family brought home in pay - estimated at about £26,000 a year.

That would mean benefits would be restricted to £500 a week from 2013 and would be thought to affect 50,000 households, who would lose an average of £93 a week.

The limit would not apply to people on disability living allowance, war widows' pensions and working tax credit.

Mr Cameron said 85% of people would continue to get child benefit and assessing the whole family's income would have necessitated "
an incredibly bureaucratic and expensive"
and "
intrusive"
system, means-testing every family in the country.

Accusing the previous Labour government of having "
bankrupted the country"
, he added: "
It is difficult. I wish I wasn't having to do this, but we have to deal with the problems in front of us."


Asked about speculation that other universal benefits - like winter fuel payments and free bus passes for pensioners - might be cut, he said: "
Obviously you have to wait for the spending review announcement but I made some pretty clear promises to pensioners in our country, and those are promises I want to keep."

The UK Government consistently moves from brilliance to more brilliance. What can you say. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nothing ever surprises me! they take from those who pay more into the system and give it to the criminals

Prisoners in the UK have had it too easy for too long, I don't mean about the 3 meals a day ( with special diets catered for) , nice warm cells and television - although most pensioners would look through the bars in envy. No, I mean we should use this idle workforce and not try to keep them busy with hobbies and councelling, In America it has long been the norm that prisoners work. Whether it is farm work to provide food for the prison kitchen or manufacturing white goods they are required to put in an 8 hour day of productive labour.
I'm sorry I used the phrase PRODUCTIVE LABOUR - I realsied after I typed it that in the UK it is a contradiction in terms

Now figure the real math. 50,000 prisoners pay up £120m a year. What happens to the other £496,720,000? That's a smidgeon under £10,000 per prisoner. It gets paid to the criminal, and who pays out for this income for prisoners? YOU do. The taxpayer, on the figures, if you go inside for 5 years, you come out and get handed £50,000. Nice little earner for the habitual criminal who was going inside anyway

Clarke makes the rest of the government look intelligent!!

If all of the country’s 85,000 inmates were to work 40 hours a week, their total income would be around £1billion. They would be likely to get employment rights – raising the prospect of them joining a union

I am sorry but if you are in prison you loose all your rights,and as far as i am concerened bread and water is what they should have,is it not supposed to be a punishment,you loose all your rights,3 meals a day free board access to internet,learn a trae,tv playstations,ect ect,what a laugh,some pensioneres cant afford one meal a day,the government are crazy,lockt them up with the rats no heating let them suffer thats what i say



Mike

Prison was supposed to be a punishment that you wouldnt want to do again,why not have them work for their keep anyway ,instead of everything being funded by the taxpayer ,if you dont work you dont eat ,and dont get out till you do, might have to have gaurds on the outside to stop the public breaking in to find jobs where they get the same wage with everything paid for ,and all the recreational facilities laid on for free

And what about issue 2 I know something had to give, although it would be fairer if it were based on the overall household income and not on the single income of the only person working. As it stands households where both parents are working and earning for eg £40,000 each are breathing a sigh of relief at the moment. Glad they've started to tackle the benefit system but will be interested to see if they continue the hard stance with people claiming benefits they are not necessarily entitled to, and those who won't rather than can't work??? I am a stay home mum, but fully intend to return to work, albeit in a part time capacity when my youngest starts school, and I welcome the changes

So a family income of over 44k gets hammered while a family income of 80k is not effected - how exactly is that fair? Should rich boy Cameron not be dealing with inefficencies rather than hitting hard working - tax paying households???

Has the UK lost the plot !!!!!!! after reading all this [size=200:24ai7gb4]YES!!!!

In Arizona, the prisoners are kept in tent city ,made to wear pink uniforms and given work outside during the day,if they moan they have their salt ,pepper and ketchup taken from not just the moaner but from all of them so they all suffer. But these prisoners have the upmost respect for Sheriff Opiho. And the prisoners from Arizona are the leastlikely to reoffend :Cool3:We used to live near Hollesley holiday camp sorry prison and often the police were called to the pub where they would sneak off and have a swift one The prison system is a joke!!

Do the crime and get paid the fine ! They can't lose. Will they pay tax and insurance out of that ?
Why have so many of us left ? Getting more than most pensioners that have worked since 15 yrs of age, disgrace. They should make them pay board and lodgings.

The unemployed don't get treated this well :Headbang:I take it In Britain the real criminals are the unemployed ?

My personal opinion is that child benefit should be scrapped altogether

Harsh maybe, but at the end of the day why should the tax payer or anybody else for that matter, foot the bill because joe bloggs and his wife have decided to have a child/ren?

If you cannot afford to bring a child into the world then dont simple as that, how many times have we read in the press about young girls getting pregnant so they can get a council house, and become a burden on the tax payers with all the different benefits on offer to them? Yes it takes 2 to tango, and the male should be held fully responsible in the upkeep of the child, he has the choice of a couple of quid for condoms or quite a few thousand quid in maintainance for the next 16 or 17 years.

Am I tory voter ? Not ruddy likely, but come wednesday I think there are going to be quite a few shocks in store for the benefit scroungers in the UK when the cut backs are announced that will affect everyone in the UK.