Not convinced that the term "stock-taking" makes sense in that context?I just listened to that three times. 'Stock-taking', not 'stock'. Not Bielderberg, not Rothschild, not nano-thermite. Fuck off.
I believe that it's used in management-speak to refer to *anything* when you have a collection of existing cases being moved from one system to another. Using it to refer to any sort of human case, especially people who are, by definition, vulnerable, is particularly disgusting, but it's likely to be thoughtless rather than malicious.
Hansard's attempt at correction is more potentially sinister to me. Did they show the minister (Freud) the first-pass and ask him to explain what he meant, and he realised how bad it looked so produced something garbled that he thought was a plausible mishearing? Who knows.
That goes without saying - he's a tory.
We are in danger of running out of words for this bunch of cunts
Not convinced that the term "stock-taking" makes sense in that context?
I suspect that the comment from 'Sam' on the blog might be closer..
As you say, not nano-thermite material, but just crass vermin speak.
Er?'Stock' was a term used by the Nazis to designate camp victims, it is relevant
but I'm not going to get into a discussion about it.
Yeah, fair play..
Please don't mate. Honestly, I started the thread (one of my first) hoping for a serious discussion about the issues involved in supporting people with disabilities/learning disabilities in employment/training because that's what I do/know about. I fucked up with the thread title and the rest and soon enough I've got 'Jewish ancestry', 'Cunt' , '...go for the juglar!' and the like in the first few posts. My bad and all that ...but fuck that stock thing. That's gravy not the Wannsee conference. Fuck off.
That has "Tee-Shirt" written all over it No truer words spoken
Are you sure about that? Have you got a link to it? The 'stock' thing?
We might've had a reasonable discussion about the definition of mental health, the absolute myths around mental health and work and the confused statement at the end of the article in the OP about how a limited company was set up for someone Freud stated had limited capacity, in that person's name, with Freud implying he was personally involved. We then have a very confused statement about 'staying within benefits' which from the Minister for Welfare Reform shows dangerous ignorance, at best. If, for example, someone is on ESA (Support), they can earn up to £101 per week without any knock on re ESA/HB etc, but only if working up to 16 hours a week. So that's probably minimum wage, certainly not £2 per hour.what might we have achieved with this thread, had the derail not happened?? Have we smothered the revolution it it's cradle?
Also about the negative and groundless stereotypes that this fool is perpetuating.
if lord fraud dies tomorrow I'd fucking cheer.Disability. Employment. Rights.
Any thoughts?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...d-apology-comment-disabled-people-mimimu-wage
I bet Mr Adam Smith gets more than the name, the cuntFreud and the rest of them have lots to apologise for, this is the man(of jewish ancestry) who also described disabled people on benefits as 'stock'
its just been on Ch4, the Adam Smith twerp was defending the statement, this is going to expose the Tories, Milliband actually woke up a bit today and gave a robust response in parliament.
of people with learning disabilities / mental health problems (i know the difference between the two - not entirely sure he does) or of clueless tory twunts?
For whom he claimed a benefit his government, upon gaining power, successfully sought to remove entirely.You know Cameron's on the ropes when he starts talking about his late son.
(Which he did in PMQs today)
BBC news are saying more to come about Freud.
That you know of.Yes, but Freud is one of the worst, just google him to see what other obscenities he has come out with.
They knew for sure, or were just repeating chatter?Sorry, it was comments by a contributor to the Paper Review