It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Benefits Street" - Justifying cuts in welfare?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   
There has been a fair bit of debate over a recently aired series called Benefits Street a "documentary" series about a street of people in Birmingham, UK, whose residents mainly rely on welfare for their income.

This fly on the wall series basically follow's round its cast in their day to day lives which seem's to only consist of drinking, watching TV on their flat screens (With sky/cable of course) Going out to commit crime (Thieving from shops to sell items) and growing illegal substances.

Im bringing this to the board of ATS because today, CONservative members of parliament will use this drivel to further justify their cuts to the welfare state. Source: Mirror newspaper.

I am not going to rush to the defence of the people in this programme. They are lazy, they do need to try harder to better themselves and their families. Some of them need some proper help from the state, but no help is being provided. Its just not good enough to sanction someone's benefits for 3 months and tell them to get a job - Its irresponsible and fuel's crime/poverty. With 2.5 million people unemployed and only around 500,000 jobs available in the WHOLE of the uk it is simply unethical and ignorant to persecute the working class.

This programme is an insult to those who claim benefits and its audience. Its only purpose is to lead people to the conclusion that our benefits system is a sham and is supporting layabouts and criminals. It fails to tackle any of the following issue's:

- Working people who need to claim benefits to top up their wage because their employer does not pay them enough to live on.

- The backgrounds of these people in the programme. One does not simply become a thieving alcoholic, events in life sway you.

- What help is being made available to these people to enable them to find gainful employment so that they no longer need to claim benefits.

I could very easily get a camera crew together and follow a group of gypsies and show you all the negative things about their culture/ society. I could follow a group of banker's for 6 months and show you all of their negative aspects. I could get you angry by filming any group of people/sect of society and showing you only the negative aspects. The MP's have such a short memory, the expense's scandal was merely a year or two ago - And they still continue to rip off the tax payer.

People need to stop looking at the poor for answers. Those people on benefits are not flooding the UK with migrants to drive wages down. Their not cutting tax for top-rate earners. Their not going to the European courts to defend bankers bonuses. Their not upping the retirement age and dismantling the NHS. Their not living the high life smoking cigarettes and watching TV all day. If you're working and your still dirt poor at the end of the month - Dont look to those on benefits to answer the question of why.

Your economic misery is caused by corrupt politicians in bed with big business. Its not just the UK, its the whole world. People need to see past the hate and wake up.

Deny Ignorance.

Oh, and i thought i would add this little gem into the mix:

MP's spend £250,000 on self portriats.

^^ Utter disgrace.






edit on 14-1-2014 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I agree with you on that SearchLightsInc. This TV show is already that! Propaganda. This is just another divide & conquer tactic by the MSM/TPTB to hate on the poor & lower working classes. "Don't blame the MPs and Government, blame the poor and lower classes. Very lame indeed.

The alcoholics and drug addicts may never ever get a job so its pointless lumping them with the lazy people, they need to put them in another benefit class altogether even if they have to create a new one.

With 2.5 million claiming JSA and only 500 thousand jobs available then hell knows I cant complain. But If there were 2.5 million jobs and 500 thousand claiming JSA then I guess I would have a right to complain when people are too lazy to work when there's tons of jobs out there.

If everyone has a job then where would the people who work at the dole office be.


edit on 14/1/14 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   

SearchLightsInc
I am not going to rush to the defence of the people in this programme. They are lazy, they do need to try harder to better themselves and their families. Some of them need some proper help from the state, but no help is being provided.


And what, exactly, is the State supposed to do above what it already does? They already get a house provided for them, money to buy food (or Tennents Super) and the JobCentre will run courses on preparing CV's, for interviews and to get basic computer literacy. A certain amount of personal responsibility is needed here. The one guy on that show who did try to do something positive (the black dude who sold foodstuffs for 50p) has actually had several job offers since being on the show - the rest have had none, because they clearly don't want to work.


SearchLightsInc
Its just not good enough to sanction someone's benefits for 3 months and tell them to get a job - Its irresponsible and fuel's crime/poverty.


Those people are the one's who have either never worked or not worked in years, so it is more irresponsible to just allow them to continue their current lifestyle at taxpayers expense. The State is not responsible for every person and their actions.


SearchLightsInc
With 2.5 million people unemployed and only around 500,000 jobs available in the WHOLE of the uk it is simply unethical and ignorant to persecute the working class.


That is not strictly true - what you're doing is distorting the figures to paint a picture. In the UK, right now, there are 2.39 Million classed as "out of work", but not all are "unemployed". To be "unemployed" you have to be actively seeking work and claiming JSA. My missus is "out of work", but she isn't unemployed. The actual amount of people seeking work is 1.27 Million - a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE yo your figure.

From December 2013, people in employment actually increased by 250,000 in 3 months, compared to the previous quarter. This is despite the number of people working in the "public sector" being the lowest since records began, so all that scaremongering from Labour about reducing the size of Government (that they doubled in size during their tenure) would lead to millions unemployed was just bollocks.

You really should avail yourself of the facts - not rely on tabloid nonsense - to inform you of what is happening


SearchLightsInc
This programme is an insult to those who claim benefits and its audience. Its only purpose is to lead people to the conclusion that our benefits system is a sham and is supporting layabouts and criminals.


Only if your IQ is in the low dozens would you genuinely believe that. I think most reasonable, intelligent people will see the programme for what it is.


SearchLightsInc
It fails to tackle any of the following issue's:


It doesn't "tackle" any issues, it just follows people about their daily lives.


SearchLightsInc
- Working people who need to claim benefits to top up their wage because their employer does not pay them enough to live on.


I know people in this "situation" and you know what, they'd be quite able to get by on their wages if they didn't have to have the latest phone, the biggest TV, the biggest Cable package etc. That's not to say all are like that nor that there isn't an issue with low pay, but again, this comes down to personal responsibility and living within your means


SearchLightsInc
- The backgrounds of these people in the programme. One does not simply become a thieving alcoholic, events in life sway you.


Their backgrounds are irrelevant and hardly the fault of the state. Personal choices.....


SearchLightsInc
- What help is being made available to these people to enable them to find gainful employment so that they no longer need to claim benefits.


The same as everybody else who seems to be able to find a job. Check the PDF from the ONS I linked above (second link) - plenty of people are finding work, there is work out there and tons of it - You entirely misrepresent a figure earlier by claiming there were only 500k jobs in the UK - Yes, that is true, but this is at ANY GIVEN TIME and is increasing. The figuire you quote is actually a year old, it is more like 600K vacancies as of December 2013 - that is 1 Job for every two "unemployed" people, which isn't too shabby.


SearchLightsInc
I could very easily get a camera crew together and follow a group of gypsies and show you all the negative things about their culture/ society. I could follow a group of banker's for 6 months and show you all of their negative aspects. I could get you angry by filming any group of people/sect of society and showing you only the negative aspects. The MP's have such a short memory, the expense's scandal was merely a year or two ago - And they still continue to rip off the tax payer.


Ironic you should talk about a short memory and then say the above.... The expenses scandal actually started back in 2008, with the first details published in 2009, almost 5 years ago.


SearchLightsInc
People need to stop looking at the poor for answers.


I don't think anyone does....


SearchLightsInc
Those people on benefits are not flooding the UK with migrants to drive wages down.


No, that would have been the 13 years of Labour, their open door policy and stated aim of Social Engineering


SearchLightsInc
Their not cutting tax for top-rate earners.


Increasing taxes on those that already pay more tax than anybody else would just drive them to take all the money out of the UK and avoid tax altogether.... You have a very rose-tinted and simplistic view, don't you?


SearchLightsInc
Their not upping the retirement age


We live longer these days than before - makes perfect sense. If you want to retire earlier though, you can. You just have to plan for it. What exactly is your problem? All their doing is upping the age on the State pension. You can (and should) have a private pension too which can pay out from 55.


SearchLightsInc
and dismantling the NHS.


But their not though, are they? More tabloid hyperbole. That's me done - for now - it's clear you fancy yourself as a bit of a Owen Jones, who is a colossal tit by the way.
edit on 14/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Ezappa
With 2.5 million claiming JSA and only 500 thousand jobs available then hell knows I cant complain. But If there were 2.5 million jobs and 500 thousand claiming JSA then I guess I would have a right to complain when people are too lazy to work when there's tons of jobs out there.


Neither of those figures is even true, so don't worry about it..

And if anyone thinks we can be in a country with 100% employment is barking mad.
edit on 14/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I am off to work very soon but i wanted to quickly reply to you. Alli really picked up from your reply was "Its not the state's responsibility to take care of these people" labour are # and defending cutting tax rates for high income earners just to make sure the treasury definitely never see's a penny of what is owed in tax.

Its not hard to see why this country is in a mess with voter mentality in which you have displayed. You might not like paying benefits to people who are lazy and feckless yet you're expecting miracles when they get sanctioned for 3 months. What do you honestly will happen to them when you stop their income? They'll wake up and think "Oh yeah, i'll get a job now" - Get real. People dont stop having basic needs just because you stop their basic income.

Dont even get me started on people living within their mean's. No one is out working just so they can live in an empty cold box, never doing anything else with their lives. To ask people to "Live within their means" Is an insult when there are working people out there who can barely afford to live in the first place.

Ian duncan smith isnt even worth £71 a week and look at what that tool is raking in per year.

The show itself should be banned from airing.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   

stumason


SearchLightsInc
- The backgrounds of these people in the programme. One does not simply become a thieving alcoholic, events in life sway you.


Their backgrounds are irrelevant and hardly the fault of the state. Personal choices.....




If any of them are like my cousin then some may very well have been the victim of child abuse. My cousin and his dad are both benfit living drug users and alcoholics. Why? Cause the police in the 70's-90's never took there crys for help serously and the NHS mental health system is broken.
edit on 14-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   

SearchLightsInc
I am off to work very soon but i wanted to quickly reply to you. Alli really picked up from your reply was "Its not the state's responsibility to take care of these people" labour are # and defending cutting tax rates for high income earners just to make sure the treasury definitely never see's a penny of what is owed in tax.


If that is all you got from my post, then debating further with you is essentially pointless. I never actually said any of those things and it really get's on my tits they way you think you can put words in my mouth, rather than debate a topic on actual facts and figures.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   

SearchLightsInc
Its just not good enough to sanction someone's benefits for 3 months and tell them to get a job - Its irresponsible and fuel's crime/poverty.


I work up to 70 hours a week, and I don't believe that anyone should have their welfare benefits taken away, regardless if they want to work or not.

The reason being that I am a believer in human rights. If they want us to pay for our "human rights" such as food, water, shelter and clothing, it effectively means that they are working class privileges and not rights at all.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Possibly and certainly in the case of one of them, that is what he claims.

That said, I know plenty of people in those sorts of situations though their own choices, my eldest sister and my ex, for starters.

I have personal experience of addiction, homelessness and being dirt poor - I am not some rich toff who's never had it hard, I have worked every step of the way, off my own back without ANY state support to get where I am today, which is why I get so annoyed by posters (not you - the other guy) making sweeping assumptions about me and not actually debating the topic.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:37 AM
link   

SearchLightsInc
Its not hard to see why this country is in a mess with voter mentality in which you have displayed. You might not like paying benefits to people who are lazy and feckless yet you're expecting miracles when they get sanctioned for 3 months. What do you honestly will happen to them when you stop their income? They'll wake up and think "Oh yeah, i'll get a job now" - Get real. People don't stop having basic needs just because you stop their basic income.


Only JSA gets sanctioned and that forms quite a small part of the overall benefits package. And yes, they bloody well should think "I have to get a job now" - I did when I was unemployed!!

Besides, the sanctions rarely take away the entire benefit, they just cut it for a short while and for good reason:



The highest sanction will see Jobseeker's Allowance withdrawn for 13 weeks when, for example, an individual leaves a job voluntarily. This rises to 26 weeks for a second "failure" and 156 weeks for a third

An intermediate sanction for failures such as not actively seeking a job or being available for work. Benefit is initially lost for a month, or 13 weeks for subsequently breaking the rules. Claimants must then reapply

A lower level sanction, resulting in loss of benefit for up to 13 weeks, for failures such as not attending an interview with a jobcentre adviser. Unlike an intermediate sanction, the benefit restarts automatically

Link


I'm sorry, but if they do get sanctioned it's their own bloody fault, seeing as every sanction is for either leaving a job, not looking for a job, turning down a job etc... So your argument about them having to suddenly "find a job" actually falls totally flat on it's face.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


That programme is pure propaganda made by the government funded public information channel, C4; the people focused on are in the minority. I read that only two of the households featured were in receipt of JSA, the others being either pensioners, lone parents or care in the community claimants on ESA or for the lucky few, DLA.

The new sanctions regime is draconian with people facing homelessness because if HB claims are made as part of JSA claims, then HB is also subject to the sanction. Some may be able to find some sort of work to ensure they don't end on the streets but the very real life choices for working age state dependents is now heat, eat or the streets.


If you find your housing benefit stopped this is wrong, you need to file a nil income claim. A Birmingham charity, Sifa Fireside, says that “housing benefit is increasingly suspended if people are being sanctioned by Job Centre Plus”


Social landlords have been dragged in as government policy henchmen and the DWP are denying FOI requests about how many of those 'cured' by ATOS that have died since Gideon activated his 'austerity' measures. In the year 2011-2012, 11,000 sick and disabled people deemed fit to work by ATOS have died after their reassessment by computer programme. Some by their own hand. To those that believe they could have made other choices, you just do not understand desolation and how it destroys the natural will to survive.

The reason cited for denying the FOI requests? They are 'politically motivated and vexatious in nature'. That being the case, then the welfare reform policies are politically motivated and vexatious in nature, with only a single group being targeted. Did you know that since these unelected fascists installed themselves, there has been a 125% increase in HB claims by those in work? In the programme, they did not feature any of those in work and claiming top-up benefits, tax credits etc. Damn strivers eating into the welfare budgets! Or indeed, having to resort to food banks. A recent parliamentary debate about the rising use of food banks saw IDS walk out and Tory MP's laugh at the news that more working people are having to resort to them.


The sanctions ignore very real aspects of people's very real lives. 2.25m people have been 'sanctioned'. Here is a list compiled by False Economy of the arbitrary reasons given for sanctions;


*It’s Christmas Day. You don’t do any jobsearch, because it’s Christmas Day. So you get sanctioned. For not looking to see if anyone has advertised a new job on Christmas Day. (source: Poverty Alliance)

*You get given the wrong forms, get sanctioned for not doing the right forms. (Source: Adventures in Workfare blog )

*You don’t apply for an IT job that needs skills you don’t have so you get sanctioned. (Source: Geminisnake on Urban75 forums )

*You retire on the grounds of ill health and claim ESA. You go to your assessment and during the assessment you have a heart attack, so the nurse says they have to stop the assessment. You get sanctioned for not withdrawing from your assessment (Source: Debbie Abrahams MP)

*You get a job, isn’t that great? The job doesn’t start for two weeks, so you don’t look for work in those two weeks, and get sanctioned for it. (Souce: The Guardian )falseeconomy.org.uk...


Access pro bono legal services at Fightback www.facebook.com... where you can download a 'Nil Income Declaration for HB claims when sanctioned.



edit on 14/1/2014 by teapot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 



*It’s Christmas Day. You don’t do any jobsearch, because it’s Christmas Day. So you get sanctioned. For not looking to see if anyone has advertised a new job on Christmas Day. (source: Poverty Alliance)

*You get given the wrong forms, get sanctioned for not doing the right forms. (Source: Adventures in Workfare blog )

*You don’t apply for an IT job that needs skills you don’t have so you get sanctioned. (Source: Geminisnake on Urban75 forums )

*You retire on the grounds of ill health and claim ESA. You go to your assessment and during the assessment you have a heart attack, so the nurse says they have to stop the assessment. You get sanctioned for not withdrawing from your assessment (Source: Debbie Abrahams MP)

*You get a job, isn’t that great? The job doesn’t start for two weeks, so you don’t look for work in those two weeks, and get sanctioned for it. (Souce: The Guardian )falseeconomy.org.uk...


What utter drivel...You do realise that none of the above is true. If you had a heart attack during an ATOS assessment, you would be taken to A&E and hospitalised, which would immediately qualify you as having a limited capacity for work and you would get your ESA claim.

As for being sanctioned for not applying for jobs you are not qualified for, Jobcentreplus staff advise you not to apply for jobs that you don't have qualifications for in the initial looking for work session, so yet again this is not true. Also when you do get a job, you are entitled to an into work bonus, roll on housing benefit etc, so you do not get sanctioned for not looking for another job.

As for getting sanctioned for not looking for a job on Christmas day, there is nothing to stop you searching for a job and reporting that there were no new vacancies when you searched that day...ergo, no sanction...Telling Jobcentreplus that you didn't bother to look is what will get you the sanction, not that there are not any new vacancies.

Finally, if you are given an incorrect form, then you do have some responsibility to make sure you get the correct form. A simple request for the correct form will not get you a sanction.

I personally am claiming ESA as I currently have a debilitating illness, which I hope will improve in the near future. I went to the ATOS assessment and was declared unfit for work at present, and placed in the work related activity group as the prognosis is that my health will improve in the future and I will be capable of work...I am looking forward to that because having worked all of my life, I would far rather be working. So all of the claims about ATOS not declaring anyone as unfit, is also untrue.

Furthermore, everyone blames the coalition govt for ATOS, whilst completely forgetting it was the previous Labour govt who initially gave them the contract for fit to work assessments. Interestingly, this was at the time that I first became ill and I was declared fit for work at my first ATOS assessment (under the Labour govt) but the forms and rules changed under the coalition govt and suddenly I was not fit to work when assessed last year.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Welcome to the careless society where the victims are demonised. The old working class are now the underclass and the middle class are on a slippery slope downwards.
While the rich get richer its only a matter of time before the victims are euthanised.
Its like some sick joke. My area is one of the poorest areas of the u.k. After they shut down the coal/steel plants the problems rose exponentially. Solution? Dump all the immigrants here.

Now how genius is that? Thousands of immigrants claiming benefits -that is why the poor are being demonised so people actually prefer foreigners. It stinks
But what do you expect from a goverment that declared war on its own people. The motto must have been" lol lol, what are they complaining about?lol dump 20000 roma in the sink estates then they will have something to complain about."
The saddest thing is we could have had full employment,full benefits,social cohesion,cheap house prices,the best education if it was not for the mass immigration in the last 15 years.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
What's more depressing than the tv show, is watching the twitter feed when its on. People calling for mass sterilization, for these families to be put on an island and bombed. People demanding all benefits be cut to everyone.It's an extremely divisive show if nothing else. Channel 4 seem to like these types of programs. Pitting one section of the community against another.

It won't be long until we see a hunger games type mentality game show, to see who deserves their benefits. By the looks of twitter it would be a ratings smash. Gnashing their teeth while tweeting who should live or die.

We are turning into a hate filled little island.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   

stumason

Ezappa
With 2.5 million claiming JSA and only 500 thousand jobs available then hell knows I cant complain. But If there were 2.5 million jobs and 500 thousand claiming JSA then I guess I would have a right to complain when people are too lazy to work when there's tons of jobs out there.


Neither of those figures is even true, so don't worry about it..

And if anyone thinks we can be in a country with 100% employment is barking mad.
edit on 14/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)

There is a massive difference between 100% employment 100% of the time (impossible and thus barking mad) and effectively/near 100% employment. The latter being a recognition that some people will be temporarily out of work. This is why the benefits sytem was created in the first place ! The problem we have is that an economic model based mostly on capitalism, as our economy is, depends on unemployment to keep wage costs down. The other factor in keep wage costs down is immigration which is why those in certain positions of power and company ownership like high immigration.

It is possible to have effective 100% employment but only if the current economic model changes drastically. Such a change will give certain newspaper editors (especially daily mail!) and politicians nightmares. NB the current model is broken and is only limping along it HAS to change.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


if it was not for the mass immigration in the last 15 years.


Agreed and at least you can see past the current government, who are at least trying to curb immigrants access to welfare benefits, rather than the last lot who would call you a bigot and a racist if you dared to question their open door policy.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 


Well said but I doubt a first hand account of things will change some views because it doesn't jive with the left-wing drivel we get fed from the likes of the Guardian and self-righteous persons such as Owen Jones.

They'd much rather peddle the myths in the hope people won't fact check in the same way C4 and those on the extreme-right of this argument paint all Benefit claimants as scroungers. If people actually bothered to educate themselves with the truth and do their own legwork without relying on others to "inform" them, threads like this or the Twitter feeds for the C4 show woodwardjnr mentioned wouldn't even exist.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


I get what you're saying, but don't agree with it.

If they wanted to "keep wages down", why then have we got a minimum wage, made by Government?

Why have employers got rising insurance costs form increases in NI contributions made by Government?

Why is it that the Government is actually doing all it can, within EU law, to actually reduce immigration and limit what they can get from the State?

None of the arguments for "keeping wages down" makes any sense when you look at the facts of the matter. Immigration peaked under Labour, not to keep wages down, but to actually engineer a new society in the hope the new arrivals would vote Labour, as they traditionally did and to stick to the "rich Elite" who be forced to live in a mixed society. This was a stated aim of Tony Blair, Jack Straw and chums.

As for 100% employment, the only places where you ever find anywhere close to this figure is in a Command Economy, like NK or Soviet Russia and everyone there is basically a slave to the State.

In a truly free market, there will always be unemployed persons, but ideally this will be at a level that isn't a burden on the State and everything works out in the end.

When it does become a burden, it is beholden to the State to rectify the situation that led to the increase in unemployment - this is what they have done and no-one can argue that this Coalitions economy plan is anything but going well - better than expected in fact.

2% growth this year (way above predictions), inflation falling below target, unemployment set to fall below 7% a year a. of schedule along with the strong possibility of actually running a surplus in the 18/19 budget! Then we'll probably go back to a Labour Government who'll promptly spend it all, as they always do (and did in 1997)

And the two Ed's had the cheek to claim the Coalition would wreck the economy...
edit on 14/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Yeah, this government are going to save the world!

Sorry, but to those that believe the hype, the UK's economic woes have only really begun!


Under the Coalition Government, net debt excluding bank bail-outs has continued to rise from 57.1pc of GDP when they took power to 71.8pc last year. www.telegraph.co.uk...


You think the 'austerity' is necessary? For what? To reduce public spending? I put it to you that austerity is a cull of the weakest and the propaganda that so many buy into is designed as a diversion from the long term goals of the Tories and their LibDem stooges. And those goals are rooted in vengeance against the unions that brought down Heath's government in the 1970's. And whilst all those fingers are pointing to perceived scroungers, the true quarry is being targeted for increases to their tax burden to pay the extortionate interest rates charged on the national debt, whereby governments borrow money from their friendly bankers to pay interest on earlier loans.

Cameron promising to cut immigration just reveals him to be in permanent electioneering mode; he has no intention of doing anything except feathering his own nest. Immigrants are not to blame for the state of the country's economy, successive governments are.

Incidently, being an egalitarian does not make me a supporter of the Labour party. But to those that cannot get their .s out of the left-right paradigm nor accept that their own bitterness is the root cause of their partisan views, wanting a fairer more civilised society is not political, you only think so because that is what you have been told to think.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   

destination now
reply to post by teapot
 



*It’s Christmas Day. You don’t do any jobsearch, because it’s Christmas Day. So you get sanctioned. For not looking to see if anyone has advertised a new job on Christmas Day. (source: Poverty Alliance)

*You get given the wrong forms, get sanctioned for not doing the right forms. (Source: Adventures in Workfare blog )

*You don’t apply for an IT job that needs skills you don’t have so you get sanctioned. (Source: Geminisnake on Urban75 forums )

*You retire on the grounds of ill health and claim ESA. You go to your assessment and during the assessment you have a heart attack, so the nurse says they have to stop the assessment. You get sanctioned for not withdrawing from your assessment (Source: Debbie Abrahams MP)

*You get a job, isn’t that great? The job doesn’t start for two weeks, so you don’t look for work in those two weeks, and get sanctioned for it. (Souce: The Guardian )falseeconomy.org.uk...


What utter drivel...You do realise that none of the above is true.


Nope, all of the above are real outcomes for real people who really experienced the ignominy of being penalised for the most spurious of reasons, as illustrated.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join