campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

[Paulie Tandoori]

We always knew it would be a whitewash, not even an attempt to hide the bias. Matthew Oakley is proper scum. Conclusion of the report will be that sanctions are useful and although there are isolated incidents of sanctions being wrongfully applied they are mostly used correctly and the review/appeal process is good enough. Knew that before we heard Oakley was going to write the report though.

What I think is proper scary is the last set of stats. For JSA alone, between November 2012 (the first full month of the new sanctions) and June 2013 there were 553,000 sanctions. This compares to 499,000 between November 2011 – June 2012. Now they've broadened the scope for ESA claimants in WRAG, these numbers are likely to increase again. Citizens Advice estimate that its something like 1 in 4 JSA claimants getting sanctioned annually. Good BBC article

 

[BigTom]

Yeah, it makes for seriously grim reading. I'm wondering if the point will arrive where they've pushed it too far. Was on the local radio last week after the sanctions numbers were announced and had some tory scum MP on after me giving it the "only used as a last resort" crap.. in between and after had callers with their stories of totally obviously crap sanctions, like someone who was sanctioned cos they were on a training course. How long can it last before enough people know / know of someone who has been sanctioned in circumstances no-one could defend.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Soon people's only recourse will be their local church, assuming they really can feed the five thousand.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Soon people's only recourse will be their local church, assuming they really can feed the five thousand.

Already happening here (Lambeth). I can only hope that the churches don't attempt to use this to garner new recruits.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Already happening here (Lambeth). I can only hope that the churches don't attempt to use this to garner new recruits.

I bet they are: soup and a sermon. I've no doubt that's what the odious Salvation Army do. Soon they'll launch their Christmas campaign. All very laudable (my mum thinks so). But they won't tell you, in their ad copy, about how their Employment Plus work programme contract puts people into poverty.

A lot of foodbanks are based in churches as well.

 

[Frances Lengel]

Yeah, it makes for seriously grim reading. I'm wondering if the point will arrive where they've pushed it too far. Was on the local radio last week after the sanctions numbers were announced and had some tory scum MP on after me giving it the "only used as a last resort" crap.. in between and after had callers with their stories of totally obviously crap sanctions, like someone who was sanctioned cos they were on a training course. How long can it last before enough people know / know of someone who has been sanctioned in circumstances no-one could defend.

It won't go to where it's been pushed to far - The possibility of being sanctioned will (and increasingly is) just be accepted as part of the part and parcel of it.

 

[Awesome Wells]

People simply won't and don't believe sanctions are handed out trivially. Anyone in a position to be sanctioned, for whatever reason, is a scrounger and deserving of no sympathy.

Someone needs to do some undercover filming in the JC+ to catch some of these things out; get footage of sanction targets etc.

 

[Greebo]

People simply won't and don't believe sanctions are handed out trivially. Anyone in a position to be sanctioned, for whatever reason, is a scrounger and deserving of no sympathy.<snip>

Are you new to this or something? There've been reports in the tabloids all year (short and well hidden) of people being sanctioned for trivial reasons, or being given a 3 month+ sanction for a first (often merely technical at that) breaking of the jobseeker's agreement.

 

[Treacle Toes]

People simply won't and don't believe sanctions are handed out trivially. Anyone in a position to be sanctioned, for whatever reason, is a scrounger and deserving of no sympathy.

Someone needs to do some undercover filming in the JC+ to catch some of these things out; get footage of sanction targets etc.

The DWP have had to admit they set targets too! Where have you been?

 

[Awesome Wells]

Are you new to this or something? There've been reports in the tabloids all year (short and well hidden) of people being sanctioned for trivial reasons, or being given a 3 month+ sanction for a first (often merely technical at that) breaking of the jobseeker's agreement.

New?

No, I'm not new.

I'm well aware that the DWP are killing people. My eyes are wide open.

The problem is that many people's eyes are not open and so they woiuld need to see for themselves just what's going on. Plenty of people, those that aren't on sites like this, are just completely oblivious to anything other than the day in day out drip feed of propaganda. That nice Mr IDS has assured them that the DWP's admission of targets (just like ATOS) was some sort of clerical error and is nothing to worry about. After all Labour spent all the money and 'it is right' that 'we' reform the 'out of control' welfare spending that 'spiralled' under the last government.

The atmospher now is so toxic in this country, thanks to the poison pens of fleet street, that mere truth and the admission of guilt isn't enough.

More importantly, how do we change this? Is Rachel 'tougher than the tories' Reeves going to make a difference that will stop this carnage?

 

[Treacle Toes]

...a small smile, because despite them all, we still can

Esther Louise McVey (born 24 October 1967) is a British Conservative Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Wirral West since 2010, and the Assistant Grim Reaper for Disabled People]] since 2012, second only to Iain Duncan Smith. She was previously a television presenter and businesswoman before deciding to branch out into professional lying and helping disabled people into the grave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esther_McVey&oldid=582244538

 

[treelover]

I have just recieved a letter from the DWP telling me that I`m being sanctioned until 5/11/14, The reason, for not logging onto an employment website that I was told to quickly enough. This is my 6th sanction in 3 years. I was expecting a punishment, but 3 months sanction! talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut! I feel that the DWP is waging a vendetta against me, & i don`t know how to fight back.

posted on facebook, three months sanction for not going online quick enough.

 

[Treacle Toes]

posted on facebook, three months sanction for not going online quick enough.

Why is the date written in the American way? 5/11/14 would take the sanction to November

 

[Awesome Wells]

posted on facebook, three months sanction for not going online quick enough.

Who's his/her MP? That's patently ridiculous. If that was the actual reason given, which surely it wasn't, then someone at the DWP is behaving with deliberate negligence and should be fucking sacked. This cannot go on.

 

[BigTom]

6 month sanction then, november -> may, or a typo and was meant to be 5/1/14, but that'd be two months from 5th November.
In any case, they should definitely be asking for a review (might be called reconsideration?) then appealing. Fucking grim. I've heard no end of stories like that one, where sanctions are being used just because they might be able to within the rules, as vindictive punishment.

 

[Greebo]

6 month sanction then, november -> may, or a typo and was meant to be 5/1/14, but that'd be two months from 5th November.
In any case, they should definitely be asking for a review (might be called reconsideration?) then appealing. Fucking grim. I've heard no end of stories like that one, where sanctions are being used just because they might be able to within the rules, as vindictive punishment.

The trouble is that if the sanction is only a few months at most, it might not be worth appealing, because while you're waiting to appeal the sanction your dole isn't paid (even if you turn out to have been in the right).

This is nothing new, it's been this way for about 20 years, maybe more.

 

[BigTom]

The trouble is that if the sanction is only a few months at most, it might not be worth appealing, because while you're waiting to appeal the sanction your dole isn't paid (even if you turn out to have been in the right).

This is nothing new, it's been this way for about 20 years, maybe more.

Still worth doing, I know how fucked up people get waiting for the appeal to happen and I'm not for any second suggesting that I think the review/appeal system is adequate at all, but you do get the money back eventually and more importantly it creates more work and cost for the DWP to manage the appeals, and more evidence for us as to how many sanctions are wrongly applied even according to the DWP rules (one of the most effective arguments I've found against ATOS is the extremely high rate of appeals and successes, I think it'd be useful for JSA sanctions too).

 

[Awesome Wells]

The trouble is that if the sanction is only a few months at most, it might not be worth appealing, because while you're waiting to appeal the sanction your dole isn't paid (even if you turn out to have been in the right).

This is nothing new, it's been this way for about 20 years, maybe more.

Actually it was Labour that created this. Before then you would get your dole paid while waiting for the decision maker to resolve the 'doubt' - innocent until proven otherwise.

 

[Awesome Wells]

6 month sanction then, november -> may, or a typo and was meant to be 5/1/14, but that'd be two months from 5th November.
In any case, they should definitely be asking for a review (might be called reconsideration?) then appealing. Fucking grim. I've heard no end of stories like that one, where sanctions are being used just because they might be able to within the rules, as vindictive punishment.

Can they claim hardship allowance or has that gone? Last I heard it was devolved to the (discretion of the) local council.

 

[Greebo]

Actually it was Labour that created this. Before then you would get your dole paid while waiting for the decision maker to resolve the 'doubt' - innocent until proven otherwise.

Sweetie, I didn't say which party brought it in and I don't fucking care. It was wrong, and it is wrong, it should be fucking done away with.

Still worth doing, I know how fucked up people get waiting for the appeal to happen and I'm not for any second suggesting that I think the review/appeal system is adequate at all, but you do get the money back eventually and more importantly it creates more work and cost for the DWP to manage the appeals, and more evidence for us as to how many sanctions are wrongly applied even according to the DWP rules (one of the most effective arguments I've found against ATOS is the extremely high rate of appeals and successes, I think it'd be useful for JSA sanctions too).

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I'm speaking from the position of somebody whose claim was stopped by a particulary grumpy and sneery claimant adviser who decided to chase up a job application which she'd browbeaten me into sending (on top of always more than fulfilling my agreed targets for looking for work).

I wasn't notified until after my next signing day, and ended up pleading with a more senior claimant adviser to reverse the decision. He did so, but I was still left one week short, and told not to appeal it as the sanction which the claimant adviser had imposed would be far shorter than the 3 months it would take to officially appeal the decision (and during which time I'd get no money at all, not even HB).

With nobody at all to borrow from, nothing to sell, and no other income, I had no option but to suck it up. Did I say "suck it up"? Not quite. I made a formal complaint (verbal and written) against the claimant adviser who'd browbeaten me, and didn't see her again.

This was back in the early 90's, AFAIK jobcentre staff are nowhere near as reasonable now.

 

[Treacle Toes]

A paper about the relationship between financial capability and the psychological well-being in mothers of young children in poor areas in England. Also this article outlines the gender gap of FI globally.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/free...nance?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/discriminationabounds

 

[Awesome Wells]

of course it's wrong.

 

[Greebo]

It was mentioned on Woman's Hour today that among unemployed under 25s, there are more female than male NEETS. It turns out that this is because more young women than young men are likely to be single parents or have responsibility for at least one child under the age of 5.

So nice to hear that people trying to do the right thing are being labelled as doing nothing with their lives.

 

[BigTom]

Sweetie, I didn't say which party brought it in and I don't fucking care. It was wrong, and it is wrong, it should be fucking done away with.


You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I'm speaking from the position of somebody whose claim was stopped by a particulary grumpy and sneery claimant adviser who decided to chase up a job application which she'd browbeaten me into sending (on top of always more than fulfilling my agreed targets for looking for work).

I wasn't notified until after my next signing day, and ended up pleading with a more senior claimant adviser to reverse the decision. He did so, but I was still left one week short, and told not to appeal it as the sanction which the claimant adviser had imposed would be far shorter than the 3 months it would take to officially appeal the decision (and during which time I'd get no money at all, not even HB).

With nobody at all to borrow from, nothing to sell, and no other income, I had no option but to suck it up. Did I say "suck it up"? Not quite. I made a formal complaint (verbal and written) against the claimant adviser who'd browbeaten me, and didn't see her again.

This was back in the early 90's, AFAIK jobcentre staff are nowhere near as reasonable now.

liked in agreement (and for complaining), not for the story..
afaik if you get a sanction for say 1 month, and appeal it, you will start getting benefit paid again after 1 month, no matter how long your appeal takes, and HB should continue to get paid regardless (but is often stopped when sanctioned, claimants need to put in a Nil Income claim, but advisors don't tell anyone that, just say "your benefits will be stopped" and seem very happy to let people believe that all their benefits will be stopped when it should only be JSA

 

[Awesome Wells]

Leave your ethics at the door PCS, says Mr DWP.

 

[Bakunin]

Yet more cunt-tastic cuntery from that veritable King of Cunts, IDS (which stands for 'Incredibly Dodgy Statistics').

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...uts?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It would be an entirely fitting punishment for IDS if he were strapped face-upwards at the bottom of a jacuzzi while every claimant currently suffering lines up to piss into that jacuzzi until he slowly drowns.

I commend this innovation in bespoke homicide to the House.

 

[Frankie Jack]

No more WRAG then..

Edited to add..

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHH..!!!!! THE ABSOLUTE BASTARD..!!!

 

[Treacle Toes]

Scandal of the hundreds so hungry they end up in hospital
14 Nov 2013 14:52
Nearly 400 men, women, and children across Greater Manchester required hospital care last year care due to a lack of food or poor diet.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...al-hundreds-greater-manchester-hungry-6305966

 

[treelover]

 

[treelover]

Review Carried Out After Study Reveals GP Evidence Was Factor In Only 2.9% Of Benefit Appeals
November 25, 2013

The Government has carried out an assessment of the key factors in deciding appeals against decisions to remove disability benefits from claimants, after a pilot study revealed GP evidence was the deciding factor in only 2.9% of cases, Pulse has learnt.The Department of Work and Pensions asked judges to provide a written summary explaining their decisions in individuals’ appeals against the removal of the Employment Support Allowance, including the importance of the GP report. It followed a study last November that showed judges cited GPs’ supporting evidence as the principal factor in only 2.9% of successful appeals when provided with a list of potential reasons from a drop-down menu.

http://samedifference1.com/2013/11/...ce-was-factor-in-only-2-9-of-benefit-appeals/

article sourced from Pulse

and they call the process fair!