Pay black people £2 per hour as that’s all they’re worth? Now you get why Freud has to be sacked

The scurrilous and offensive remarks of Lord Freud over people with disabilities should have seen him sacked.  Last night on BBC Question Time he was defended to the hilt in a disgraceful example of people not getting what he said.

The simplest way to GET what he said is to subititute “black” for “disabled” and THEN you get it so below I have simple cut and pasted my blog from Wednesday with that change

It reads:

Lord Freud, said by many to be the architect of the bedroom tax and some wider welfare reform policies has been recorded saying black people are NOT WORTH THE MINIMUM WAGE of £6.50 per hour and should be paid £2 PER HOUR FOR THE WORK THEY DO.

Here is a link to how Sky News report this which includes the tape recording of Lord Freud saying this.

There should be no need for any comment from me other than to say resign yet Cameron defended him at today’s Prime Ministers questions.

For every minute Lord DAFT (David Anthony Freud Tory) dallies and dithers as to resign or not the pressure on Cameron and the Coalition government to sack him rises ten-fold and if Cameron does not act swiftly then the political repercussions for the Tory Party are huge as the general public will believe Cameron and the Tories support his outrageous view.

The Sky News report reads:

In a direct challenge to David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ed Miliband revealed comments made by Lord Freud at a think-tank event in which he suggested BLACK workers should only be paid £2 an hour and not the full £6.50.

Lord Freud made the comments after being questioned on BLACK people and the minimum wage by a Conservative councillor. According to sources at the event the question was specifically aimed at the mentally handicapped.

He said:

“Now, there is a small…there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they’re not worth the full wage and actually I’m going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it’s working can we actually … “

Resign or be sacked!

 

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Pay black people £2 per hour as that’s all they’re worth? Now you get why Freud has to be sacked

    1. I agree! I see little sense in substituting black for disabled. Fraud inferred disabled, he did not refer to race. Disabled can be any colour whereas black is black.

    2. The point is more that these few disabled were so disabled as to make them economically unviable to hire even at a minimum wage. They were so disabled they couldn’t do the work, basically. In general terms you don’t hear of someone being too black to hire at a minimum wage, do you? The whole analogy’s irrelevant.

  1. Above you’re swapping ‘black’ for ‘disabled’ in what you wrote, what Sky reported and what Miliband said, not what Freud said. You should anyway have changed ‘mentally handicapped’ for ‘black’ in the last sentence to be consistent. So in your examples above you’re not doing what you purport to do, switching ‘black’ for ‘disabled’ in what Freud said, instead you’re switching ‘black’ for ‘disabled’ in examples of what people said Freud said, which is not the same thing. I have to say I’m staggered by the misreporting going on by otherwise conscientious, informed and accurate commentators across the board. I think myself, just to make it clear, Freud, IDS etc should have been up on charges of fraud, conspiracy to defraud etc. long ago but that’s for what they’ve actually said and done, not for what they’re being misreported as saying. What’s wrong with everyone? All the evil stuff he’s come out with in the past and the media haven’t taken a blind bit of notice. Now he’s all over the media for stuff he didn’t say in the first place. If we really did substitute ‘black’ for ‘disabled’ in what he said we’d get this (and I’m taking it from here, which is the most accurate record I can find of what he said, please advise if you have a better one http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/106453/fresh_freudian_slip%3F.html) “…You make a really good point about the black.” or we could say blacks to be grammatical. Or we could say Jewish, or women, to continue our reference to Sue Jones suggestion. He goes on to say “Now I had not thought through, and we have not got a system for, you know, kind of going below the Minimum Wage.

    “But we do have… You know, Universal Credit is really useful for people with the fluctuating conditions who can do some work – go up and down – because they can earn and get…and get, you know, bolstered through Universal Credit, and they can move that amount up and down.

    “Now, there is a small…there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they’re not worth the full wage and actually I’m going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it’s working can we actually…””

    Now, we’re not talking about all blacks, or all Jews, or all women, or blacks Jews and women in general are we? We’re talking about some blacks, some Jews, some women, specifically a small group in each case in fact, as Freud indicates above. What is it that separates these few from the majority of blacks, Jews and women? Freud says of them, to Scott, “as you say they’re not worth the full wage” and extrapolating from the context of that conversation we can see this is because they can’t do the job required of them to the appropriate standard. They’re being distinguished from other blacks.Jews and women because they can’t effectively do the job in question, not because they’re blacks, Jewish or women. Those factors are irrelevant.

    The analogy doesn’t stand.

    We might also note, without getting heavily into it, that there are varying degrees of disabled people. It would be very wrong to generalise and Freud, showing a side we very rarely see of him, to his credit doesn’t.

  2. Its simply highlighting the fact that this is an issue of economic discrimination, in which any minority group can face. It flies against the idea of equal pay for equal work!

    Lets not forget now that as well this disablist view of wage discrimination from the Tories, this year alone Tories have come out in saying that people with learning disablities shouldn’t exercise there right to vote and people with mential health issues (and also Autism) “refrain from commenting in the public domain”!

    1. You say, if I’m understanding you correctly, “It flies against the idea of equal pay for equal work!” Um, it doesn’t, the whole point is these people couldn’t manage the ‘equal work’ bit as their disabilities meant they weren’t up to it. If you’re all for people getting equal pay for equal work then presumably you’d be against people getting the same pay for less work. Why aren’t you agreeing with Freud then, that being unable to properly do the job these people aren’t worth paying the full minimum wage? I hope a moment’s thought might convince you you may, like many, have got confused about the actual issues involved here.

  3. Bill by equal work are you refering to number of hours? If not then its not a simple issue to discount all disabled people access to employment. Also the barriers to employment, work place support and keeping a job, the type of work and the ablities of disabled people do come into play!

    Currently the National Minimum Wage is at £6.50 per hour for 21 and over, £5.13 per hour for 18 to 20, £3.79 per hour for under 18s, and for apprentices it is £2.73 per hour.

    Assuming the national minmum wage for disabled people is £2 per hour. A disabled person over 21 would lost £4.50 per hour due to being disabled!!

    Women use to be payed less that women before the Equal Pay Act 1970 which is now superseded by the Equality Act 2010.

    1. Equal hours? I was thinking in terms of time, yes. I’m thinking a lot about piecework where you have a small workshop with a handful of jigs in it, each need to turn out X completed units a day to be profitable. Piecework like where you take a unit, a lead slug or similar, you align it in the jig, you pull a lever on a drill till the drill comes down and goes through the slug, then you raise the drill till it clears the unit, turn the slug around, realign it and drill the other end. Then you take the slug from the jig and put it in the box for drilled units. You’d need guys who could do the work in a reasonable time and we’d determine that by measuring abled guys, not disabled ones as ableds are the majority. You couldn’t have a guy who worked there, disabled, abled, black, Jewish, a woman, whatever if he was so slow that employing him became unprofitable because you wouldn’t make any money, you’d go out of business even if you only had to pay him £2 an hour. There’s no point paying a guy even £2ph if he doesn’t make enough to cover it. Changing tack, why would you assume a nat. min. wage for disableds of £2? No-one’s talking about the disabled in general, just those unfortunates who really are so disabled no employer might realistically be expected to employ them even at a minimum wage. Freud suggested too that such a shortfall in wages would be made up for perhaps by UC. I understood him to mean that the government would make up the difference between that and the minimum wage through some agency. Do you disagree? Are we worried about what they’re paid finally, through their employer and through the government, or just from their employer? Another distinction needs to be made too, while I think about it. The gardening work, which could be carried out at leisure with no time constraints so far as I’m aware, bears no comparison with work along the lines of the piecework I’ve described above. Comparisons between the two should not be made, therefore and points made through such comparisons are invalid.

  4. In my opinion no-one, and I mean NO-ONE of any group, large or small and over the age of 21 should be paid £2 per hour! It’s discriminatory and Freud and anyone involved in such “talks” knows that and should be made to resign, or be sacked!

    1. How then do we employ people who wish to be employed and earn a wage but realistically are so disabled (or black, or Jewish, or women – see above) as to be unable to work in any productive capacity? They can’t all be gardeners and that’s seasonal work anyway – what are we to do with them the rest of the time?

  5. Reblogged this on The Greater Fool and commented:
    This is precisely the point. Disability discrimination has become the new acceptable prejudice. It’s perfectly acceptable to call the disabled “lazy”, “shirkers, “worthless” but subsitute “disabled” for “Black”, “Asian” or “Irish” and it totally changes the perspective and highlights the ignorance. Imagine how you’d react if a politician stated that “Black people are only worth £2 per hour”. You’d be up in arms about it. They’d have already been sacked in disgrace and would be well on their way to de-selection but for Lord Fraud to say that “Disabled people aren’t worth the full wage” and could be paid “£2 per hour” just proves the deep seated bigotry of the man. The fact that he still has a job shows how weak a Prime Minister Camoron is and how popular the bigoted views are in the Tory party. It also proves once and for all that the Tory attitude towards the disabled is that they should all be working regardless of how ill they are and how much it shortens their lives.

    1. See everything I’ve said above, which you appear to have ignored entirely. I’d be interested to see you addressing my points instead of ignoring them and simply repeating the same nonsense based on wrongly attributed misquotes etc.everyone else is coming out with.

  6. “Now, there is a small…there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they’re not worth the full wage and actually I’m going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it’s working can we actually … “ Please point out where he said disabled? The fact he meant them is obvious when we are talking about Lord Freud. Had he, actually said the word “Disabled” or “Black” or “Gay” then we would have known and he would have got the boot.

    Unfortunately, as big an idiot as he is, he didn’t.

    However, any Tory who has been elected should resign, certain Tory MPs should remove themselves from the planet (for most of them the gene pool is too late),

    1. His thinking out loud was in response to a question about the disabled by a counciler/MP? who along with being quite deroatory about a number of people with mental problems also admitted setting up a company and making a disabled person with mental acuity problems a “director” expressly to avoid paying the minimum wage.

      Quite frankly how the instigator of frauds public “free thinking” thought process has managed to escape quite unscathed for what could be considered a criminal offence of setting up a company with the express intent of avoiding the minimum wage legislation is in itself quite abhorrent.

  7. I’m sorry, but while I accept the criticism of substituting the word ‘black’, I think people are being a tad naïve in talking about ‘some people’. It is never an easy job to differentiate between people, though you may think it so when you compare extremes. It is the grey area that is important, and how you make the fine distinction between someone who is not quite able and someone who can just about do it. We currently have a WCA that is struggling to make these very distinctions. The logical path for this kind of thinking is to judge everyone on their merits, which may seem ok to some people at first glance, but it actually means dismantling or removing the minimum wage. I personally wouldn’t want to go there, but then that’s because I know how little money that many employers would wish to pay their staff.

  8. paying those with severe mental health (etc) issue £2ph actually breaches the spirit of the minimum wage. It was set up to produce a glass floor through which no one (yes no one able bodies or disabled) should fall). Unfortunately corporate government has turned this into a glass ceiling. I don’t care what businesses think. You DO NOT have to employ someone incapable of doing the job. If you are turning them down on inability to do the specific job. (ie you do not expect a blind person to drive a bus).But to employ someone who IS capable of performing the job and then refusing to pay them at least the minimum wage (would prefer living wage myself) then you are pissing on them. Plus how blurry is the term some people. OH lets pay humans with x condition £2ph. He he – they can manage so lets give that to all disabled. Oh no we’re not saving enough lets pay everyone below boardroom £2ph. Right that’s our profits and bonuses up. Our workers can feck orf to the food banks to live

  9. Firstly, I watched question time and saw how the majority of the panel defended him.
    He won’t be sacked. He will be shuffled along and kept out of the public eye for a while……
    So, pay a Disable person, £2 an hour. And make up the rest from, ‘some other government fund’ or UC . What would the criteria be I wonder?? How many would ‘fall through the net’??
    I am Disabled. 95% bed bound. I also have Bipolar. Being a disabled person, in this country is no picnic. I can assure you.
    We, already have to suffer immense stress and distress. Filling out complicated forms. with ‘such stupid’ questions on their long, complicated.forms.
    To get DLA. Or now, PIP. Which is much harder to get. Deal with appeals etc.
    Many disabled people with mental health issues. Are penalised. With this process.
    Then, there are those, Disabled people, who are found, ‘fit for work’. for, non-existent jobs.
    I read, just the other day, a woman in a coma, was found fit for work!!
    There are much wider issues. so, is it any wonder, that disabled people, are deeply offended by his comments.
    Especially, when we are fully aware of this governments, attitude to a very large section of our communities.
    Oh and let’s not forget, what we have to go through with the Bedroom Tax!!
    We live in specially adapted properties, for our needs.
    We are not exempt. And, so, yet another fight, we have to endure.

  10. I have been saying the same thing as Joe for some time in several debates. No one would think it acceptable to say such things about any other group in society. We cannot discriminate against blacks, ethnics, gender or age, yet it is as though some people do not even see the disabled as human beings. This is what needs to change.

    I say this in general and not just in reply to Lord Freud’s crass comments. There is no excuse for the hate crime that this government, along with the media, have whipped up among the public.

Please leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s