campaign against welfare cuts and poverty
- Thread starter Blagsta
- Start date
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Birmingham Claimants' Union advice leaflet on how to challenge JSA sanctions:
http://www.advice-birmingham.net/How-to-challenge-your-benefit-sanction.pdf
http://www.advice-birmingham.net/How-to-challenge-your-benefit-sanction.pdf
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Bedroom tax loophole could exempt 40,000 wrongly identified as liable
Housing benefit experts condemn 'shambles' as it emerges that DWP oversight could mean some actually profit from blunder
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/09/bedroom-tax-loophole-exempt-liable-housing-benefit
Housing benefit experts condemn 'shambles' as it emerges that DWP oversight could mean some actually profit from blunder
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/09/bedroom-tax-loophole-exempt-liable-housing-benefit
Newsnight has just had a debate on the programme: Owen Jones, the Documentary Producer I think Ralph Lee and a right wing guy from the Spectator. The producer/ch4 guy did not look very comfortable.
Btw, it was great to see Newsnight back to its old self: balanced and often defending the vunerable, strange that the last two years the producer was from the far left.
Btw, it was great to see Newsnight back to its old self: balanced and often defending the vunerable, strange that the last two years the producer was from the far left.
Even a cat would envy IDS. How he manages to avoid political death is extraordinary.
The DWP concede this mistake as they claim 5000 are affected. So he fucked up; again. The question is by how much.
Unbelievable.
They are discussing it now on Radio 5.
They being Nicky Campbell (hmmmn) and the usual gaggle of curtain twitchers.
They being Nicky Campbell (hmmmn) and the usual gaggle of curtain twitchers.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Trouble is, people who have already had to move, or been evicted, will have no comeback whatsoever. This mistake has human costs, let alone the financial implications.
Compensation?
The postman just delivered a response from my MP regarding the conduct of his fellow tories during the foodbank bunfight. I am digesting it now, but highlights include his claiming that families will be better off under UC to the tune of £168 a month. In response to my pointing out the quality of that debate he quoted a link to Guido Fawkes' site (with pictures of labour MP's claimed to be laughin as well).
More later.
I find it rather tedious that he should think referencing that site is credible. The first comment under that article (it is to journalism what a child's anus is to a nappy) is something about a femal labour MP being sexually propositioned. Says it all really.
More later.
I find it rather tedious that he should think referencing that site is credible. The first comment under that article (it is to journalism what a child's anus is to a nappy) is something about a femal labour MP being sexually propositioned. Says it all really.
Last edited:
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
They might be able to claim Financial redress for maladministration perhaps, although not 100% sure this would cover such decisions (they're made by local authorities, on basis of DWP guidance).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/10/benefits-street-documentary-reality
CH4 head of documentary defends Benefit St, which now has had 7 million views, which will certainly impact on Govt policy on welfare, etc, once we had Cathy Come Home, now we have this crap.
CH4 head of documentary defends Benefit St, which now has had 7 million views, which will certainly impact on Govt policy on welfare, etc, once we had Cathy Come Home, now we have this crap.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
on that channel so well known for thoughtful and assumption-challenging programs, BBC3
I don't think even the person writing the PR believes the above line.
Imo, on benefit issues, etc, the media is now acting very similar to how the media operated in the old eastern bloc to malign and ostracise those it thought deleterious to its programme, misfits, the work shy, etc.
btw, I have no problem in having shows/docs which highlight the problematic side of benefit regimes, its that, that is all we see on TV, they identify the extremes and then present it as the norm.
power without responsibility indeed.
btw, I have no problem in having shows/docs which highlight the problematic side of benefit regimes, its that, that is all we see on TV, they identify the extremes and then present it as the norm.
power without responsibility indeed.
Btw, I can't explain how angry I am about this programme:, once we had Cathy Come Home, now we have this, one can imagine its going to be hell for the children from the street at school, etc applying for jobs, apparently its is also now on the tourist trails.
http://www.sodiumhaze.org/
article here with links to how you can do something about it
http://www.sodiumhaze.org/
article here with links to how you can do something about it
Last edited:
Fucking Satans! Alec Shellbrooke, the welfare cash card wannabe, was back on the radio (BBC - again) this morning! He's here arguing about how the benefit cap has compelled people into work. This we know is fatuous arse candy, but he seems to be implying that people can now keep more of their earnings - but that's a claim IDS makes on behalf of UC and UC isn't running yet.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
It's the standard line for exploitation TV these days.
"Channel 4 brings a thoughtful and stereotype-challenging look into the day-to-day workings of a residential mental health facility specialising in overweight patients with its new series Fat Nutter Bootcamp."
"The director of programming for Sky 5 defended Whore Palace from claims of exploitation, saying that it was a sensitive look at the lives of a group of cohabiting sex workers in modern Britain, designed to broaden the public's perception of the social issues involved."
Oh ffs - Fraser fucking Nelson - yet another rentagob on the BBC rightwing speddial.
My MP says he wasn't one of those laughing during the foodbank dbeate. I don't know whether or not that's true. He says that Parliament gets like that sometimes, particular during PMQ's, before going on to smear labour via the Guido link. I find it curious that he's included a link, it just looks odd on the page (printed out including highlighted hyperlink text, straight outta the word processor). I wonder if Tory HQ have ordered that link be used in reply to anyone enquiring about this. Perhaps that's the whole point of Shit Staines posting it in the first place.
He comments that the picture provided by the Trussell Trust and others paints a complex picture mentioning benefits errors and delays (and saying UC would help with this - can I please LOL?), and the fact that 'the current Government has removed all restrictions on advertising for them (the previous Government banned this, probably because they were more worried about embarassment than hunger, but this has now been reversed)'. He also mentions the role rising food prices have played.
'The result is that there's little or nor corelation betwen increasing use of food banks and poverty (huh?); in fact use of food banks increased ten times during the previous Labour administration, including when the economy was booming.'
I don't know if that's true and I don't support Labour. This is a man that has been to the local foodbank and is trying to balance what he must be seeing with the line his party toes and its ideology.
He then makes the point about UC making people better off I mentioned earlier.
His final point is to resort to the 'welfare dependency' trope, which I both deny and abhor. Everyone is dependent in this system. Unless you're one of the lucky rich you need an income. I'm sure the average Tory would start wailing if theirs was taken or cut (they pressed for a higher pay rise than the 11% on the table). He talks of the underlying causes of want which sounds like victim blaming: the poor want too much or the wrong things. It's their fault they are in poverty or are hungry: they spend their money on booze scratchcards texting and playstations. He claims 1.2 million jobs have been created since May 2010 and there are fewere than a quarter million households in which noone has ever worked.
None of which gets to the heart of the crisis caused by austerity, tory ideology and the hypocrisy of the financial class that runs the western world and, in Britain, goes into bed with the landed gentry we still haven't gotten rid of.
He comments that the picture provided by the Trussell Trust and others paints a complex picture mentioning benefits errors and delays (and saying UC would help with this - can I please LOL?), and the fact that 'the current Government has removed all restrictions on advertising for them (the previous Government banned this, probably because they were more worried about embarassment than hunger, but this has now been reversed)'. He also mentions the role rising food prices have played.
'The result is that there's little or nor corelation betwen increasing use of food banks and poverty (huh?); in fact use of food banks increased ten times during the previous Labour administration, including when the economy was booming.'
I don't know if that's true and I don't support Labour. This is a man that has been to the local foodbank and is trying to balance what he must be seeing with the line his party toes and its ideology.
He then makes the point about UC making people better off I mentioned earlier.
His final point is to resort to the 'welfare dependency' trope, which I both deny and abhor. Everyone is dependent in this system. Unless you're one of the lucky rich you need an income. I'm sure the average Tory would start wailing if theirs was taken or cut (they pressed for a higher pay rise than the 11% on the table). He talks of the underlying causes of want which sounds like victim blaming: the poor want too much or the wrong things. It's their fault they are in poverty or are hungry: they spend their money on booze scratchcards texting and playstations. He claims 1.2 million jobs have been created since May 2010 and there are fewere than a quarter million households in which noone has ever worked.
None of which gets to the heart of the crisis caused by austerity, tory ideology and the hypocrisy of the financial class that runs the western world and, in Britain, goes into bed with the landed gentry we still haven't gotten rid of.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
George Osborne can always take some consolation from his being a never-ending source of inspiration for creative swearing and insults:
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/01/08/15-tweets-to-george-osborne-that-will-cheer-you-up-nsfw/
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/01/08/15-tweets-to-george-osborne-that-will-cheer-you-up-nsfw/
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
"hope you die in a bin fire you shape shifting horse fucker" might even beat "shit gibbon".
Very much so - It's not as if most people who work grow/hunt all their food and generate their own electric and that. Whatever the source of the payment, everyone depends on payday rolling around every week/fortnight/month.
captainmission
Well-Known Member
DWP declare a claimant contributed to her cancer 
Is that actionable?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I get the impression nothing's actionable where the DWP are concerned. If they break the law, they just get the law changed - sometimes, retrospectively - so that they never did anything wrong.
Surely ATOS, if they are behind this nonsense, can be held accountable for claiming the claimant caused themselves to get cancer.
And even if that were, somehow, true - so what? Is this really the road we are to take? If someone has cancer and they can't work then surely that is the only relevant fact. How they got that condition is irrelevant. I don't understand how this is even part of the WCA.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
It isn't the road we have to take, no. But if half your government are in the pockets of a bent disability insurance provider, with a track record on wriggling to the point of illegality to evade paying claims, then it is a pretty natural path for them to follow.
Expect worse.
Indeed.
But this is in print: someone has said on a document of some legality that the person has given themselves bone cancer. This must create an opportunity to respond.
Similar threads
- Poll
