campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

[treelover]

can't wait till March when the U.N Rapporteur makes her report public to the council,

btw, thousands have protested(rightly) against the EDL, who are seen as a future threat, but here are people dying everyday as a direct consequence of Govt 'reforms' yet the response is minimal, the recent ATOS protests being mostly claimants themselves and a few allies, are they sleepwalking? I find this both baffling and yes, disgusting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

....and then they came for the P/T workers...



http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/dwp-housing-benefit-will-be-sanctioned/7002330.article

If the coalition do this, it'll be the most tactically-unsound move yet - they'll alienate elements of the "swing" voters that they'll be relying on come May 2015.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So, people who are already being penalised under the flexible labour market and who have done the right thing and signed off and maybe scrimping along are now going to be crucified, ffs.

It's not as if no-one saw this coming. Our glorious chancellor made clear that he'd like the economy to be similar to China's in terms of worker insecurity and pay. This just adds to the load by which he'll try to achieve his aim - workers who'll have to scrabble desperately to reach their quota of hours, and allow themselves to be submitted to any indignity in order to stave off a sanction.

I hope the complacent fucks at the TUC are paying attention.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If it does come in, an awful lot of people who thought they were safely in the 'us' camp are going to find out they're actually in the 'them' camp after all.

Quite. They'll be nailing themselves out of quite a few of their rural strongholds with this. They seem to forget that even in "wealthy" rural constituencies, the backbone of their vote are not the wealthy, but the rural non-wealthy - the poor and the "squeezed middle".

 

[ViolentPanda]

ah now we know why mass immigration is allowed - cheap labour with multiple occupancy of the houses lost by those unable to pay rent as cannot secure f/t hours or enough hours work to pay it and loose benefits under latest sanctions - result for landlords as 10 plus folk living in house with 3 beds will pay more rent in total and business owners pay less wages again,

Or am I just been far too cynical

You're not cynical.

A moron, but not cynical.

 

[Frankie Jack]

can't wait till March when the U.N Rapporteur makes her report public to the council,

btw, thousands have protested(rightly) against the EDL, who are seen as a future threat, but here are people dying everyday as a direct consequence of Govt 'reforms' yet the response is minimal, the recent ATOS protests being mostly claimants themselves and a few allies, are they sleepwalking? I find this both baffling and yes, disgusting.

This one..


Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a
component of the right to an adequate standard of living,
and on the right to non-discrimination in this context,
Raquel Rolnik
Addendum
Mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*

 

[Libertad]

Thanks Frankie Jack , required reading for later.

 

[SikhWarrioR]

saw a headline in the oxford mail today saying someone starved to death coz of cuts in benefits

That article is already doing the rounds on Twitter

 

[Awesome Wells]

It won't happen because Universal Credit is a clusterfuck which is going to be dropped *prays hard*

here is the report
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11043378.Man_starved_after_benefits_were_cut/

A ‘vulnerable and fragile’ man starved to death four months after most of his benefits were stopped and he was left with just £40 a week to survive on.

Atos Healthcare – which assesses peoples’ ability to work on behalf of the Government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) – ruled the 44-year-old Mark Wood from Bampton was fit to work.

But at an inquest into his death, Oxford Coroners Court heard testimony that Mr Wood was far from fit to hold down a job.

Weighing just 5st 8lbs when he died of malnutrition in August last year, Mr Wood had obsessive compulsive disorder, Aspergers syndrome, phobias of food, pollution, paint fumes, and social situations, and cognitive behavioural problems.
His GP Nicolas Ward told yesterday’s proceedings: “He was an extremely vulnerable and fragile individual who was coping with life.

“Something pushed him or affected him in the time before he died and the only thing I can put my finger on is the pressure he felt he was under when his benefits were removed.”

Dr Ward, from Bampton Medical Practice, said he had not been contacted by either Atos or DWP about Mr Wood’s medical history, and revealed that if they had asked for his professional opinion he would have said Mr Wood was unfit for work. Mr Wood had been receiving housing benefit, employment and support allowance, and disability living allowance of £40 a week and had been living independently since 2006. But in January last year Atos Healthcare ruled that Mr Wood was healthy and able to work. Following its assessment, in about April last year, Mr Wood’s housing benefits and employment support allowance were stopped by the DWP, leaving just the disability allowance.

His GP Nicolas Ward told yesterday’s proceedings: “He was an extremely vulnerable and fragile individual who was coping with life.

Correction: he was not coping with life, as is patently clear.

This GP is surprised ATOS didn't contact him; this is part of the problem. GP's do not have a due what is going on. Many, in fact (IMHO), don't seem terribly bothered. I think they assume ATOS is stated by experienced professionals and that it's to be trusted.

 

[Libertad]

The Special Rapporteur's report is damning of the UK's housing provision as it stands and as it has developed since Right to Buy.
With regards to welfare reform and its effect on social housing she recommends on page 20, Section VII, Para 80 a and b:

80. In light of these conclusions, the Special Rapporteur wishes to make the following recommendations to the central Government and devolved administrations, as applicable:
(a) Assess and evaluate the impact of the welfare reform in relation to the right to adequate housing of the most vulnerable individuals and groups, in light of existing data and evidence; consider whether particular measures are having a disproportionate impact on specific groups; assess whether the overall costs of the implementation of some reforms might outweigh the savings intended, thereby violating the State’s obligation to use the maximum of available resources; and consider alternative avenues to achieve similar objectives without affecting the poorest or most vulnerable;

(b) In particular, the removal of the spare-room subsidy should be suspended immediately and be fully re-evaluated in light of the evidence of its negative impacts on the right to adequate housing and general well-being of many vulnerable individuals and households;

Whether the present government will act upon any of her recommendations is doubtful.

 

[ddraig]

this group in Cardiff do free tea and coffee outside jobcentres and let claimants know their rights
they get grief from DWP employees and security staff
http://cardiffteatent.wordpress.com/

Welsh bits read
Tea and Coffee for free
and sometimes cakes
in unity with benefit claimants

benefit information
and much more
people before profit
no to sanctions / no to workfare

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Is this good news or not? I suppose it is in a sense that it keeps the pressure up. In another sense though does it mean anything? It says:

MP John McDonnell called for the government to “commission an independent cumulative assessment of the impact of changes in the welfare system on sick and disabled people, their families and carers”. By a majority, the motion was passed.

What does that actually mean though? Does it mean that the government will actually commission such a review because the motion passed? Or is the only motion that's passed is 'yes I agree, the government should do carry out a review?'

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Ah nevermind I found the answer .

 

[treelover]

Reverend Dr Keith Hebden to fast for 40 days and nights in solidarity with hungry Britons using foodbanks

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/r...h-hungry-britons-using-foodbanks-9154318.html

The Reverend’s emotive campaign comes in stark contrast to the assertions of Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, who in The Times on Tuesday wrote that it was too “simplistic” to blame increased poverty on welfare cuts and suggested that the rise in foodbank use could in some parts be attributed to people not having lessons in how to cook properly.

meanwhile

 

[treelover]

Panorama, 'hungry britain'

8.30pm

on foodbanks

 

[Awesome Wells]

meanwhile

Not knowing how to cook? What the fuck? Fuck you Carey, burn in hell you steaming shitwizard.

 

[ViolentPanda]

meanwhile

There's a reason Carey was the least popular archbish of Canterbury - it's because he was a self-satisfied right-wing fuck who made excuses for Thatcher.
So it's no surprise he's making fatuous excuses for the results of neoliberalism.

 

[Awesome Wells]

http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/201...tre-a-few-feet-away-doing-absolutely-nothing/

Heartbreaking.

 

[Libertad]

http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/201...tre-a-few-feet-away-doing-absolutely-nothing/

Heartbreaking.

Yes, yes it is. When I read of yet another injustice having been inflicted on some unsuspecting unfortunate I think of the people I know and perhaps of myself and my little family who are just one vicious pen-stroke away from penury. We are the precariat and we are helpless in the face of such bureaucratic malevolence.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Kate Belgrave has been outside Jobcentres talking to people.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve spent time outside jobcentres with the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group talking with people who are on JSA about their experiences. We’ve been talking about sanctions, about the realities of trying to find work with jobcentres (a month in and I have yet to speak to anyone who has) and about having to fall into line on all fronts or risk having your benefits cut. Am posting transcripts from those discussions here as I work on a bigger project.

Last week, we went to the Lisson Grove jobcentre at Marylebone – a jobcentre that quite a few people we’ve spoken to seem to dislike intensely. Once again, we talked to people who were tired, angry and sick of the whole JSA regime. Don’t forget that the only crime people have committed here is being unemployed. Anyone could end up in that situation.

http://www.katebelgrave.com/2014/03...th-sanctions-more-stories-from-the-jobcentre/

 

[treelover]

There was a doc about poverty in the U.S, it was mostly about how Reagan had closed the asylums, etc, under his 'care in the community' regime, then how he starved the programme of funds, same thing has happened here, first many mentally ill people were forced out of institutions, then over time CITC has been cut and restructured, now the living expenses people need to survive has been cut, but much worse, people are being bullied, hassled and basically humiliated.

btw, not defending institutions, just describing what has happened since.

 

[treelover]

Kate Belgrave has been outside Jobcentres talking to people.




http://www.katebelgrave.com/2014/03...th-sanctions-more-stories-from-the-jobcentre/

she is great, surprised Newsnight haven't employed her.

btw, the BBC Panorama on Food banks had some good parts though Currie featured prominently.

 

[treelover]

Here is something i wrote immediately after my latest encounter with the DWP.
Just sat in front of someone, asking them if they knew the law on how many steps required by a citizen to be classed as actively seeking work, ---- (Refused to give his last name) @ Stafford jobcentre said he didn't know. He's sanctioning people and he doesn't know the law, because according to him he "doesn't need to know". I tried reading him the law out loud, the response to which was to call security over.
Also apparently my only living allowance has now been permanently suspended also, because i refused to sign a jobseekers agreement, mandating/forcing me to sign up for universal jobmatch, for the reasons i've detailed before. (Monster being an american corporation, which have all been proven to be compromised by the NSA, and how i won't render my personal information to a foreign nation state, by proxy or otherwise.)
I am a political dissident of this regime in this country, where my ability to exist has been removed, and will be doing everything in my power to see that these injustices are brought to light.
I've been informed that there could be a possibility of filing a notice of tort against this individual on a number of counts.
"The crimes are maladministration, coercion, willful causation of distress, and breach of chartered practice. UK statutory consumer law allows you to demand without referral the full name and ident number of any representative of a company by which you are a customer. JCP is a registered corporation and is subject to these laws." - anon.
Any legal eagles out there who might offer an opinion on such things?

someone posted this on CIF, has he got a case?

 

[Awesome Wells]

someone posted this on CIF, has he got a case?

As I understand it, one can refuse to sign what they now call a Çlaimant Commitment' and it gets referred to a decision maker. I suspect that during this period they would argue that, without a completed CC, your claim isn't complete and so aren't entitled to any money. In other words: you can refuse to sign, but it delays completing your claim. I'm not sure how refusal per se can be sanctionable, but the DWP has become trigger happy. I suspect they would argue that the individual ís not doing all he can to look for work'. That's their get out clause to jusify any punitive action.

I doubt the individual has a leg to stand on, even if his reasons for refusing to ign the CC are legitimate (and in the eyes of he DWP they won't be), simply because the DWP control the purse strings. He could hold out but can he financially afford it? Who knows how long it will take the decision maker?

This is why I am do sigusted with the PCS. The local Socialist Party rep told me the PCS are generally good guys (which may be the case locally), and they have been on strike a lot over the last few years, but noone shows them solidarity. I don't know about that, but I do know that the PCS has members that are enacting this regime at the DWP. I get they include members fearful of their own jobs, but if this isn't enough for the leadership of the PCS to call a ballot at least - what is the point of them. That would be a decision enacted at leadership level and shouldn't put any individual at risk.

 

[ViolentPanda]

http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/201...tre-a-few-feet-away-doing-absolutely-nothing/

Heartbreaking.

And engineered to be exactly that, given the tight bounds (and sanction quotas) imposed on DWP staff.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As I understand it, one can refuse to sign what they now call a Çlaimant Commitment' and it gets referred to a decision maker. I suspect that during this period they would argue that, without a completed CC, your claim isn't complete and so aren't entitled to any money. In other words: you can refuse to sign, but it delays completing your claim. I'm not sure how refusal per se can be sanctionable, but the DWP has become trigger happy. I suspect they would argue that the individual ís not doing all he can to look for work'. That's their get out clause to jusify any punitive action.

I doubt the individual has a leg to stand on, even if his reasons for refusing to ign the CC are legitimate (and in the eyes of he DWP they won't be), simply because the DWP control the purse strings. He could hold out but can he financially afford it? Who knows how long it will take the decision maker?

This is why I am do sigusted with the PCS. The local Socialist Party rep told me the PCS are generally good guys (which may be the case locally), and they have been on strike a lot over the last few years, but noone shows them solidarity. I don't know about that, but I do know that the PCS has members that are enacting this regime at the DWP. I get they include members fearful of their own jobs, but if this isn't enough for the leadership of the PCS to call a ballot at least - what is the point of them. That would be a decision enacted at leadership level and shouldn't put any individual at risk.

Put simply, I'm not sure that the PCS can afford to fight a war on two fronts, and if they get heavily involved in supporting claimants against attacks, they may well worry that they'll drop the ball with regard to the ongoing purges staff reduction programmes being levelled against their members at DWP and HMRC.

 

[Awesome Wells]

Put simply, I'm not sure that the PCS can afford to fight a war on two fronts, and if they get heavily involved in supporting claimants against attacks, they may well worry that they'll drop the ball with regard to the ongoing purges staff reduction programmes being levelled against their members at DWP and HMRC.

It's not even supporting claimants. It's simply not being a trigger happy goon. Sanctioning people for being absent because they attended a funeral? That can't be in the rules.

If they won't make a stand, then, frankly, what's the point of them?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's not even supporting claimants. It's simply not being a trigger happy goon. Sanctioning people for being absent because they attended a funeral? That can't be in the rules.

If they won't make a stand, then, frankly, what's the point of them?

What's the point of any union?
I hate to tell you (as you've obviously not been apprised of this important information before now), but unions exist first and foremost to secure the interests of their membership, not the interests of their membership's customer/client base. ANy political activity beyond that will always be ancillary to protecting the membership.

 

[Awesome Wells]

I've never had any dealings with unions.

But it will be in the interests of their members if claimants get even more desperate...

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've never had any dealings with unions.

But it will be in the interests of their members if claimants get even more desperate...

You've had no dealings with them, yet you feel qualified to tell them what actions might be in the interests of their members?
Well done, that man!
Don't you get it? The membership, like the union, are between a rock and a hard place. They're looking down the barrel of another ten to thirty thousand compulsory redundancies. As is usual when large employers are looking to "lose" staff, management are pouncing on every tiny disciplinary or procedural infraction, and attempting to use those issues to lever people out of their jobs with out having to pay redundancy. Very few workers are going to stick their necks out beyond what they already do, because frankly they want to keep their jobs as long as possible. Working in a job that destroys your soul still seems better to many people than being on the other side of the jobcentre counter. All this has been very obviously the case for the last 3+ years.