Three Hampshire firms named and shamed for failing to pay minimum wage

Firms named and shamed for failing to pay minimum wage

Firms named and shamed for failing to pay minimum wage

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by

THREE Hampshire companies which failed to pay their staff the national minimum wage have been ''named and shamed'' by the Government as part of a new crackdown.

Central Heating Services Ltd in Farnborough, Saftdwin Ltd in Old Basing and Zoom Ltd in Havant were exposed on a list of 25 employers which between them owe workers more than £43,000 in arrears, and face fines totalling over £21,000.

Central Heating Services Ltd neglected to pay £6,200.28 to four workers, car dealers Saftdwin Ltd neglected to pay £806.37 to two workers and women’s hair and beauty firm Zoom Ltd neglected to pay £242.28 to three workers.

Business Minister Jenny Willott said: ''Paying less than the minimum wage is not only wrong, it's illegal. If employers break the law they need to know that they will face tough consequences.

''Any worker who is entitled to the minimum wage should receive it. If anyone suspects they are not being paid the wage they are legally entitled to they should call the Pay and Work Rights helpline on 0800 917 2368.''

TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: ''It's great that minimum wage crooks are finally getting named and shamed.

''Under-paying your lowest paid staff is immoral and illegal. Employers caught in the act deserve to be fined and have their reputation ruined.

''This should send a clear message that dodging the minimum wage does not pay. All minimum wage cheats should be named and shamed, and HMRC need greater resources to catch even more crooks.''

The Government plans to increase fines so that an employer underpaying 10 workers could face penalties of up to £200,000.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:38pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?
Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black? Dai Rear
  • Score: -23

1:46pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?
Yeh I don't think that phrase means what you think it does.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?[/p][/quote]Yeh I don't think that phrase means what you think it does. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 13

1:57pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?
Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?[/p][/quote]Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 12

2:08pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?
Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower?
I think that we pay far too much tax. I think that the State likes to spend as much as it can get away with. I think that an example of that is "Pay and Work Rights", or whatever, quangos. I think that if I was a single person and I was only going to get £252.40 a week on PAYE and the boss said "Do you want 40 quid cash-in-hand?" I would take it.. I have no evidence it was happening here, but , although I know you always speak from the High Moral Ground, what would you do?
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?[/p][/quote]Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower?[/p][/quote]I think that we pay far too much tax. I think that the State likes to spend as much as it can get away with. I think that an example of that is "Pay and Work Rights", or whatever, quangos. I think that if I was a single person and I was only going to get £252.40 a week on PAYE and the boss said "Do you want 40 quid cash-in-hand?" I would take it.. I have no evidence it was happening here, but , although I know you always speak from the High Moral Ground, what would you do? Dai Rear
  • Score: -13

2:14pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Dai Rear wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?
Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower?
I think that we pay far too much tax. I think that the State likes to spend as much as it can get away with. I think that an example of that is "Pay and Work Rights", or whatever, quangos. I think that if I was a single person and I was only going to get £252.40 a week on PAYE and the boss said "Do you want 40 quid cash-in-hand?" I would take it.. I have no evidence it was happening here, but , although I know you always speak from the High Moral Ground, what would you do?
There's no need for personal needle Dai - I asked a simple question. Which you've ducked by not answering it. What would you do with the minimum wage itself - enforce it, change it, or get rid of it?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?[/p][/quote]Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower?[/p][/quote]I think that we pay far too much tax. I think that the State likes to spend as much as it can get away with. I think that an example of that is "Pay and Work Rights", or whatever, quangos. I think that if I was a single person and I was only going to get £252.40 a week on PAYE and the boss said "Do you want 40 quid cash-in-hand?" I would take it.. I have no evidence it was happening here, but , although I know you always speak from the High Moral Ground, what would you do?[/p][/quote]There's no need for personal needle Dai - I asked a simple question. Which you've ducked by not answering it. What would you do with the minimum wage itself - enforce it, change it, or get rid of it? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 6

2:16pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

To answer your question, I would keep the minimum wage and I would also encourage employers to pay the (higher) Living Wage by incentivising therm through lower corporation taxes.
To answer your question, I would keep the minimum wage and I would also encourage employers to pay the (higher) Living Wage by incentivising therm through lower corporation taxes. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 7

2:20pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?
Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower?
I think that we pay far too much tax. I think that the State likes to spend as much as it can get away with. I think that an example of that is "Pay and Work Rights", or whatever, quangos. I think that if I was a single person and I was only going to get £252.40 a week on PAYE and the boss said "Do you want 40 quid cash-in-hand?" I would take it.. I have no evidence it was happening here, but , although I know you always speak from the High Moral Ground, what would you do?
There's no need for personal needle Dai - I asked a simple question. Which you've ducked by not answering it. What would you do with the minimum wage itself - enforce it, change it, or get rid of it?
I'd leave it to the Trades Unions, voluntary organisations, of which I've been an officer, which don't take cash from the taxpayer. £48,000 a year for driving a tube train, Bob Crowe was my man & I couldn't care less he lived in public housing. Blame the darn fool state for that happening.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?[/p][/quote]Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower?[/p][/quote]I think that we pay far too much tax. I think that the State likes to spend as much as it can get away with. I think that an example of that is "Pay and Work Rights", or whatever, quangos. I think that if I was a single person and I was only going to get £252.40 a week on PAYE and the boss said "Do you want 40 quid cash-in-hand?" I would take it.. I have no evidence it was happening here, but , although I know you always speak from the High Moral Ground, what would you do?[/p][/quote]There's no need for personal needle Dai - I asked a simple question. Which you've ducked by not answering it. What would you do with the minimum wage itself - enforce it, change it, or get rid of it?[/p][/quote]I'd leave it to the Trades Unions, voluntary organisations, of which I've been an officer, which don't take cash from the taxpayer. £48,000 a year for driving a tube train, Bob Crowe was my man & I couldn't care less he lived in public housing. Blame the darn fool state for that happening. Dai Rear
  • Score: -13

2:26pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Dai Rear wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?
Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower?
I think that we pay far too much tax. I think that the State likes to spend as much as it can get away with. I think that an example of that is "Pay and Work Rights", or whatever, quangos. I think that if I was a single person and I was only going to get £252.40 a week on PAYE and the boss said "Do you want 40 quid cash-in-hand?" I would take it.. I have no evidence it was happening here, but , although I know you always speak from the High Moral Ground, what would you do?
There's no need for personal needle Dai - I asked a simple question. Which you've ducked by not answering it. What would you do with the minimum wage itself - enforce it, change it, or get rid of it?
I'd leave it to the Trades Unions, voluntary organisations, of which I've been an officer, which don't take cash from the taxpayer. £48,000 a year for driving a tube train, Bob Crowe was my man & I couldn't care less he lived in public housing. Blame the darn fool state for that happening.
So in other words, you still won't answer a straightforward question. I asked you about the minimum wage and you start talking about Bob Crow and his house instead. Try and stick to the subject. What would you, Dai, do about the minimum wage? You were motivated enough to start posting about it but now you won't answer. Keep it, raise/lower it, or scrap it? There are no other options.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Receiving minimum wage will put you in to Income and National Insurance Tax. Pot calling kettle black?[/p][/quote]Do we take it therefore that you don't think the concept of minimum wage is a good idea? Or that it should be lower?[/p][/quote]I think that we pay far too much tax. I think that the State likes to spend as much as it can get away with. I think that an example of that is "Pay and Work Rights", or whatever, quangos. I think that if I was a single person and I was only going to get £252.40 a week on PAYE and the boss said "Do you want 40 quid cash-in-hand?" I would take it.. I have no evidence it was happening here, but , although I know you always speak from the High Moral Ground, what would you do?[/p][/quote]There's no need for personal needle Dai - I asked a simple question. Which you've ducked by not answering it. What would you do with the minimum wage itself - enforce it, change it, or get rid of it?[/p][/quote]I'd leave it to the Trades Unions, voluntary organisations, of which I've been an officer, which don't take cash from the taxpayer. £48,000 a year for driving a tube train, Bob Crowe was my man & I couldn't care less he lived in public housing. Blame the darn fool state for that happening.[/p][/quote]So in other words, you still won't answer a straightforward question. I asked you about the minimum wage and you start talking about Bob Crow and his house instead. Try and stick to the subject. What would you, Dai, do about the minimum wage? You were motivated enough to start posting about it but now you won't answer. Keep it, raise/lower it, or scrap it? There are no other options. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 8

2:32pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement?
Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.
I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement? Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation. Dai Rear
  • Score: -18

2:53pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Dai Rear wrote:
I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement?
Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.
At least that's an answer, so thanks for that. No, I don't want the state to run retail food distribution. But I do want the state to have a role in making sure the food we eat meets standards of provenance and hygiene, which it does. Similarly I want the state to ensure that employers can't exploit the vulnerable by paying poverty wages. The minimum wage ensures this and the Living Wage would improve things further still.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement? Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.[/p][/quote]At least that's an answer, so thanks for that. No, I don't want the state to run retail food distribution. But I do want the state to have a role in making sure the food we eat meets standards of provenance and hygiene, which it does. Similarly I want the state to ensure that employers can't exploit the vulnerable by paying poverty wages. The minimum wage ensures this and the Living Wage would improve things further still. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 12

3:50pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Dai Rear wrote:
I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement?
Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.
Of course, this makes the assumption - incorrectly, if you ask me - that we know what's best for us.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement? Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.[/p][/quote]Of course, this makes the assumption - incorrectly, if you ask me - that we know what's best for us. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 3

4:03pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Kirsty666 says...

If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway
If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway Kirsty666
  • Score: 4

4:54pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement?
Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.
At least that's an answer, so thanks for that. No, I don't want the state to run retail food distribution. But I do want the state to have a role in making sure the food we eat meets standards of provenance and hygiene, which it does. Similarly I want the state to ensure that employers can't exploit the vulnerable by paying poverty wages. The minimum wage ensures this and the Living Wage would improve things further still.
It did the food stuff in the 19th century when the only government functionary you were likely to meet was a postman and the State didn't eat half of all we produced. I think we're all "vulnerable". The rapacious State whacks a minimum of 20% extra on nearly everything we buy. Your view , that the people getting less than £6 whatever an hour are too stupid to know it is a wee bit, er, patronising, isn't it? Could something else be going on ? e.g. work 16 hours a week etc and you get etc...? The 4 stupidest words spoken (late D of Windsor ) "something must be done" and the wisest?" Il faut cultiver notre jardin". The State needs your money. You barely need the State at all.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement? Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.[/p][/quote]At least that's an answer, so thanks for that. No, I don't want the state to run retail food distribution. But I do want the state to have a role in making sure the food we eat meets standards of provenance and hygiene, which it does. Similarly I want the state to ensure that employers can't exploit the vulnerable by paying poverty wages. The minimum wage ensures this and the Living Wage would improve things further still.[/p][/quote]It did the food stuff in the 19th century when the only government functionary you were likely to meet was a postman and the State didn't eat half of all we produced. I think we're all "vulnerable". The rapacious State whacks a minimum of 20% extra on nearly everything we buy. Your view , that the people getting less than £6 whatever an hour are too stupid to know it is a wee bit, er, patronising, isn't it? Could something else be going on ? e.g. work 16 hours a week etc and you get etc...? The 4 stupidest words spoken (late D of Windsor ) "something must be done" and the wisest?" Il faut cultiver notre jardin". The State needs your money. You barely need the State at all. Dai Rear
  • Score: -8

5:00pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Kirsty666 wrote:
If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway
No. You pay National Insurance Tax at that level, and of course the State will rip you off for about 66% of the price of the petrol to get you to work.
[quote][p][bold]Kirsty666[/bold] wrote: If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway[/p][/quote]No. You pay National Insurance Tax at that level, and of course the State will rip you off for about 66% of the price of the petrol to get you to work. Dai Rear
  • Score: -8

5:02pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Dai Rear wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement?
Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.
At least that's an answer, so thanks for that. No, I don't want the state to run retail food distribution. But I do want the state to have a role in making sure the food we eat meets standards of provenance and hygiene, which it does. Similarly I want the state to ensure that employers can't exploit the vulnerable by paying poverty wages. The minimum wage ensures this and the Living Wage would improve things further still.
It did the food stuff in the 19th century when the only government functionary you were likely to meet was a postman and the State didn't eat half of all we produced. I think we're all "vulnerable". The rapacious State whacks a minimum of 20% extra on nearly everything we buy. Your view , that the people getting less than £6 whatever an hour are too stupid to know it is a wee bit, er, patronising, isn't it? Could something else be going on ? e.g. work 16 hours a week etc and you get etc...? The 4 stupidest words spoken (late D of Windsor ) "something must be done" and the wisest?" Il faut cultiver notre jardin". The State needs your money. You barely need the State at all.
'You barely need the State at all'. So, you'd leave the 'market' to provide 1) roads, 2) schools, 3) hospitals, 4) defence, 5) the legal system - just to name 5?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement? Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.[/p][/quote]At least that's an answer, so thanks for that. No, I don't want the state to run retail food distribution. But I do want the state to have a role in making sure the food we eat meets standards of provenance and hygiene, which it does. Similarly I want the state to ensure that employers can't exploit the vulnerable by paying poverty wages. The minimum wage ensures this and the Living Wage would improve things further still.[/p][/quote]It did the food stuff in the 19th century when the only government functionary you were likely to meet was a postman and the State didn't eat half of all we produced. I think we're all "vulnerable". The rapacious State whacks a minimum of 20% extra on nearly everything we buy. Your view , that the people getting less than £6 whatever an hour are too stupid to know it is a wee bit, er, patronising, isn't it? Could something else be going on ? e.g. work 16 hours a week etc and you get etc...? The 4 stupidest words spoken (late D of Windsor ) "something must be done" and the wisest?" Il faut cultiver notre jardin". The State needs your money. You barely need the State at all.[/p][/quote]'You barely need the State at all'. So, you'd leave the 'market' to provide 1) roads, 2) schools, 3) hospitals, 4) defence, 5) the legal system - just to name 5? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 8

5:25pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

4 & 5 it has always done. And yes, the rest could no doubt be done much better by a very much smaller state or indeed no state at all. Would you rather your tax spent on fixing the holes in the road or on HS2? Tough. You can't choose, because you're getting HS2. You have to grasp that the state exists primarily to reproduce. like any other living organism. To hand over any function to that which could do it better/cheaper is to for the "state organism" to haemorrhage and it's not going to do that. So when it sub-contracts functions it makes sure it's done badly-PFI is a perfect classic -and then Wire and friends say "oh what a mess. Thank God for bureaucrats to protect us." And said bureaucrats blush at such praise, take on more clerks and get an OBE. I have more respect for anyone who writes on these pages (well nearly) than to say they couldn't better spend their own money on educating their children the way they want. South Staffs wasn't a "blip"; it was the state in action, believe me.
4 & 5 it has always done. And yes, the rest could no doubt be done much better by a very much smaller state or indeed no state at all. Would you rather your tax spent on fixing the holes in the road or on HS2? Tough. You can't choose, because you're getting HS2. You have to grasp that the state exists primarily to reproduce. like any other living organism. To hand over any function to that which could do it better/cheaper is to for the "state organism" to haemorrhage and it's not going to do that. So when it sub-contracts functions it makes sure it's done badly-PFI is a perfect classic -and then Wire and friends say "oh what a mess. Thank God for bureaucrats to protect us." And said bureaucrats blush at such praise, take on more clerks and get an OBE. I have more respect for anyone who writes on these pages (well nearly) than to say they couldn't better spend their own money on educating their children the way they want. South Staffs wasn't a "blip"; it was the state in action, believe me. Dai Rear
  • Score: -7

5:41pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

PS this is a PR exercise as you'll have recognised. "Look what a great job we're doing"
UKBA did it 3 years ago , launching highly publicised "dawn raids" on food processors in Banbury employing illegals. Actually they'd been employing them over a year, on PAYE, using NI numbers that either didn't exist or didn't relate to the employee. Whoopey! hurray! now UKBA could go back to increasing its employees and dealing with their childcare ishoos and their grievance procedures, for another year, another soft target, another fanfare of self-esteem. Recognise any similarities with the "low pay" quango and its lovingly prepared press release?
PS this is a PR exercise as you'll have recognised. "Look what a great job we're doing" UKBA did it 3 years ago , launching highly publicised "dawn raids" on food processors in Banbury employing illegals. Actually they'd been employing them over a year, on PAYE, using NI numbers that either didn't exist or didn't relate to the employee. Whoopey! hurray! now UKBA could go back to increasing its employees and dealing with their childcare ishoos and their grievance procedures, for another year, another soft target, another fanfare of self-esteem. Recognise any similarities with the "low pay" quango and its lovingly prepared press release? Dai Rear
  • Score: -5

5:58pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Dai Rear wrote:
4 & 5 it has always done. And yes, the rest could no doubt be done much better by a very much smaller state or indeed no state at all. Would you rather your tax spent on fixing the holes in the road or on HS2? Tough. You can't choose, because you're getting HS2. You have to grasp that the state exists primarily to reproduce. like any other living organism. To hand over any function to that which could do it better/cheaper is to for the "state organism" to haemorrhage and it's not going to do that. So when it sub-contracts functions it makes sure it's done badly-PFI is a perfect classic -and then Wire and friends say "oh what a mess. Thank God for bureaucrats to protect us." And said bureaucrats blush at such praise, take on more clerks and get an OBE. I have more respect for anyone who writes on these pages (well nearly) than to say they couldn't better spend their own money on educating their children the way they want. South Staffs wasn't a "blip"; it was the state in action, believe me.
Dai, society organises itself imperfectly, because humans are imperfect. But to suggest that something as important as defence can be left to 'no state at all' would see us regress to the small independent kingdoms that inhabited these islands before the Romans came. Similarly, if you follow your employment logic through to its natural conclusion you'd end up repealing all the important legislation of the last 200 years and end up with a landless, impoverished, disenfranchised class of people along with child labour.

You seem to revel and wallow in everything that's bad about the world, rather than ever offer constructive and realistic suggestions for improvement. Don't you get tired of this? Wouldn't you rather see a glass that's half full rather than half empty all the time?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: 4 & 5 it has always done. And yes, the rest could no doubt be done much better by a very much smaller state or indeed no state at all. Would you rather your tax spent on fixing the holes in the road or on HS2? Tough. You can't choose, because you're getting HS2. You have to grasp that the state exists primarily to reproduce. like any other living organism. To hand over any function to that which could do it better/cheaper is to for the "state organism" to haemorrhage and it's not going to do that. So when it sub-contracts functions it makes sure it's done badly-PFI is a perfect classic -and then Wire and friends say "oh what a mess. Thank God for bureaucrats to protect us." And said bureaucrats blush at such praise, take on more clerks and get an OBE. I have more respect for anyone who writes on these pages (well nearly) than to say they couldn't better spend their own money on educating their children the way they want. South Staffs wasn't a "blip"; it was the state in action, believe me.[/p][/quote]Dai, society organises itself imperfectly, because humans are imperfect. But to suggest that something as important as defence can be left to 'no state at all' would see us regress to the small independent kingdoms that inhabited these islands before the Romans came. Similarly, if you follow your employment logic through to its natural conclusion you'd end up repealing all the important legislation of the last 200 years and end up with a landless, impoverished, disenfranchised class of people along with child labour. You seem to revel and wallow in everything that's bad about the world, rather than ever offer constructive and realistic suggestions for improvement. Don't you get tired of this? Wouldn't you rather see a glass that's half full rather than half empty all the time? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 6

6:02pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
4 & 5 it has always done. And yes, the rest could no doubt be done much better by a very much smaller state or indeed no state at all. Would you rather your tax spent on fixing the holes in the road or on HS2? Tough. You can't choose, because you're getting HS2. You have to grasp that the state exists primarily to reproduce. like any other living organism. To hand over any function to that which could do it better/cheaper is to for the "state organism" to haemorrhage and it's not going to do that. So when it sub-contracts functions it makes sure it's done badly-PFI is a perfect classic -and then Wire and friends say "oh what a mess. Thank God for bureaucrats to protect us." And said bureaucrats blush at such praise, take on more clerks and get an OBE. I have more respect for anyone who writes on these pages (well nearly) than to say they couldn't better spend their own money on educating their children the way they want. South Staffs wasn't a "blip"; it was the state in action, believe me.
Dai, society organises itself imperfectly, because humans are imperfect. But to suggest that something as important as defence can be left to 'no state at all' would see us regress to the small independent kingdoms that inhabited these islands before the Romans came. Similarly, if you follow your employment logic through to its natural conclusion you'd end up repealing all the important legislation of the last 200 years and end up with a landless, impoverished, disenfranchised class of people along with child labour.

You seem to revel and wallow in everything that's bad about the world, rather than ever offer constructive and realistic suggestions for improvement. Don't you get tired of this? Wouldn't you rather see a glass that's half full rather than half empty all the time?
I've missed the fact that you say defence 'it has always done', before you pick me up on that - my error. (A case of 'what have the Romans ever done for us?') But my general point still holds - your 'minimal state' would be to the detriment of so many, and to the advantage of a tiny few.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: 4 & 5 it has always done. And yes, the rest could no doubt be done much better by a very much smaller state or indeed no state at all. Would you rather your tax spent on fixing the holes in the road or on HS2? Tough. You can't choose, because you're getting HS2. You have to grasp that the state exists primarily to reproduce. like any other living organism. To hand over any function to that which could do it better/cheaper is to for the "state organism" to haemorrhage and it's not going to do that. So when it sub-contracts functions it makes sure it's done badly-PFI is a perfect classic -and then Wire and friends say "oh what a mess. Thank God for bureaucrats to protect us." And said bureaucrats blush at such praise, take on more clerks and get an OBE. I have more respect for anyone who writes on these pages (well nearly) than to say they couldn't better spend their own money on educating their children the way they want. South Staffs wasn't a "blip"; it was the state in action, believe me.[/p][/quote]Dai, society organises itself imperfectly, because humans are imperfect. But to suggest that something as important as defence can be left to 'no state at all' would see us regress to the small independent kingdoms that inhabited these islands before the Romans came. Similarly, if you follow your employment logic through to its natural conclusion you'd end up repealing all the important legislation of the last 200 years and end up with a landless, impoverished, disenfranchised class of people along with child labour. You seem to revel and wallow in everything that's bad about the world, rather than ever offer constructive and realistic suggestions for improvement. Don't you get tired of this? Wouldn't you rather see a glass that's half full rather than half empty all the time?[/p][/quote]I've missed the fact that you say defence 'it has always done', before you pick me up on that - my error. (A case of 'what have the Romans ever done for us?') But my general point still holds - your 'minimal state' would be to the detriment of so many, and to the advantage of a tiny few. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 3

7:21pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Kirsty666 wrote:
If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway
No. You pay National Insurance Tax at that level, and of course the State will rip you off for about 66% of the price of the petrol to get you to work.
National insurance isn't tax, though.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kirsty666[/bold] wrote: If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway[/p][/quote]No. You pay National Insurance Tax at that level, and of course the State will rip you off for about 66% of the price of the petrol to get you to work.[/p][/quote]National insurance isn't tax, though. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 2

9:22pm Sun 8 Jun 14

normal1965 says...

my son is 18 and his firm are paying him 3 pound an hour to clean cars and coaches for oh i better not say,
my son is 18 and his firm are paying him 3 pound an hour to clean cars and coaches for oh i better not say, normal1965
  • Score: 2

9:28pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

normal1965 wrote:
my son is 18 and his firm are paying him 3 pound an hour to clean cars and coaches for oh i better not say,
Unless he is an apprentice, and in his first year - i.e. both working and studying for a qualification - then this is illegal and he should be earning £5.03 per hour as a minimum. So perhaps you should say who he's working for.
[quote][p][bold]normal1965[/bold] wrote: my son is 18 and his firm are paying him 3 pound an hour to clean cars and coaches for oh i better not say,[/p][/quote]Unless he is an apprentice, and in his first year - i.e. both working and studying for a qualification - then this is illegal and he should be earning £5.03 per hour as a minimum. So perhaps you should say who he's working for. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 4

10:35pm Sun 8 Jun 14

normal1965 says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
normal1965 wrote:
my son is 18 and his firm are paying him 3 pound an hour to clean cars and coaches for oh i better not say,
Unless he is an apprentice, and in his first year - i.e. both working and studying for a qualification - then this is illegal and he should be earning £5.03 per hour as a minimum. So perhaps you should say who he's working for.
he has been there a month,he works Saturday too,he wont say anything to his boss because he its his third job since leaving school.ive said i will say something but he wont have it,so im stuck,thanks anyway,
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]normal1965[/bold] wrote: my son is 18 and his firm are paying him 3 pound an hour to clean cars and coaches for oh i better not say,[/p][/quote]Unless he is an apprentice, and in his first year - i.e. both working and studying for a qualification - then this is illegal and he should be earning £5.03 per hour as a minimum. So perhaps you should say who he's working for.[/p][/quote]he has been there a month,he works Saturday too,he wont say anything to his boss because he its his third job since leaving school.ive said i will say something but he wont have it,so im stuck,thanks anyway, normal1965
  • Score: 0

9:09am Mon 9 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
4 & 5 it has always done. And yes, the rest could no doubt be done much better by a very much smaller state or indeed no state at all. Would you rather your tax spent on fixing the holes in the road or on HS2? Tough. You can't choose, because you're getting HS2. You have to grasp that the state exists primarily to reproduce. like any other living organism. To hand over any function to that which could do it better/cheaper is to for the "state organism" to haemorrhage and it's not going to do that. So when it sub-contracts functions it makes sure it's done badly-PFI is a perfect classic -and then Wire and friends say "oh what a mess. Thank God for bureaucrats to protect us." And said bureaucrats blush at such praise, take on more clerks and get an OBE. I have more respect for anyone who writes on these pages (well nearly) than to say they couldn't better spend their own money on educating their children the way they want. South Staffs wasn't a "blip"; it was the state in action, believe me.
Dai, society organises itself imperfectly, because humans are imperfect. But to suggest that something as important as defence can be left to 'no state at all' would see us regress to the small independent kingdoms that inhabited these islands before the Romans came. Similarly, if you follow your employment logic through to its natural conclusion you'd end up repealing all the important legislation of the last 200 years and end up with a landless, impoverished, disenfranchised class of people along with child labour.

You seem to revel and wallow in everything that's bad about the world, rather than ever offer constructive and realistic suggestions for improvement. Don't you get tired of this? Wouldn't you rather see a glass that's half full rather than half empty all the time?
I said the State does defence. It doesn't do it well, but it's all we've got and it can't be done any other way. Nor can anything but the state control the economy; though it's interesting to think that its "inflation target" of 2% would have been the capital offence of clipping the coinage 300 years ago. The state has taken over a lot of other functions unnecessarily and it doesn't do them well either. Countries where the State consumes less than the UK are run better. We DO have a disenfranchised underclass where the concept of "labour" is unknown. It was created, at a time when safe, effective contraception has been available. It was created by the state and it's aggressive welfarism. I neither revel nor wallow but I recognise "good news" stories from Quangos justifying their existence as cynical PR and am saddened at a Trades Union leader who seems to be immune to the impotency of her movement. Isn't the question "Why hadn't O'Grady done this years ago? "Tell me what you find in the situation to rejoice about.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: 4 & 5 it has always done. And yes, the rest could no doubt be done much better by a very much smaller state or indeed no state at all. Would you rather your tax spent on fixing the holes in the road or on HS2? Tough. You can't choose, because you're getting HS2. You have to grasp that the state exists primarily to reproduce. like any other living organism. To hand over any function to that which could do it better/cheaper is to for the "state organism" to haemorrhage and it's not going to do that. So when it sub-contracts functions it makes sure it's done badly-PFI is a perfect classic -and then Wire and friends say "oh what a mess. Thank God for bureaucrats to protect us." And said bureaucrats blush at such praise, take on more clerks and get an OBE. I have more respect for anyone who writes on these pages (well nearly) than to say they couldn't better spend their own money on educating their children the way they want. South Staffs wasn't a "blip"; it was the state in action, believe me.[/p][/quote]Dai, society organises itself imperfectly, because humans are imperfect. But to suggest that something as important as defence can be left to 'no state at all' would see us regress to the small independent kingdoms that inhabited these islands before the Romans came. Similarly, if you follow your employment logic through to its natural conclusion you'd end up repealing all the important legislation of the last 200 years and end up with a landless, impoverished, disenfranchised class of people along with child labour. You seem to revel and wallow in everything that's bad about the world, rather than ever offer constructive and realistic suggestions for improvement. Don't you get tired of this? Wouldn't you rather see a glass that's half full rather than half empty all the time?[/p][/quote]I said the State does defence. It doesn't do it well, but it's all we've got and it can't be done any other way. Nor can anything but the state control the economy; though it's interesting to think that its "inflation target" of 2% would have been the capital offence of clipping the coinage 300 years ago. The state has taken over a lot of other functions unnecessarily and it doesn't do them well either. Countries where the State consumes less than the UK are run better. We DO have a disenfranchised underclass where the concept of "labour" is unknown. It was created, at a time when safe, effective contraception has been available. It was created by the state and it's aggressive welfarism. I neither revel nor wallow but I recognise "good news" stories from Quangos justifying their existence as cynical PR and am saddened at a Trades Union leader who seems to be immune to the impotency of her movement. Isn't the question "Why hadn't O'Grady done this years ago? "Tell me what you find in the situation to rejoice about. Dai Rear
  • Score: -2

9:19am Mon 9 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Kirsty666 wrote:
If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway
No. You pay National Insurance Tax at that level, and of course the State will rip you off for about 66% of the price of the petrol to get you to work.
National insurance isn't tax, though.
Yes it is. It isn't "insurance" because , for example everyone gets ....oh I can't be bothered, PLEASE just read the papers for the last few days, The proposal ,by more than one group, is to subsume it under Income Tax because that's all it is.
In fact on minimum wage you're paying 36% tax because National Insurance Tax starts at £111 a week and income tax (the same thing) at £192.30 So, who pays the high salaries of the low pay quango? Got it in 1 Charlie Bucket. The low paid do.
Is the tax you pay on your petrol not tax either Charlie Bucket?
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kirsty666[/bold] wrote: If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway[/p][/quote]No. You pay National Insurance Tax at that level, and of course the State will rip you off for about 66% of the price of the petrol to get you to work.[/p][/quote]National insurance isn't tax, though.[/p][/quote]Yes it is. It isn't "insurance" because , for example everyone gets ....oh I can't be bothered, PLEASE just read the papers for the last few days, The proposal ,by more than one group, is to subsume it under Income Tax because that's all it is. In fact on minimum wage you're paying 36% tax because National Insurance Tax starts at £111 a week and income tax (the same thing) at £192.30 So, who pays the high salaries of the low pay quango? Got it in 1 Charlie Bucket. The low paid do. Is the tax you pay on your petrol not tax either Charlie Bucket? Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

12:16pm Mon 9 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

Dai Rear wrote:
I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement?
Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.
Sounds fair. The state can minimise taxes and stop paying benefits to anyone except the disabled and pensioners (who have paid in through NI). Let employers and employees negotiate terms without outside interference. If union action cripples a company, let it sack the staff and start again.

Certain services need to stay state-owned, the armed forces for example.

Let's have a true free market.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: I think you might have gathered that I think the State should keep its faecal proboscis out and let us, who know what's best for us, sort it ourselves. Like most things. The State has shown itself incapable of putting a carrier in the water with planes that fit it. What on earth makes you think it'd ever be any good at this kind of micromanagement? Do you want to let the State run retail food distribution.? I assume, in asking that question that you're not morbidly obese and desirous of starvation.[/p][/quote]Sounds fair. The state can minimise taxes and stop paying benefits to anyone except the disabled and pensioners (who have paid in through NI). Let employers and employees negotiate terms without outside interference. If union action cripples a company, let it sack the staff and start again. Certain services need to stay state-owned, the armed forces for example. Let's have a true free market. From the sidelines
  • Score: -1

12:18pm Mon 9 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Kirsty666 wrote:
If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway
No. You pay National Insurance Tax at that level, and of course the State will rip you off for about 66% of the price of the petrol to get you to work.
National insurance isn't tax, though.
Wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kirsty666[/bold] wrote: If you earn under £10000 PA then you're free of paying tax anyway[/p][/quote]No. You pay National Insurance Tax at that level, and of course the State will rip you off for about 66% of the price of the petrol to get you to work.[/p][/quote]National insurance isn't tax, though.[/p][/quote]Wrong. From the sidelines
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Mon 9 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

It has been reported that, in addition to these small companies and their small sums of money, a premier league football club has also been fined for not paying minimum wage.

Said club has remained anonymous. I wonder if it was Saints.
It has been reported that, in addition to these small companies and their small sums of money, a premier league football club has also been fined for not paying minimum wage. Said club has remained anonymous. I wonder if it was Saints. From the sidelines
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

normal1965 wrote:
my son is 18 and his firm are paying him 3 pound an hour to clean cars and coaches for oh i better not say,
I guess 120 quid a week is better than Jack Spit, but shouldn't he be getting on with learning a trade?
Are the Albanians (why are they here? It's not part of the EU) and Roumanians doing car washes only making 3 quid an hour?
[quote][p][bold]normal1965[/bold] wrote: my son is 18 and his firm are paying him 3 pound an hour to clean cars and coaches for oh i better not say,[/p][/quote]I guess 120 quid a week is better than Jack Spit, but shouldn't he be getting on with learning a trade? Are the Albanians (why are they here? It's not part of the EU) and Roumanians doing car washes only making 3 quid an hour? Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree