campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

[Hadrianus]

Have some consideration for people with mobile broadband and limited data allowances - I can't afford to look at more than about 12 minutes in total of youtube per month.

Once upon a time (8 years ago) I paid £10 for unlimited 40h access to broadband in local internet cafe - it is not very convenient but obviously it is worth (to be well informed). Or in Virgin mobile for £15 a month (SIM only) you have: all data + calls + sms unlimited

 

[Greebo]

Once upon a time (8 years ago) I paid £10 for unlimited 40h access to broadband in local internet cafe - it is not very convenient but obviously it worth (to be well informed). Or in Virgin mobile for £15 a month (SIM only) you have: all data + calls + sms unlimited

Sweetie - no smart phone, just a dongle.

The nearest internet cafe is a bus ride away - not a viable option for an unpaid carer who is on call 24/7. I'm not a person of leisure.

 

[editor]

I think broadcast of this video can defend itself. Everyone who has brain is able to make clear conclusion.

I've concluded that you're a spammer who is unable/unwilling to articulate a coherent opinion on the matter. Why else would you try and post the same video four times all over the boards?

Who made the video? What was their motive? Why is it important? What do you think of it?

 

[Frankie Jack]

Have some consideration for people with mobile broadband and limited data allowances - I can't afford to look at more than about 12 minutes in total of youtube per month.

Me too. A vast 15gb a month with my dongle and a PAYG for those days it doesn't quite stretch to. Youtubes are special occasions only.

 

[Awesome Wells]

The thing is, that is such a telling quote! "I now have a part-time job in a fast food restaurant and I take extra hours as and when I can get them."

To be honest, if I were trying to quietly poison the DWP well, that's exactly the kind of quote I'd use: it just reeks of "get them off the dole and onto wageslave zero-hour contracts".

So there's two possibilities - either some savvy dissident is feeding this nonsense into the DWP, secure in the knowledge that the management, from the very top, will swallow it whole, or they really are so stupid as to think that forcing people onto minimum-wage jobs and zero-hour contracts is a decent way to manage a workforce.

Either way, I hope it comes back to bite them hard on the arse.

sadly i don't think that likely. This situation does 2 things: firstly it justifies the brutality coming from the DWP becuase it's directly getting people jobs. Even if they are shit jobs - no one cares. Secondly it bolsters the notion that the unemployed are feckless as they clearly need threats to give them a kick up the arse.

 

[Awesome Wells]

100,000 historic sanctions being applied: http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=3116

All the sanctions that had to be suspended after the workfare court ruling - for far wider than just workfare as the letter there shows - are now being applied. Anyone who gets this should appeal, try to do so on the basis that you no longer have the evidence you need to show the sanction was wrong, let BW know if it works. This is well fucked up, hopefully some people are now in jobs and can't be sanctioned, but I bet they start demanding repayments from people in that position.
--
Wasn't Osborne saying something about residential centres in his tory conference speech this year?

So they are sanctioning people for not undertaking workfare a year later? I'm not sure I fully understand, but this looks to be utterly monstrous!

 

[ViolentPanda]

In way of banning the benefits. What is your opinion?

Why would sharia, a form of law that exalts the five pillars of Islam, ban benefits? Benefits allow people with less to at least approach a par with others who are better-off. There'd be no reason (despite what a few pro-Wahhabi Islamists say) to remove them - they would fulfill part of the state's obligations to the populace under Islam, just as they do under our current secular regime.

 

[BigTom]

So they are sanctioning people for not undertaking workfare a year later? I'm not sure I fully understand, but this looks to be utterly monstrous!

Basically yeah, but not just workfare by the looks of it, some/all work programme sanctions were suspended too, so if you missed workfare/an appointment/etc instead of getting sanctioned there and then, they've stockpiled it until after the court case stuff was resolved and are applying it now.
So someone who had a clash of JCP and WP appointments in March and went to the JCP one as they were told at the time, but got reffered for a sanction as they've not attended the WP appointment, will have had that sanction referral suspended until now (as it was ruled illegal by the court case in Feb, then made legal by the retroactive legislation, but they've waited until now when they appeal ruling said the sanctions were illegal*). Now the sanction that was suspended is being applied, and that perons has to find the evidence that they were told to go to the JCP appointment or they get sanctioned now.

* I don't understand why they waited, as the legislation was in place to allow them to apply these sanctions, but they did.

 

[Awesome Wells]

This is digusting.

I'd like to apply a sanction...to Duncan Smith's FACE!

 

[tufty79]

This is digusting.

I'd like to apply a sanction...to Duncan Smith's FACE!

I can think of far better parts of him to apply a sanction* to

*wrapped in sandpaper and barbed wire, with chilli oil for lube.

 

[Frances Lengel]

I can think of far better parts of him to apply a sanction* to

*wrapped in sandpaper and barbed wire, with chilli oil for lube.

He'd probably like it though - Remind him of those barrack-room initiation ceremonies he and the chaps used to conduct back in those halcyon army days.

 

[Hadrianus]

I've concluded that you're a spammer who is unable/unwilling to articulate a coherent opinion on the matter. Why else would you try and post the same video four times all over the boards?

Who made the video? What was their motive? Why is it important? What do you think of it?

It is important because it may affect benefit. Each thread is different - here are benefits , in other sections different topics. One article can be seen from different perspective depends on context. May I ask you personal question? Do you hold PhD from OxCam or from any other noble... uni? I have strange feeling you may do......or at least MA ;-)?

 

[tufty79]

It is important because it may affect benefit

Really? When did sharia law get taken under the dwp's wing? Must've missed that.

May I ask you personal question?

May I ask *you* a personal question? Why are you posting on here under the(at least) three usernames?

This would be a duplicate account of "alonsoss" and "alonson".

 

[tufty79]

And apologies for the superfluous 'the' - joy of random words added by predictive text.

 

[Hadrianus]

Really? When did sharia law get taken under the dwp's wing? Must've missed that.



May I ask *you* a personal question? Why are you posting on here under the(at least) three usernames?

Is not but it may in the future, it depends on "heavy duty thinkers" like you either

 

[Hadrianus]

May I ask *you* a personal question? Why are you posting on here under the(at least) three usernames?[/quote]
three? I thought there are eight, world is full of suprises

 

[existentialist]

It is important because it may affect benefit. Each thread is different - here are benefits , in other sections different topics. One article can be seen from different perspective depends on context. May I ask you personal question? Do you hold PhD from OxCam or from any other noble... uni? I have strange feeling you may do......or at least MA ;-)?

You're strange.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

*wonders if the banhammer gets some tinsel added for xmas*

 

[tufty79]

*wonders if the banhammer gets some tinsel added for xmas*

I like to think it has bells on

 

[Hadrianus]

You're strange.

Thanks you too.

 

[_angel_]

Neither kidding nor exaggerating. People with certain conditions, including M.E., will be sent for rehabilitation in residential centres. The alternative is a highly probable loss of benefits.

This sounds way more expensive than benefits...? Where is the information for this? How will they get there etc.

 

[Awesome Wells]

I think this is it.

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...-workfare-for-unemployed-and-disabled-people/

 

[_angel_]

I think this is it.

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...-workfare-for-unemployed-and-disabled-people/

It sounds expensive as it says in the article and not mandatory. I can't see why they'd spend so much money to be honest.

 

[Greebo]

It sounds expensive as it says in the article and not mandatory. I can't see why they'd spend so much money to be honest.

If it's residential, bang goes your mobility component DLA. If care is provided on site, bang goes your care component too. And bang goes any CA linked to your receipt of middle or high care DLA.

 

[_angel_]

this will cost more than that, not a goer

 

[8115]

Article on the real life impact of the benefit cuts in the Guardian. Whatever you think of the Guardian, I think it's good this is being talked about, and I was impressed by the article.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/16/welfare-cuts-government-coalition-benefits

 

[Frances Lengel]

Is not but it may in the future, it depends on "heavy duty thinkers" like you either

h
Better than being a heavy duty wanker though. Nowt left but a bloodied stump, lad?

 

[Awesome Wells]

Article on the real life impact of the benefit cuts in the Guardian. Whatever you think of the Guardian, I think it's good this is being talked about, and I was impressed by the article.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/16/welfare-cuts-government-coalition-benefits

Also according to the G apparently 2/3 of single mums are missing meals to feed their kids.

FFS IDS, just fucking kill yourself. Do something honourable.

 

[Frankie Jack]

this will cost more than that, not a goer

It's already happening. I'll see if I can find the links.

 

[Frankie Jack]

https://www.gov.uk/residential-training/further-information

Queen Alexandra College and Queen Elizabeth’s Foundation are already claiming from DWP for 'customers' placed there.