PDA

View Full Version : Sanctions and suicide



squidge
23-Sep-15, 13:19
It has long been evident that the sanctions policy of the conservative government and the previous coalition government has contributed to th despair and distress of a number of claimants who have taken their own lives with disability campaigners suggesting that up to 80 suicides have been directly inked to Benefit Sanctions.

The DWP themselves appears to have accepted that their policies increase the distress and the despair of vulnerable people to the extent that they have introduced suicide training for their front line staff. That alone is disturbing. if you are aware that your policies are increasingly making people suicidal then the answer surely has to be to change the policy and not simply to introduce what appears to be wholly inadequate training to staff to deal with the fall out?

This week Mary Hassell, senior coroner for inner north London,cited welforms as a direct cause of the suicide of Michael O'Sullivan saying. She wrote that “the trigger for Mr O’Sullivan’s suicide was his recent assessment by a DWP doctor as being fit for work… In my opinion, there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken”.

You know I used to think that the Government did not understand the impact of their policies on the lives of the most vulnerable or the sickest in society.By implementing suicide training for their staff they show that they do indeed understand the impact of their policies but actually, the fact is that they don't really care.

This week has seen some unpleasant stuff about our government in the news but this fact is surely the most unpleasant of all.

rob murray
23-Sep-15, 14:18
It has long been evident that the sanctions policy of the conservative government and the previous coalition government has contributed to th despair and distress of a number of claimants who have taken their own lives with disability campaigners suggesting that up to 80 suicides have been directly inked to Benefit Sanctions.

The DWP themselves appears to have accepted that their policies increase the distress and the despair of vulnerable people to the extent that they have introduced suicide training for their front line staff. That alone is disturbing. if you are aware that your policies are increasingly making people suicidal then the answer surely has to be to change the policy and not simply to introduce what appears to be wholly inadequate training to staff to deal with the fall out?

This week Mary Hassell, senior coroner for inner north London,cited welforms as a direct cause of the suicide of Michael O'Sullivan saying. She wrote that “the trigger for Mr O’Sullivan’s suicide was his recent assessment by a DWP doctor as being fit for work… In my opinion, there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken”.

You know I used to think that the Government did not understand the impact of their policies on the lives of the most vulnerable or the sickest in society.By implementing suicide training for their staff they show that they do indeed understand the impact of their policies but actually, the fact is that they don't really care.

This week has seen some unpleasant stuff about our government in the news but this fact is surely the most unpleasant of all.

The impact on front line DWP staff will additionally be horrific, all the training in the world wont erase the memories of dealing with a claimant who is threatening to committ suicide / actually does, because of the position being sanctioned places them in, nobody, staff or claimants should go through this sanctions process as is, which lets face it is now very very wide in its context and interpretation. The "training" I imagine would have been instigated by DWP themselves ie helping staff cope, its not their policies, they are an instrument of government administering government policy which is obviously having an impact on staff.

bekisman
23-Sep-15, 14:24
Don't take the above in isolation Squidge, Ms Hassell is not just 'picking up' on this one particular case as you appear to be making out (shock Horror) but: " Over the past four years Ms Hassell has asked for reviews into equipment carried by paramedics, whether midwives have access to foreign language interpreters, and to ensure that the HM Prison Cardiff system carries up-to-date medical records for prisoners. She has instigated reports into the level of care in elderly people’s homes, demanded further CPR training for hospital staff, overhauls of systems to record telephone calls at health centres, and improved communication between doctors and nurses when it comes to urgent lab tests." *http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2013/may/mary-hassell-solicitor-record-pushing-change-appointed-new-coroner-st-pancras

OK, yes, it NEEDS to be looked into this O'Sullivan case in that his own Doctor's opinion and psychiatric balance etc were ignored, but PLEASE don't go screaming that this Coroner has picked up solely on this case which seems in your opinion to give you carte blanche to point the finger at the wicked conservative government and those 'Tory Toffs'. Who runs Scotland? see below...

N.B.: Chart 1 suggests that the overall suicide rate has been significantly higher in Scotland than either the UK or England and Wales since the early 1990s, although the gap has narrowed over recent years. In Chart 2, a similar pattern is seen for the separate male and female rates. In 2013, the UK rate for males was 19.0 per 100,000 population compared with 23.7 for Scotland, while for females the rate was 5.1 per 100,000 for the UK and 6.7 for Scotland (all based on new coding rules). * http://www.scotpho.org.uk/health-wellbeing-and-disease/suicide/data/uk

cptdodger
23-Sep-15, 14:56
but PLEASE don't go screaming that this Coroner has picked up solely on this case which seems in your opinion to give you carte blanche to point the finger at the wicked conservative government and those 'Tory Toffs'. Who runs Scotland?

Every single Political Party that has been in power since the 5th of April 1993, and that includes the SNP can be accused of the same. Just take a look at the history of the Child Support Agency and you will find a fair few suicides can be attributed to the actions of this Government agency.

BetterTogether
23-Sep-15, 15:42
I tend to disagree the reason a person commits suicide is directly attributable to themselves and the set of circumstances that led them to the fatal end result.

It's very easy to blame governments, doctors or any other organisation you care to mention.

The reality is each case has to be taken under its own merits, suicide is not a new occurrence it's happened down through history.
It generally accepted that men are more likely than women to commit suicide and that certain geographic locations make people more like to commit the act.
But before you try to make political capital out what has to be a tragically sad occurrence you also have to weigh into the equation that many people who do take this unfortunate route will already be heading down that path due to circumstances which are nothing to do with the organisations mentioned.
Mental Health is a tricky area at best and you will always have those who will choose this route despite all the best intentions and interventions of any group.
To try pin one single case on any one particular instance is nothing more than to try and make a political point at the expense of someone whose life was in turmoil.
Few of us are qualified to deal with those circumstance and to try lay the blame at the door of a government official or political party is shameless at best.
It's about time those who try blame political parties for misfortunes and poor mental health that occur in people's lives outwith politics and not directly as a result should reconsider their positions as what they are doing is nothing more than oppurtunism.

squidge
23-Sep-15, 18:23
Don't take the above in isolation Squidge, Ms Hassell is not just 'picking up' on this one particular case as you appear to be making out (shock Horror) but: " Over the past four years Ms Hassell has asked for reviews into equipment carried by paramedics, whether midwives have access to foreign language interpreters, and to ensure that the HM Prison Cardiff system carries up-to-date medical records for prisoners. She has instigated reports into the level of care in elderly people’s homes, demanded further CPR training for hospital staff, overhauls of systems to record telephone calls at health centres, and improved communication between doctors and nurses when it comes to urgent lab tests." *http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2013/may/mary-hassell-solicitor-record-pushing-change-appointed-new-coroner-st-pancrasOK, yes, it NEEDS to be looked into this O'Sullivan case in that his own Doctor's opinion and psychiatric balance etc were ignored, but PLEASE don't go screaming that this Coroner has picked up solely on this case which seems in your opinion to give you carte blanche to point the finger at the wicked conservative government and those 'Tory Toffs'. Who runs Scotland? see below...N.B.: Chart 1 suggests that the overall suicide rate has been significantly higher in Scotland than either the UK or England and Wales since the early 1990s, although the gap has narrowed over recent years. In Chart 2, a similar pattern is seen for the separate male and female rates. In 2013, the UK rate for males was 19.0 per 100,000 population compared with 23.7 for Scotland, while for females the rate was 5.1 per 100,000 for the UK and 6.7 for Scotland (all based on new coding rules). * http://www.scotpho.org.uk/health-wellbeing-and-disease/suicide/data/uk

This is not an isolated case though. It is simply the first to draw such a clear correlation. There are many cases, some of which I have raised on this board and elsewhere before today., the case of David Clapson for example. The system for assessing a person's fitness for work now barely gives lip service to medical opinion; the number of people who have died fairly soon after being assessed as fit for work is seriously worrying, the increase use of foodbanks which research shows is as a direct result of the increase in sanctions, the length of time it is taking to process a claim for PIP, these are all issues which impact on the most vulnerable and which directly relate to this and the previous government's policies on Welfare reform.

Rob, you are right that this impacts on the staff and I am appalled that there is evidence to show that staff are being put under a significant amount of pressure to stop people's money and impose sanctions as a first option. Never mind dealing with desperate or despairing people on the verge of suicide. You and I both know how target driven DWP has been in its many guises over the years and are aware of the pressure that staff working on the front line of benefit delivery can feel in the face of desperate members of the public and pressure from above. Sadly today, the potential of losing your job if you don't "perform" well enough is a real threat leaving you at risk of receiving the treatment you have seen given to others.

Beks, the responsibility for these welfare policies and their implementation does, I'm afraid lie squarely with the Westminster Government. None of these benefits are devolved, none of the operations of Jobcentreplus are devolved and none of the systems around the assessment and delivery of these benefits are devolved..... Yet. As we saw in another post yesterday where the Scottish Government has the capacity to act, like the ILf, bedroom tax, welfare fund and hopefully sooner rather than later, DLA, it is doing so but to suggest that there is anything at all that they can do to influence the delivery of benefits through Jobcentreplus is wrong. They cannot.

rob murray
23-Sep-15, 20:40
I tend to disagree the reason a person commits suicide is directly attributable to themselves and the set of circumstances that led them to the fatal end result.

It's very easy to blame governments, doctors or any other organisation you care to mention.

The reality is each case has to be taken under its own merits, suicide is not a new occurrence it's happened down through history.
It generally accepted that men are more likely than women to commit suicide and that certain geographic locations make people more like to commit the act.
But before you try to make political capital out what has to be a tragically sad occurrence you also have to weigh into the equation that many people who do take this unfortunate route will already be heading down that path due to circumstances which are nothing to do with the organisations mentioned.
Mental Health is a tricky area at best and you will always have those who will choose this route despite all the best intentions and interventions of any group.
To try pin one single case on any one particular instance is nothing more than to try and make a political point at the expense of someone whose life was in turmoil.
Few of us are qualified to deal with those circumstance and to try lay the blame at the door of a government official or political party is shameless at best.
It's about time those who try blame political parties for misfortunes and poor mental health that occur in people's lives outwith politics and not directly as a result should reconsider their positions as what they are doing is nothing more than oppurtunism.

And do you not think that its shameless to impose heartless cruel sanctions basically to catch people out so they lose benefits, and do you not accept that this could well act as a tipping point on people who are at the end of their tether.......perhaps you should give thanks that you are not, as I, ever in a situation where our only source of support can be cut off often on the most spurious of contemptible reasons, and done purely for political reasons nothing more or less. The sanctions situation is a political act of that there can be no argument.

Alrock
23-Sep-15, 22:30
On the subject of sanctions, a question for those in paid employment....

If you where late in to work (slept in, missed the bus, etc) or even did something wrong (no matter how minor) would you be happy to be docked 4 weeks pay (13 weeks for a second offence)?

squidge
23-Sep-15, 22:58
The sanction regime is punitive and unfair. Sanctions or disallowances have always existed but the way they have been restyled over the last five or six years and become the most used tools is dreadful. So as an example if you are late for an appointment, by say ten minutes then you can and do, lose your benefit for 4weeks. There and then, even if you are due a payment that week, you will lose your benefit right then for 4 weeks. Imagine if you were late for work by ten minutes and lost your wages for the whole month? How would you cope and suppose your bus was late again and you faced 13 weeks without money? How are you supposed to live?

A significant amount of sanctions imposed are overturned on appeal - that means in fact that the decision was wrong to start with and that the person on the receiving end of that incorrect sanction has struggled and struggled with no money at all for no reason. There is evidence from organisations like the CAB, housing services, the JRF, charities, activists that people are not being given information about how to appeal, about hardship payments, about their right to still claim hardship allowance.

Benefits paid to people who are sick or disabled are taking so long to be paid that people are suffering real hardship. PIP is taking months and months to be paid. People with terminal illness, complex long term conditions, serious mental health issues are being found fit for work in complete opposition to their doctors - GPs and Specialists - opinions.

Make no mistake that this is a political issue. Sanctions are a key part of the governments drive for a smaller, less supportive social security system. They are about punishing those on benefits, they play into the undeserving poor agenda we see this government and the media push at every opportunity.

This is not about helping people to find work. Sanctions do not help people find work - you will never sanction someone into a job! Sanctions increase anxiety, they cause real hardship, they lead to increased foodbanks use, homelessness, and make life harder for people. Whilst sanctions have always had a role to play as a last resort for people who refuse to meet their obligations, the evidence is that they are a first option, they are being used to back up unrealistic job search requirements, to catch people out and they are unfairly affecting the most vulnerable, those with mental health problems, learning difficulties, disability, child care and other caring responsibilities.

It is shocking that in the 21st century we have people being driven to the brink of their ability to cope by government policies.

BetterTogether
23-Sep-15, 23:34
On the subject of sanctions, a question for those in paid employment....If you where late in to work (slept in, missed the bus, etc) or even did something wrong (no matter how minor) would you be happy to be docked 4 weeks pay (13 weeks for a second offence)?

Nope but you're in work and the rules are different what you may well find is you'd be in for some kind of verbal warning to start and if you carried on you'd find the disciplinary procedure would commence until you'd find yourself dismissed and end up Jobless.

rob murray
24-Sep-15, 09:17
The sanction regime is punitive and unfair. Sanctions or disallowances have always existed but the way they have been restyled over the last five or six years and become the most used tools is dreadful. So as an example if you are late for an appointment, by say ten minutes then you can and do, lose your benefit for 4weeks. There and then, even if you are due a payment that week, you will lose your benefit right then for 4 weeks. Imagine if you were late for work by ten minutes and lost your wages for the whole month? How would you cope and suppose your bus was late again and you faced 13 weeks without money? How are you supposed to live?

A significant amount of sanctions imposed are overturned on appeal - that means in fact that the decision was wrong to start with and that the person on the receiving end of that incorrect sanction has struggled and struggled with no money at all for no reason. There is evidence from organisations like the CAB, housing services, the JRF, charities, activists that people are not being given information about how to appeal, about hardship payments, about their right to still claim hardship allowance.

Benefits paid to people who are sick or disabled are taking so long to be paid that people are suffering real hardship. PIP is taking months and months to be paid. People with terminal illness, complex long term conditions, serious mental health issues are being found fit for work in complete opposition to their doctors - GPs and Specialists - opinions.

Make no mistake that this is a political issue. Sanctions are a key part of the governments drive for a smaller, less supportive social security system. They are about punishing those on benefits, they play into the undeserving poor agenda we see this government and the media push at every opportunity.

This is not about helping people to find work. Sanctions do not help people find work - you will never sanction someone into a job! Sanctions increase anxiety, they cause real hardship, they lead to increased foodbanks use, homelessness, and make life harder for people. Whilst sanctions have always had a role to play as a last resort for people who refuse to meet their obligations, the evidence is that they are a first option, they are being used to back up unrealistic job search requirements, to catch people out and they are unfairly affecting the most vulnerable, those with mental health problems, learning difficulties, disability, child care and other caring responsibilities.

It is shocking that in the 21st century we have people being driven to the brink of their ability to cope by government policies.

Technically and refering to neo classical economics, which supposedly underpin neo con politics, unemployed people are unemployed because they ( labour being a mere commodity ) have priced themselves out of employment so to get employment they have to price themselves at the market rate as commodities and work for the going rate whatever that is, this is interpreted by neo cons as the rationale behind making unemployed people "price" themselves accordingly and price themselves into work ( underpinng rationale being that benefits are higher, in some cases, than wages, so cut benefits, harass and push people back into work ). OK thats fine if there are jobs available, and of course low wages are partially subsidisied by tax credits, so the neo cons by imposing draconain sanctions are "pushing" people into employment, work or want !! Actually this branch of economics was totally disproved by a certain famous UK economists 80 years ok, ie an economy can settle into an equilibrium ( balanced position ) AND not have enough work to go round ie the depression in the 30's early 80's ). The neo con response is, and always has been that such conditions are temporary, market distortions, which in the long run will alleviate / sort itself out without any government intervention. The irony here is that Osbourne interferes in markets by juggling around tax credits and passes "living wage" legislation....which will only work if work is available. Thats why some commentators have noted that job availability ( especially in SME's ) will fall due to higher wage costs....so confused thinging in the economic rationale which is passed through to a very confused approach to getting people back to work.

IM no soft heartered liberal and since time immemorial there have been what Marx called the " lumpen proleteriat"....people who live feckless lves and dont want to work...Ive seen it first hand, you dont work in the DHSS for 7 years and not expereince it.....preferring to sponge of the state, in my expereince of life they are a small % of genuine job seekers. SO in my view neo cons and IDS are taking a mallet to crack a small nut, everyone is tarred with same brush, but of course in the parlour rooms and london clubs the chattering classes really believe that unemployment exists because people have priced themselves out of employment. SO when Dounreay closes and people sign on in a county with no real job availability / limited availability are ex Dounreay workers siging on because theyve " priced" themselves out of work......come on !!!!! Oh according to the great Lord Tebbitt they can always get on their bikes move and look for work elsewhere........( glossing over the issue of housing relocation, expenses etc ) again dependant on the market for their skills set.

cptdodger
24-Sep-15, 09:52
I have always said, the minimum wage, and now the living wage will cost jobs. Take a business that has x amount of turnover, if their wage bill suddenly increases and their turnover does not, two things will happen, jobs will go or as in Costa's (coffee) case the prices will rise.

We can all blame the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for the sanctions policy in place now. But how many times have you read on this forum, job seekers being referred to as scroungers, lazy and so on. Now these people that say that on this forum presumably live or have knowledge of this area and the severe lack of industry and retail and so on. As Rob mentioned, once Dounreay and Vulcan close Caithness will be in dire straights, if there is not a replacement put in place to employ the vast numbers of people employed at both these places, what will happen then is investment to this area will stop.

At this moment I cannot work due to ill health, added to that I cannot claim any benefit either, my partner earns too much, which sounds great but does not take into account the debt we are in due to periods of unemployment for both of us, so I can't comment on sanctions because I have had no first hand experience of them.

What I can comment on (as mentioned in a previous post) is the Child Support Agency, which you would think has nothing to do with this threat, but as the Conservatives and their actions are being attributed to suicides, then I will attribute suicides, and in some cases much, much worse to every political party that has been in power since 1993. These cases just do not hit the headlines, or when they do the CSA is not mentioned as a reason.

Every single Political Party has had the chance to do something about this Government Agency they just have not. I had the misfortune to have to deal with them from 1993 until 2014 when my case was finally closed, it was not and never had been fit for purpose.

So, feel free to blame the Conservatives for the sanctions and the deaths caused by these sanctions, but do not forget about all the other deaths (and some of these include children) caused by a Government Agency which all the political parties had a hand in.

BetterTogether
24-Sep-15, 10:07
The problem is it's all very well using this area as a model for what the unemployed are like but when you go to big cities and other areas there are the lazy, feckless, irresponsible, drug addicts,alcoholics, ooh my backs aching and I'm pretend depressed who have used and abused the benefits system for their own ends for years exsist.

It's very easy to isolate a few cases of people who fall foul of new rules implemented to flush those who aren't genuine out of the system but I don't hear anyone blaming th government for their behaviour I don't hear society condemning them.
No everyone crosses their arms puckers their lips and does a les Dawson mumbling behind closed doors.

The great Squidges of this world run around pandering to these peoples ever more bizarre theatrics and outlandish lies, so now they have put a system in place that is there to rid the system or non genuine claimants.
It's very well blaming the government for the problem but who created it.
The answer is those who can't be bothered to work lie and cheat the system and those within the system who for years enabled these people in perpetuating the fraud of a good system to appease their own social consciences and political ends.
What you don't hear about is the enablers who used to work for the job centres and benefits system who sage like listened like gullible fools to stories from people intent on milking the system and dishing out endless benefits to them because it wasn't their money and fostered the sense of entitlement that exists now in quite a few sectors of society.

It may not exist up here but it does exsist in other places.

What with th Scottish Governements capitulation on drugs policy dishing out methadone with tax payers money and possibly breaching people's human rights in doing so it's no wonder Westminster has to put in a tough regime to save taxpayers money.

So don't blame the govt blame those who genuinely don't need benefits but play the system and those that have enabled them and perpetrated the myth that benefits are something you get when you can't be bothered.

You're once again dealing with the effect not the cause.

Benefits are for those who genuinely can't find work or are unable to work it's a safety net provided by society to look after the less fortunate.

It is not a way of life, a sticking plaster to cover the poor choices you've made by addicting your body to drugs or alcohol. It isn't any easy way to get money because you're too fat, to lazy or can't be bothered.

So yes the sanctions system will be a shock to those who have got used to a more lack system and some will fall foul of a harder system but blame those who've cheated the system for so long and those who enabled them.

rob murray
24-Sep-15, 10:41
The problem is it's all very well using this area as a model for what the unemployed are like but when you go to big cities and other areas there are the lazy, feckless, irresponsible, drug addicts,alcoholics, ooh my backs aching and I'm pretend depressed who have used and abused the benefits system for their own ends for years exsist.

It's very easy to isolate a few cases of people who fall foul of new rules implemented to flush those who aren't genuine out of the system but I don't hear anyone blaming th government for their behaviour I don't hear society condemning them.
No everyone crosses their arms puckers their lips and does a les Dawson mumbling behind closed doors.

The great Squidges of this world run around pandering to these peoples ever more bizarre theatrics and outlandish lies, so now they have put a system in place that is there to rid the system or non genuine claimants.
It's very well blaming the government for the problem but who created it.
The answer is those who can't be bothered to work lie and cheat the system and those within the system who for years enabled these people in perpetuating the fraud of a good system to appease their own social consciences and political ends.
What you don't hear about is the enablers who used to work for the job centres and benefits system who sage like listened like gullible fools to stories from people intent on milking the system and dishing out endless benefits to them because it wasn't their money and fostered the sense of entitlement that exists now in quite a few sectors of society.

It may not exist up here but it does exsist in other places.

What with th Scottish Governements capitulation on drugs policy dishing out methadone with tax payers money and possibly breaching people's human rights in doing so it's no wonder Westminster has to put in a tough regime to save taxpayers money.

So don't blame the govt blame those who genuinely don't need benefits but play the system and those that have enabled them and perpetrated the myth that benefits are something you get when you can't be bothered.

You're once again dealing with the effect not the cause.

Benefits are for those who genuinely can't find work or are unable to work it's a safety net provided by society to look after the less fortunate.

It is not a way of life, a sticking plaster to cover the poor choices you've made by addicting your body to drugs or alcohol. It isn't any easy way to get money because you're too fat, to lazy or can't be bothered.

So yes the sanctions system will be a shock to those who have got used to a more lack system and some will fall foul of a harder system but blame those who've cheated the system for so long and those who enabled them.

I did clearly state that Marx called such people the "lumpen proletariate"....and your just repeating what I said, there are feckless people all over the UK ( plenty in Caithness too ) and feckless people existing for centuries, who scrounge of the state, thats wrong, but tarring everyone with the same brush is totally wrong and its all very well syaing some will fall foul of a harder system....but why should they suffer because of wasters ??????. Its a hard one to call, whats the difference between the deserving poor and undeserving ?? and of course the system is government created and led, so they have to take the blame on creating a draconian one size fits all approach based on spurious classical economic theory. The welfare state was created by Beveridge as a safety net, ie replacing the means test, but collective governments both Con and Lab have let the situation spiral out of control, the creation of the supplementary benefit act nearly 40 years ago directly created a system / situation which the shirkers milked..........Turn the clock back and if youve paid NI ( stamps ) then your benefit should be rated to your contributions, thats paid for 6 months or make it 9 months giving a person a good chance to re gain work afterall if youve paid NI for 15 years youve paid into the system so yiu should get something back....or ate you saying pay in but your geeting hassle from day 1 ??????? , after that then you move onto state benfits and take the heat, people who are able and fit and long term unemployed should automatically have to work for their benefits ( community stuff ) anything but lying around, no work = no benefits as they will be making a choise not to work. All sanctions do is force people to go to foodbanks and fall into rent arrears, starve people back into work, and of courses lets not forget may foodback users are in low paid work, so why should they be in this position and the work shy able feckless not work .

rob murray
24-Sep-15, 10:54
The problem is it's all very well using this area as a model for what the unemployed are like but when you go to big cities and other areas there are the lazy, feckless, irresponsible, drug addicts,alcoholics, ooh my backs aching and I'm pretend depressed who have used and abused the benefits system for their own ends for years exsist.

It's very easy to isolate a few cases of people who fall foul of new rules implemented to flush those who aren't genuine out of the system but I don't hear anyone blaming th government for their behaviour I don't hear society condemning them.
No everyone crosses their arms puckers their lips and does a les Dawson mumbling behind closed doors.

The great Squidges of this world run around pandering to these peoples ever more bizarre theatrics and outlandish lies, so now they have put a system in place that is there to rid the system or non genuine claimants.
It's very well blaming the government for the problem but who created it.
The answer is those who can't be bothered to work lie and cheat the system and those within the system who for years enabled these people in perpetuating the fraud of a good system to appease their own social consciences and political ends.
What you don't hear about is the enablers who used to work for the job centres and benefits system who sage like listened like gullible fools to stories from people intent on milking the system and dishing out endless benefits to them because it wasn't their money and fostered the sense of entitlement that exists now in quite a few sectors of society.

It may not exist up here but it does exsist in other places.

What with th Scottish Governements capitulation on drugs policy dishing out methadone with tax payers money and possibly breaching people's human rights in doing so it's no wonder Westminster has to put in a tough regime to save taxpayers money.

So don't blame the govt blame those who genuinely don't need benefits but play the system and those that have enabled them and perpetrated the myth that benefits are something you get when you can't be bothered.

You're once again dealing with the effect not the cause.

Benefits are for those who genuinely can't find work or are unable to work it's a safety net provided by society to look after the less fortunate.

It is not a way of life, a sticking plaster to cover the poor choices you've made by addicting your body to drugs or alcohol. It isn't any easy way to get money because you're too fat, to lazy or can't be bothered.

So yes the sanctions system will be a shock to those who have got used to a more lack system and some will fall foul of a harder system but blame those who've cheated the system for so long and those who enabled them.

This is insulting garbage, totally subjective, unproven and your opionion : "What you don't hear about is the enablers who used to work for the job centres and benefits system who sage like listened like gullible fools to stories from people intent on milking the system and dishing out endless benefits to them because it wasn't their money and fostered the sense of entitlement that exists now in quite a few sectors of society. When I worked at the DHSS which administered supplementary benefit ( unemployment benefit was paid if you had the requisite NI stamps if not then you claimed supp ben, if your unemployment benefit was to low, as was the case for many families you claimed an element of supp ben as a top up benefit ) I can assure you mate that no such thing went on, what did go on was sociall workers informing the shirkers of their legal rights under the supplementary benefit act....ie government legislation....basically we went into a major recession with an out dated unfit benefits system, overly complicated and full of wee clauses....( and Thatcher didnt repace the system until 1987....) well professional social workers saw that people got their "entitlements" under that act....DHSS administered the system, we didnt make it up, and the law is the law....still made sure that the p wasnt extracted though..but what can you do when people arrive armed with scoial work information / letters to claim further benefits.......honestly I could write a book on the con men and women, and what they tried to get away with....Enablers....sage like listeners...gullible fools.............you can publically apologise for this compete nonense pal as youve made me look a damn fool and all ex DHSS staff as well, the police have to operaate within the law and enforce the law good or bad...well so did we. blame your darling Thatcher pal, as the entire system was rotten and should have been blasted apart in the late 70's. ALso shows how little you know, Job centres are a recent invention, prior to them, the Department of EMployment was where you signed on, they paid unemployment benefist, ie based on YOUR NI contributions, no stamps, then you signed on there and had to go to a seperate department the DHSS to claim your "un insured" benefits. Get yer facts right !!!!!

weezer 316
24-Sep-15, 11:08
Here is my tuppence worth as someone brought up by a single mother who was also and alky and never worked a day in her life.

Do sanctions cause some people to commit suicide? Probably. To think the loss of all your income couldn't tip people over the edge is absurd. People have lost their jobs and topped themselves so I would imagine its the same for those without a job as they are the same people.

However, does that mean the system is wrong? I am not sure it does. The benefits system deals with everyone from people who just lost a job they held for 40 years to someone who never had a job and all in between. How do you design a system that supports those who fell into the net whilst at the same time ensuring the system cant be gamed by those who want to never have to work?

No human is perfect, or even group of humans, so it stupid to suspect that an system designed by them will be. People will fall though the cracks and your point on this being the first case in 5 years that draws a clear line between the two is telling. Does that make the govt right? No. But it doesn't make them in the wrong either, however tragic that death is.

rob murray
24-Sep-15, 11:08
BY the way I was front line...the guy who manned the public counter in Wick an sometimes Thurso, no security no barriers just fresh air between me and laregly a bunch of wasters, Ive been spat at , had wine bottles swiped at me,been insulted, threatened...but I used to get my own back, see when you ask someone in to a private meeting room to discuss "their situation" and your one to one....well lets say theyre not so bloody bold then and many a nut job I told to f off out of it...could have been sacked for doing it but it would be their word against mine....I was never ever a gullible fool nor were my work mates the fools were the twats who created the system

squidge
24-Sep-15, 11:17
In 1986 I got a job with the Manpower Services Commission. I worked in the old orange Jobcentres with the bubbly writing and the psychedelic chairs. My job was to find other people a job. By the time i worked there people no longer HAD to visit the Jobcentres, they went because that was where jobs were advertised.Through the years I moved onto be the ex-offenders officer, the Disablement Resettlement Officer, the Ex-Regs officer, the overseas workers officer – all these posts were about giving specialist help to certain people to help them find jobs.

I then became a Restart Interviewer- late 80s – loads of people out of work and I did 60 interviews a week to get through them all. This also meant new rules and new targets – stricter benefits regime targets – SBR. For the first time we could stop someone’s benefits for not Actively Seeking Work and they would not get their giro. Their money was stopped for the fortnight and an Adjudication officer would make a final decision. The training for this stressed the need to be careful when using this power, to remember that we are people’s last hope and to always take care that we were doing the right thing. In those days you had to issue a warning letter which said if the next time you come in you haven’t taken these steps to find work the you will lose your benefit for the fortnight. I remember saying to people “Do you understand? You have to do what you are supposed to do or you will get no money- is that clear? Mostly people did what they were supposed to do, mostly we didn’t have to stop they money. But some people we did. It was, however, always the absolutely last option.

Time moves on and so did I. Claimant Adviser, Benefit Section Manager, Business Manager, Inner City offices, rural offices, New Deal. The rules changed, we saw integration of Unemployment Benefit Offices and Jobcentres and the targets changed, I did so much training – I could clerically assess benefits, I could work out tax rebates, I understood RITYs, Widows Running Start, share fisherman rules and I could even handle the importing and exporting of Benefits to and from the UK. I worked with Jean, a fabulous deputy who could rate a benefit claim in 2 minutes flat, took no nonsense and was respected by staff and claimants alike. Through all this work and all the changes the word used when discussing the rules was “compassion” – we were always told that we should apply the rules with compassion and common sense.

As a Jobcentre Manager, I became responsible for my office achieving these targets, and boy! were you aware if you didn’t. Performance was all. Monthly performance reports, quarterly reviews with your Disrict Manager, 6 monthly reviews, annual performance reviews. Daily or weekly contact with District office if you were failing. Make no mistake performance was everything but in those days targets were about getting people into jobs. SBR targets still existed but paled into insignificance beside the drive to find jobs for people.

During all this time, all this training, even during the Restart Interviews of the 80s, it was never deemed that we needed training in dealing with people who were suicidal because of what we did. The training taught us that if someone was angry, aggressive, then it was often because we were their last hope and we needed to be aware of that and make sure that we were thoughtful and compassionate when dealing with people. But we never had to think about causing their suicide.

In the 90s the service went big on Customer Service, aquiring Chartermark awards, dealing with folk like they were “customers”, making sure they had a great service from the people who dealt with them and compassion in applying the rules. People came first. Stopping someone’s money still happened but it was always a last resort and never ever done without warning.That didtn mean that people "got away with" not looking for work. It meant that people were not given unrealistic jobsearch goals, that they were supported to achieve those goals and that if they failed to attend their money was stopped until they DID aattend - if tthat was two days later then it was two days, five days, then it was five days but not for four weeks

Fast forward to today- I haven’t worked for DWP for a long time and I thank goodness for that. In all that time I found very few people who didn’t want to work. I remember them, i remember their faces, their stories and sometimes even their names. I can do that because they were so few and far between. Today, it’s ALWAYS the fault of the lying scrounging benefit claimant. Bus late? Funeral to go to? Interview that clashes with your signing on time? Sick? Disabled? Caring for someone? You are lying, it’s your fault and so you won’t get paid. Often no warning, often no consideration given to the reasons for YOUR failure to meet the rules, and definitely, definitely no compassion.

An organisation that is run this way, is being used to subjugate, denigrate and control the population. Does that sound like something out of a futuristic post apocalyptic movie? It does and it might make me sound like Citizen Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Smith), but it is happening nevertheless. Jobcentreplus appears to have become the ideological sledge hammer of the Tory party. It is designed to smash the teeth of those out of work so that they have no voice. It is designed to frighten people into doing whatever they are told to do in order that the Conservative Party can achieve their ideological desire for a tiny welfare state where private companies run our social security system and the poor are out of sight and out of mind – left without a voice and definitely without compassion.

I used to think that this UK government had no understanding of the consequences of their actions. That they were oblivious to to the impact of their targets, their rules. I used to think that because they had never had to sit with the curtains shut because they didn’t have enough to pay the milkman who was knocking at the door, they didn’t understand how it felt. I used to look at the front benches and wonder if any of them like me, had ever sat on the bed crying because they had no idea how to feed their boys, if any of them, like me, had not been able to afford to heat their home, if any of them, like me, had put cardboard in their shoes cos they were leaking and the kids needed shoes so mine had to wait. I used to wonder if any of them had ever stepped outside their lives for long enough to know the powerlessness, the desperation, the pain that comes from experiencing those things. Because I was sure that if they had then they would not be treating people the way they do. They would not be making the rules that they do, setting the targets that they do. They would find a better way, a different way to move people into work.

I used to think that they didn’t know. But they do. They know fine well. And that is why they are arranging suicide training for their staff. They KNOW how desperate their policies are making people. They KNOW the consequences of their policies. They KNOW it, and they don’t care.
That is disgusting, it is cruel and it is immoral.

rob murray
24-Sep-15, 11:29
In 1986 I got a job with the Manpower Services Commission. I worked in the old orange Jobcentres with the bubbly writing and the psychedelic chairs. My job was to find other people a job. By the time i worked there people no longer HAD to visit the Jobcentres, they went because that was where jobs were advertised.Through the years I moved onto be the ex-offenders officer, the Disablement Resettlement Officer, the Ex-Regs officer, the overseas workers officer – all these posts were about giving specialist help to certain people to help them find jobs.

I then became a Restart Interviewer- late 80s – loads of people out of work and I did 60 interviews a week to get through them all. This also meant new rules and new targets – stricter benefits regime targets – SBR. For the first time we could stop someone’s benefits for not Actively Seeking Work and they would not get their giro. Their money was stopped for the fortnight and an Adjudication officer would make a final decision. The training for this stressed the need to be careful when using this power, to remember that we are people’s last hope and to always take care that we were doing the right thing. In those days you had to issue a warning letter which said if the next time you come in you haven’t taken these steps to find work the you will lose your benefit for the fortnight. I remember saying to people “Do you understand? You have to do what you are supposed to do or you will get no money- is that clear? Mostly people did what they were supposed to do, mostly we didn’t have to stop they money. But some people we did. It was, however, always the absolutely last option.

Time moves on and so did I. Claimant Adviser, Benefit Section Manager, Business Manager, Inner City offices, rural offices, New Deal. The rules changed, we saw integration of Unemployment Benefit Offices and Jobcentres and the targets changed, I did so much training – I could clerically assess benefits, I could work out tax rebates, I understood RITYs, Widows Running Start, share fisherman rules and I could even handle the importing and exporting of Benefits to and from the UK. I worked with Jean, a fabulous deputy who could rate a benefit claim in 2 minutes flat, took no nonsense and was respected by staff and claimants alike. Through all this work and all the changes the word used when discussing the rules was “compassion” – we were always told that we should apply the rules with compassion and common sense.

As a Jobcentre Manager, I became responsible for my office achieving these targets, and boy! were you aware if you didn’t. Performance was all. Monthly performance reports, quarterly reviews with your Disrict Manager, 6 monthly reviews, annual performance reviews. Daily or weekly contact with District office if you were failing. Make no mistake performance was everything but in those days targets were about getting people into jobs. SBR targets still existed but paled into insignificance beside the drive to find jobs for people.

During all this time, all this training, even during the Restart Interviews of the 80s, it was never deemed that we needed training in dealing with people who were suicidal because of what we did. The training taught us that if someone was angry, aggressive, then it was often because we were their last hope and we needed to be aware of that and make sure that we were thoughtful and compassionate when dealing with people. But we never had to think about causing their suicide.

In the 90s the service went big on Customer Service, aquiring Chartermark awards, dealing with folk like they were “customers”, making sure they had a great service from the people who dealt with them and compassion in applying the rules. People came first. Stopping someone’s money still happened but it was always a last resort and never ever done without warning.That didtn mean that people "got away with" not looking for work. It meant that people were not given unrealistic jobsearch goals, that they were supported to achieve those goals and that if they failed to attend their money was stopped until they DID aattend - if tthat was two days later then it was two days, five days, then it was five days but not for four weeks

Fast forward to today- I haven’t worked for DWP for a long time and I thank goodness for that. In all that time I found very few people who didn’t want to work. I remember them, i remember their faces, their stories and sometimes even their names. I can do that because they were so few and far between. Today, it’s ALWAYS the fault of the lying scrounging benefit claimant. Bus late? Funeral to go to? Interview that clashes with your signing on time? Sick? Disabled? Caring for someone? You are lying, it’s your fault and so you won’t get paid. Often no warning, often no consideration given to the reasons for YOUR failure to meet the rules, and definitely, definitely no compassion.

An organisation that is run this way, is being used to subjugate, denigrate and control the population. Does that sound like something out of a futuristic post apocalyptic movie? It does and it might make me sound like Citizen Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Smith), but it is happening nevertheless. Jobcentreplus appears to have become the ideological sledge hammer of the Tory party. It is designed to smash the teeth of those out of work so that they have no voice. It is designed to frighten people into doing whatever they are told to do in order that the Conservative Party can achieve their ideological desire for a tiny welfare state where private companies run our social security system and the poor are out of sight and out of mind – left without a voice and definitely without compassion.

I used to think that this UK government had no understanding of the consequences of their actions. That they were oblivious to to the impact of their targets, their rules. I used to think that because they had never had to sit with the curtains shut because they didn’t have enough to pay the milkman who was knocking at the door, they didn’t understand how it felt. I used to look at the front benches and wonder if any of them like me, had ever sat on the bed crying because they had no idea how to feed their boys, if any of them, like me, had not been able to afford to heat their home, if any of them, like me, had put cardboard in their shoes cos they were leaking and the kids needed shoes so mine had to wait. I used to wonder if any of them had ever stepped outside their lives for long enough to know the powerlessness, the desperation, the pain that comes from experiencing those things. Because I was sure that if they had then they would not be treating people the way they do. They would not be making the rules that they do, setting the targets that they do. They would find a better way, a different way to move people into work.

I used to think that they didn’t know. But they do. They know fine well. And that is why they are arranging suicide training for their staff. They KNOW how desperate their policies are making people. They KNOW the consequences of their policies. They KNOW it, and they don’t care.
That is disgusting, it is cruel and it is immoral.

Squide, you can speak with authority as like me you were there, Id argue not at the real sharp end though DHSS...now you know the reputation that had...only the brave worked there lol lol lol I had the misfortune of dealing with DWP a few years ago and what shocked me was staff were talking about / dealing with the children of people ( now adults ) I dealt with in the early 80's and believe you me there were loads o work shy types then, nothing had moved on......insitutionalised work avoidance and a benefits culture..very clear to see. The one size fits all approach doesnt work and yes I agree its a witch hunt but dont lose sight that its all underpinned by accepted neo classical labour theory...go and do some reading on this, its not spite that drives things, its policies based on discredited eonomic theory

squidge
24-Sep-15, 11:56
I would argue that working on the front line of an unscreened UBO in Manchester trumps your DHSS in Wick lol. There is an excellent piece of research done by Joseph Rowntree Foundation which looks at "institutionalised work avoidance" and it has some interesting conclusions. I know that changing attitudes in the time since you left the service meant that people were not viewed in the same way as they had been in the 70's and early 80s and I believe that change in attitude had a HUGE impact on why unemployment fell. Remember once someone got to 55? they used to be put as QAs - Quarterly attenders. No contact at all with anyone trying to help them return to work. Nothing - written off. I remember it being suggested that the jobcentre must be a hard job because after all " what do you do with all these tinks" - my reply was " well the first thing you do is not refer to them as "tinks""

In order to move the hardest to help people into work you need to support and help them and that costs money. The money being wasted on appeals, on a work programme which is worse than useless could be used to provide proper supported jobsearch help to those struggling and find them work. It can be done and if the devoloution of the Work Programme as part of the Smith Commission recommendations ever happens we will see that.

People often see what they want to see - lazy idle wasters. During some work with the hardest to help, long term unemployed there was a young lassie who was supposed to attend a course and she failed to turn up. I went to see her, knocked on the door of the place she was living, it was november, it was freezing with horizontal rain and sleet. Awful day. I got soaked between the car and the caravan. Even in my big coat. She let me in. She refused to come when i asked her why she shrugged her shoulders. she wouldnt look at me, i explained that she would lose her money if she didnt come. She shrugged some more. She said she didnt care, she said she wasnt going; she said she didnt want to; I worked hard to understand her, I was utterly baffled and used every ounce of my skills to persuade her. it took 45 minutes before she started to cry, before she looked at me and said " i havent got a coat". The bus stop was fifteen minute walk away, she only had the clothes she wore and living in caravan if she got wet she had nothing warm to wear and she couldnt get stuff dry. Fortunately, in those days there was a fund available and we spent 50 quid and she bought a coat. She attended everyday and she got a permanent full time job at the end of the course and i never saw her again.

I have story after story after story like that of people who at a superficial level look to the whole world like they are wasters, like they dont care and yet with the right help and support they move on.

Today that lassie would have been flagged as a lazy idle waster, sanctioned for 4 weeks, living in caravan, she would have had no money. had to use a foodbank and no one would have cared one way or the other if she lied or died -certainly not the current westminster government.

BetterTogether
24-Sep-15, 14:39
Firstly I have no reason to apologise to you Rob as I've not said anything directed at you.Both you and Squidge have worked within the system and of course that's where your knowledge exists but neither of you have recent experience. On the other hand I've not worked within that system but have met and know many people who are adept at manipulating that system and how to overcome the hurdles put in front of them.You can holler all you like about how unfair the system is and blame anyone you like, but at the end of the day we still have a benefits system that is one of the best in the world no one has successfully argued anything to dispute that.When your born no one is given a mandate that should earn X £s or live in a particular style of housing or should be granted a certain style of life.We each are as individuals responsible for our own paths in life, the fact that in our society we have a generous system that grants us a safety net isn't a natural born right.If you where to compare it to other benefit systems even across Europe it is still generous and worldwide exceedingly generous.To blame suicides on the government when people are usually suicidal before they get to that stage is a gross distortion of reality. If you happen to live in a house have a job and suddenly it all ends and you find yourself unable to make ends meets that isn't the states fault.You can use examples of how the system has changed and how it's all one politicians fault or another, that's fine and dandy but shows more about your political persuasion that anything else. Thatcher has been off the political scene for 25 yrs now you need to find somewhere new to grind your very old axe it's tiresome and irrelevant now the worlds moved on and changed.

rob murray
24-Sep-15, 16:13
Firstly I have no reason to apologise to you Rob as I've not said anything directed at you.Both you and Squidge have worked within the system and of course that's where your knowledge exists but neither of you have recent experience. On the other hand I've not worked within that system but have met and know many people who are adept at manipulating that system and how to overcome the hurdles put in front of them.You can holler all you like about how unfair the system is and blame anyone you like, but at the end of the day we still have a benefits system that is one of the best in the world no one has successfully argued anything to dispute that.When your born no one is given a mandate that should earn X £s or live in a particular style of housing or should be granted a certain style of life.We each are as individuals responsible for our own paths in life, the fact that in our society we have a generous system that grants us a safety net isn't a natural born right.If you where to compare it to other benefit systems even across Europe it is still generous and worldwide exceedingly generous.To blame suicides on the government when people are usually suicidal before they get to that stage is a gross distortion of reality. If you happen to live in a house have a job and suddenly it all ends and you find yourself unable to make ends meets that isn't the states fault.You can use examples of how the system has changed and how it's all one politicians fault or another, that's fine and dandy but shows more about your political persuasion that anything else. Thatcher has been off the political scene for 25 yrs now you need to find somewhere new to grind your very old axe it's tiresome and irrelevant now the worlds moved on and changed.

Your words..."What you don't hear about is the enablers who used to work for the job centres and benefits system who sage like listened like gullible fools to stories from people intent on milking the system and dishing out endless benefits to them because it wasn't their money and fostered the sense of entitlement that exists now in quite a few sectors of society"...........................as an "enabler" who used to work in the "system" I was never a gullible fool.........thank you very much.......... oh and I posted for myself Squidge is more tham capable of stating her own viewpoint so dont couple us togther. Contrary to what you say I have I have had recent experience with the benefits system, and clearly stated that I had a meeting at the Wick Job Centre where to my horror the names that came up were the grown up children of the wasters who milked the system when I worked there 1980 - 87........hence a generational benefit dependnancy culture. To repeat in case you skim read my post I did clearly state that Marx called such people the "lumpen proletariate"....and your just repeating what I said, there are feckless people all over the UK ( plenty in Caithness too ) and feckless people existied for centuries, who scrounge of the state, thats wrong, but tarring everyone with the same brush is totally wrong and its all very well saying some will fall foul of a harder system....but why should they suffer because of wasters ??????. Its a hard one to call, whats the difference between the deserving poor and undeserving ?? and of course the system is government created and led, so they have to take the blame on creating a draconian one size fits all approach based on spurious classical economic theory. The welfare state was created by Beveridge as a safety net, ie replacing the means test, but collective governments both Con and Lab have let the situation spiral out of control, the creation of the supplementary benefit act nearly 40 years ago directly created a system / situation which the shirkers milked..........Turn the clock back and if youve paid NI ( stamps ) then your benefit should be rated to your contributions, thats paid for 6 months or make it 9 months giving a person a good chance to re gain work afterall if youve paid NI for 15 years youve paid into the system so yiu should get something back....or ate you saying pay in but your geeting hassle from day 1 ??????? , after that then you move onto state benfits and take the heat, people who are able and fit and long term unemployed should automatically have to work for their benefits ( community stuff ) anything but lying around, no work = no benefits as they will be making a choise not to work. All sanctions do is force people to go to foodbanks and fall into rent arrears, starve people back into work, and of course lets not forget may foodback users are in low paid work, so why should they be in this position and the work shy able feckless not work .

One last word...economics determines politics..over and out bye bye

rob murray
24-Sep-15, 16:26
I would argue that working on the front line of an unscreened UBO in Manchester trumps your DHSS in Wick lol. There is an excellent piece of research done by Joseph Rowntree Foundation which looks at "institutionalised work avoidance" and it has some interesting conclusions. I know that changing attitudes in the time since you left the service meant that people were not viewed in the same way as they had been in the 70's and early 80s and I believe that change in attitude had a HUGE impact on why unemployment fell. Remember once someone got to 55? they used to be put as QAs - Quarterly attenders. No contact at all with anyone trying to help them return to work. Nothing - written off. I remember it being suggested that the jobcentre must be a hard job because after all " what do you do with all these tinks" - my reply was " well the first thing you do is not refer to them as "tinks""

In order to move the hardest to help people into work you need to support and help them and that costs money. The money being wasted on appeals, on a work programme which is worse than useless could be used to provide proper supported jobsearch help to those struggling and find them work. It can be done and if the devoloution of the Work Programme as part of the Smith Commission recommendations ever happens we will see that.

People often see what they want to see - lazy idle wasters. During some work with the hardest to help, long term unemployed there was a young lassie who was supposed to attend a course and she failed to turn up. I went to see her, knocked on the door of the place she was living, it was november, it was freezing with horizontal rain and sleet. Awful day. I got soaked between the car and the caravan. Even in my big coat. She let me in. She refused to come when i asked her why she shrugged her shoulders. she wouldnt look at me, i explained that she would lose her money if she didnt come. She shrugged some more. She said she didnt care, she said she wasnt going; she said she didnt want to; I worked hard to understand her, I was utterly baffled and used every ounce of my skills to persuade her. it took 45 minutes before she started to cry, before she looked at me and said " i havent got a coat". The bus stop was fifteen minute walk away, she only had the clothes she wore and living in caravan if she got wet she had nothing warm to wear and she couldnt get stuff dry. Fortunately, in those days there was a fund available and we spent 50 quid and she bought a coat. She attended everyday and she got a permanent full time job at the end of the course and i never saw her again.

I have story after story after story like that of people who at a superficial level look to the whole world like they are wasters, like they dont care and yet with the right help and support they move on.

Today that lassie would have been flagged as a lazy idle waster, sanctioned for 4 weeks, living in caravan, she would have had no money. had to use a foodbank and no one would have cared one way or the other if she lied or died -certainly not the current westminster government.

If you are refering to Caithness a lot more than t***s were work shy, personally I find that word rascist and people who use it are repugnant rascists : heres a story, a long term waster ( hardly worked in 30 years ) had fallen behind with his electricty bills, in those days you deducted the electric money straight from the giro and paid the hydro direct building in other deductions to cover the arrers ( ie no one, repeat no one, got a grant to settle electric / gas / rent arrears ) . One day the hydro got in touch, turns out that the guys quarterly bill had risen from £60 to £300....on investigation we found out that he and his brood lived in a mid terraced house, so he was running extensions into his 2 neighbours hiouses, they were using his electricty in return for drink hence the massive increase in bills......I mean in all honesty with people like that, and there were plenty of them, I argued why didnt we just have a weekly grocery delivered, supply drink and fags, put some bets on for them and be done with it !!!!. These are the types that had / have no intention of working...why bother, and sadly there were plenty of them and still are. SO your story about the lassie.......... yes its a shame...but it has to be balanced by the sheer wasters who screwed the system mercilessly.

squidge
24-Sep-15, 23:43
I absolutely agree that it is a racist word Rob I was horrified. And I accept that people like you describe do exist just not in the numbers that is suggested in the endless nonsense that we see from the government and in the media. Your description and mine are not one for one, the vast vast majority of people on benefits - because of unemployment or disability or sickness actually want to work. The story of the three generations of workless households are just that stories. This article summarises the findings of the JRF research.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

Dealing with people who commit fraud or do not want to work, like the two sisters I remember who would not work anywhere except the mill at the end of their road; like the bloke who had a day job, a night job and was signing on as well - dealing with people like this requires a sensible approach to sanctions and robust fraud presence which has been lacking in Years. Not this scattergun approach that penalises a person for things like attending a job interview rather than signing on, missing their appointment cos their wife was in hospital giving birth.


In 2013 900 000 sanctions were applied to people on benefits in Scotland alone. JSA sanctions have doubled since 2010. And yet the number of people claiming JSA has fallen. The government consistently deny that there are targets and yet as late as November 2014, I know managers in jobcentres in the north west were having to report to their district office management team, the number of sanctions applied on a weekly basis and those seen to be underperformance had to report each day on the number of sanctions imposed on jobseekers. what is that if it is not targets? I may not have worked for DWP for a long time, but I deal almost weekly with issues around DWP and benefits, both through my paid work, through volunteering, and through other stuff I do.

It is true that people are often on ESA because of existing mental ill health and may very well be struggling, at the end of their tether, perhaps fighting suicidal feelings. But surely even BT must recognise that to target these people for sanctions, to stop their money in direct contradiction to the medical evidence is likely to push people further down a road of powerlessness, despair and potentially to suicide. When people suffer with a mental illness they often are unable to cope with extra pressure and they may be struggling with a chaotic lifestyle. The failure of the government to recognise this has been highlighted by mental health charities again and again and yet nothing changes.

It's time it did.

theone
25-Sep-15, 01:39
On the subject of sanctions, a question for those in paid employment....

If you where late in to work (slept in, missed the bus, etc) or even did something wrong (no matter how minor) would you be happy to be docked 4 weeks pay (13 weeks for a second offence)?

No, I'm sure I wouldn't be happy.

But you're comparing people who work with those who don't.

Let's turn it around.

Would you be happy if instead of turning up for work every day, all you had to do was turn up at an office once every 4 weeks on time for a 10 minute interview? If that was the situation I was in, I'd make sure I was there with plenty time to spare.

Of course there's going to be instances of people missing appointments for genuine, unavoidable reasons, but I would guess these are in the minority of cases. I'm sure the vast majority who miss their meetings do so through their own poor planning, desire, negligence or lack of respect for the rules. Exactly the traits required for them to get into full time employment.

Although it's valid to argue the implementation of the sanctions policy, I can't see how anyone can promote it's removal. What's the alternative? Allow people on benefits to continue to receive tax payers money regardless of adherence to the rules?

People on benefits should have to follow the rules associated with receiving those benefits or face losing them. In the same way I, and every other tax payer who works for a living, faces losing our jobs if we don't follow the rules set by those paying our wages.

rogermellie
25-Sep-15, 03:17
Of course there's going to be instances of people missing appointments for genuine, unavoidable reasons, but I would guess these are in the minority of cases. .

but even the people who miss appointments 'for genuine, unavoidable reasons' - get sanctioned

theone
25-Sep-15, 04:52
but even the people who miss appointments 'for genuine, unavoidable reasons' - get sanctioned

I can imagine it is difficult to determine who is telling the truth.

Perhaps improvements can be made to weed out the genuine cases to prevent most mistakes in the same way giving suicide training to staff might prevent any deaths.

squidge
25-Sep-15, 08:57
It is not difficult to determine who is telling the truth when you have a person who has an appointment with a work programme provider in one town arranged by jobcentreplus and a jobcentreplus appointment in the other arranged by jobcentreplus - yet sanctioned.

A Massive crash which delayed a number of people, and which everyone knew about- was talking about even as the person got to the jobcentreplus office and which closed roads - sanctioned for being late

Man with no computer skills and learning disabilities who didnt access online job search told to sort himself out - sanctioned.

Woman with terminal illness, seriously ill yet found fit for work and her benefit stopped - sanctioned and her final weeks spent fighting an appeal

Woman with a burst appendix applies for ESA and is refused because she "is not unfit for work" on the day that she is on the operating table - appealed

Man attending interview in jobcentreplus directed to the wrong seating area so didn't hear the call out - sanctioned

The issue here is not about people lying, or the truth being difficult to decide, it's not even about sanctions as part of the benefit system - there is a place for sanctions. It is about the fact that there is no attempts being made to establish what happened because sanctions are the FIRST option. That there are clearly targets being set which have led to a Concerted effort to catch people out and to punish people. That might have been acceptable In The days when a claim was suspended because of a doubt and it was only after a decision was made by an adjudication officer, based on evidence that benefit was stopped. But today benefit is stopped first and foremost.

Many claimants talk about the anxiety, the dread, the fear they feel when they have to go to the jobcentreplus office, even for their normal signing on. Some say it makes them physically sick, they are so scared of losing the little money they have.

All the cases above were overturned on appeal. In 2010 less than 20% of cases were overturned on appeal. By 2014 it was 58%. That gives the lie to the suggestion that most reasons are "not genuine". You might think "oh well - that's alright then" but that can take months, and like we said before - sanctions are for four weeks. Four weeks. If it's a second sanction then it's 13 weeks. With no money, with no rent, in the winter perhaps no heating and no hope. Is that an acceptable way for people to treated in 21st Century Britain?

There is a better way of doing things but that would not support this governments political agenda, because if they stop vilifying people on benefits in the press, pushing the undeserving poor agenda, telling the country that people on benefits are liars, cheats, lazy, idle wasters then we might remember that they are people and start to wonder what the hell is going on.

BetterTogether
25-Sep-15, 09:25
Unfortunately though Squidge we are all becoming hardened to the realities because of people like you constantly hand wringing about how disastrous everything is how it's never anyone's fault and always without fail governments fault.

So at the end of the day the barricades go up the shutters come down and people simply stop listening or agreeing and become harder hearted because they get wearied nothing ever being the fault of someone else.

You use the same modus operandi as the charities singling out individual cases but the public are getting worn out by it running out of sympathy because the emotional drain of feeling sorry for everyone all the time because it's never their fault is an emotional stretch to far.

You have indeed become the org chugger mugging us for emotional support and donations on a daily basis.

rogermellie
25-Sep-15, 09:41
'we are all becoming hardened to the realities'

'and people simply stop listening' 'they get wearied nothing ever being the fault of someone else.'

'the public are getting worn out '

'chugger mugging us for emotional support and donations on a daily basis.

who are you speaking about ? the selfish elite ? the haves ? the i'm alright jack so forget everyone else ?

you certainly don't speak for me or, i reckon, the majority of people

maybe it helps you sleep at night convincing yourself that most people think and feel the same way you do, but outside the usual daily mail/express readership ... most people don't

rob murray
25-Sep-15, 10:15
Unfortunately though Squidge we are all becoming hardened to the realities because of people like you constantly hand wringing about how disastrous everything is how it's never anyone's fault and always without fail governments fault.

So at the end of the day the barricades go up the shutters come down and people simply stop listening or agreeing and become harder hearted because they get wearied nothing ever being the fault of someone else.

You use the same modus operandi as the charities singling out individual cases but the public are getting worn out by it running out of sympathy because the emotional drain of feeling sorry for everyone all the time because it's never their fault is an emotional stretch to far.

You have indeed become the org chugger mugging us for emotional support and donations on a daily basis.

For the last time...its governments who set the damn policies / legal frameworks, so if things arent working out its either maladministration by agencies or poor legisaltion or usually a mix of both, which clearly must be a governments fault. Look at the SNP government, they created police scotland, it aint working is it on that we agree... whoses fault is it...the governments.... why ? did you or I create Police Scotland do we have the power....no !!! A government created it. You yourself wont listen, you wont consider proven facts stats etc to you they are all dismissed out of hand.......unless they fit your frame of reference. And where did you get the "public being worn out / emotional drain guff from ?? To say that and clearly infer that in all cases "its never their fault " ( over sanctions etc ) is nonsense, you cannot make generic claims you dont speak for the public and neither do I, your logic is ill logical. Do you not have it in you to admit that in some cases people are being badly impacted on by the imposition of benefit sanctions which are improperly imposed, yet this must be balanced by proven benefit lifers who dont want to work...ie a a balanced opinion instead of your 100% Im right your all wrong approach.

theone
25-Sep-15, 10:16
maybe it helps you sleep at night convincing yourself that most people think and feel the same way you do, but outside the usual daily mail/express readership ... most people don't

It's difficult to determine what 'most people' want, but I'd imagine what most people want is a benefits system that works for the needy and does not get abused.

The examples you give are obviously extremes, but I can give others that show extremes of benefit abuse.

58% of appeals may well be overturned. This is good, it shows the appeals system is working. I agree it should be faster. But how many sanctions are not appealed because there is no realistic grounds for appeal? Burst appendix at the exact time of an interview are, I am sure rarer than people not bothering to turn up fo 10 minutes out their month to receive taxpayers money whilst sitting at home.

Fulmar
25-Sep-15, 10:24
I think that these things are incredibly complicated to sort out (as complicated as people are) and my answer would always be to look at each case in detail and individually which of course, costs a lot of money and probably requires an allocated 'case worker' which is just not going to happen.
I don't think that you solve anything by bullying and threatening people and withdrawing their benefit though, whatever the circumstances as all that does is shift the problem elsewhere- to food banks and to the charitable sector.
The other elephant in the room is that for people to be 'helped'/forced' into work, there has to be jobs for them to go to- and in many places, there isn't. Yes, the community work is one thing but then there is the argument that if these are 'things' that need doing, then why not call it a job and employ people to do it- of course, because there is no money to do it.
If children have grown up in a non working and maybe what some might call a feckless household then they are at a huge disadbvantage on all fronts right from birth- and there is much research, if not common sense to prove this as it is plain to see. But I for one do not want those innocent children to suffer but to be helped into a better way of life.
Finally, I do not suffer from 'compassion fatigue' either. It is all too easy to point the finger and lay blame but i know folk whose life story is horrendous and who have complex mental and physical health problems and I wonder, how would I have coped with all of that? Truth is, I never had to.I also know people in the older age range who would love to find a job but there are no jobs to be had. So my answer is to help those that I do know (one lady in particular who is now helping others through friendships made in the local church and is perhaps feeling valued for the first time in years and 'contributing') She is on benefits but with a legacy of physical health problems through years of abuse and a lack of confidence, plus being an older person, one wonders who would employ her anyway? And the other thing? Well, each week i contribute to the food bank and although only little bits of help, at least its better than doing nothing at all.

rob murray
25-Sep-15, 10:41
I think that these things are incredibly complicated to sort out (as complicated as people are) and my answer would always be to look at each case in detail and individually which of course, costs a lot of money and probably requires an allocated 'case worker' which is just not going to happen.
I don't think that you solve anything by bullying and threatening people and withdrawing their benefit though, whatever the circumstances as all that does is shift the problem elsewhere- to food banks and to the charitable sector.
The other elephant in the room is that for people to be 'helped'/forced' into work, there has to be jobs for them to go to- and in many places, there isn't. Yes, the community work is one thing but then there is the argument that if these are 'things' that need doing, then why not call it a job and employ people to do it- of course, because there is no money to do it.
If children have grown up in a non working and maybe what some might call a feckless household then they are at a huge disadbvantage on all fronts right from birth- and there is much research, if not common sense to prove this as it is plain to see. But I for one do not want those innocent children to suffer but to be helped into a better way of life.
Finally, I do not suffer from 'compassion fatigue' either. It is all too easy to point the finger and lay blame but i know folk whose life story is horrendous and who have complex mental and physical health problems and I wonder, how would I have coped with all of that? Truth is, I never had to.I also know people in the older age range who would love to find a job but there are no jobs to be had. So my answer is to help those that I do know (one lady in particular who is now helping others through friendships made in the local church and is perhaps feeling valued for the first time in years and 'contributing') She is on benefits but with a legacy of physical health problems through years of abuse and a lack of confidence, plus being an older person, one wonders who would employ her anyway? And the other thing? Well, each week i contribute to the food bank and although only little bits of help, at least its better than doing nothing at all.

Excellent balanced response to this debate, key point is there has to be the jobs available...surely ? ALso no one is born "un employed / and a life long benefit claimant" but children born into such families are raised into a benefits culture and all aspirations / ambitions are stunted, they cannot be nourished nor encouraged in such environemnts thus perpetuating the cycle. I watched an Ian Hislop documentary last night on BBC4, its on what he calls victorian do gooders...ie people who achieved legal victories reforming uncheckered capitalism, ie children working in mines at 5, being put up lums etc etc..... in all cases legisaltion was heavily challenegd by MPS's and Lords who objected to the "market" being regulated ie children were labour commodities and as such had to form part of the work force, to deprive employers of child labour was interefring in the natural order of laissez fairre free markets.....and you know what.... 140 years on the same " have unregulated markets, treat labour as a commodity, leave things to the marke,t guff is still spouted by the neo cons..... key question is do you want to live in POttersville or Bedford Falls ????

squidge
25-Sep-15, 12:02
The burst appendix was not at the time of an interview. The whole claim for ESA was disallowed on the grounds that the woman was not unfit for work despite the date of her claim being the date she was having the operation to remove it.

The shame is that these are not isolated cases, they happen again and again. 58% of successful appeals may show an appeals system which works but it shows a sanctions regime which is failing - affecting people who should never have been Sanctioned in the first place. In addition people who work with those on benefits have identified significant numbers of claimants who have not been informed of their right to appeal. The government also announced the requirement for a mandatory reconsideration before an appeal and the plan to Charge claimants to appeal. It seems that if appeals are too high then just make it more difficult to appeal and that's the same attitude as "if policies are affecting people to the extent that they are suicidal we will just put in suicide training for staff dealing with said people". The implementation in government policies are at fault and there is not even the slightest attempt to change it

And as for hard hearted people closing their hearts and minds, well the lorry leaving Caithness full of donations for refuge would suggest that is not the case. Thank goodness.

BetterTogether
25-Sep-15, 12:50
For the last time...its governments who set the damn policies / legal frameworks, so if things arent working out its either maladministration by agencies or poor legisaltion or usually a mix of both, which clearly must be a governments fault. Look at the SNP government, they created police scotland, it aint working is it on that we agree... whoses fault is it...the governments.... why ? did you or I create Police Scotland do we have the power....no !!! A government created it. You yourself wont listen, you wont consider proven facts stats etc to you they are all dismissed out of hand.......unless they fit your frame of reference. And where did you get the "public being worn out / emotional drain guff from ?? To say that and clearly infer that in all cases "its never their fault " ( over sanctions etc ) is nonsense, you cannot make generic claims you dont speak for the public and neither do I, your logic is ill logical. Do you not have it in you to admit that in some cases people are being badly impacted on by the imposition of benefit sanctions which are improperly imposed, yet this must be balanced by proven benefit lifers who dont want to work...ie a a balanced opinion instead of your 100% Im right your all wrong approach.

I can accept quite easily I'm not always right it's all part of being human but you have to admit that the figure given for people being sanctioned and not over turned was suprisingly high and I suspect that even some of those managing to over turn the sanctions aren't as honest as we'd be led to believe but have just found the right way around the system. Yes Governements create the system but benefits should be a safety net not a means to live a lifestyle subsidised by the taxpayer.
Non of us speak for all the people but when you look at public opinion polls a large percentage of the population do want to see reform. It's easy to pick out examples of people who fall foul of the system but it's just as easy to pick out people who milk the system.
Why should the public pay benefits to someone who decides to have 5 children and expect the population to pay them child support because they decide it's their right to have children.
Aka the example Corbyn gave of I think it was Claire who works part time and her Husband earns £25k a year but also has 5 children but is worried by the amount of benefits are being cut.
The reality is having 5 children is a lifestyle choice and not something the public purse should cough up for just because you feel it's a right.
We can throw examples around of Single Mothers getting houses or drug addicts maybe even just the work shy and feckless but most are now cliched examples but still those cases exsist where people have made decisions which led to them deciding a life on benefits is preferable to a life of work.
What we do agree on is the system needs reforming to bring it back into line with what it should be not what it has become.

rob murray
25-Sep-15, 13:50
I can accept quite easily I'm not always right it's all part of being human but you have to admit that the figure given for people being sanctioned and not over turned was suprisingly high and I suspect that even some of those managing to over turn the sanctions aren't as honest as we'd be led to believe but have just found the right way around the system. Yes Governements create the system but benefits should be a safety net not a means to live a lifestyle subsidised by the taxpayer.
Non of us speak for all the people but when you look at public opinion polls a large percentage of the population do want to see reform. It's easy to pick out examples of people who fall foul of the system but it's just as easy to pick out people who milk the system.
Why should the public pay benefits to someone who decides to have 5 children and expect the population to pay them child support because they decide it's their right to have children.
Aka the example Corbyn gave of I think it was Claire who works part time and her Husband earns £25k a year but also has 5 children but is worried by the amount of benefits are being cut.
The reality is having 5 children is a lifestyle choice and not something the public purse should cough up for just because you feel it's a right.
We can throw examples around of Single Mothers getting houses or drug addicts maybe even just the work shy and feckless but most are now cliched examples but still those cases exsist where people have made decisions which led to them deciding a life on benefits is preferable to a life of work.
What we do agree on is the system needs reforming to bring it back into line with what it should be not what it has become.

Largely I agree with you, the system needs reforming, ive said on here that national insurance contributions ie money we pay and have deducated from our wages used to be used for paying out insured benefits, in days gone by employers got stamps and ensured your "card" was stamped ( hence the old fashioned term when you were sacked of "getting your cards" ) thats the basic principle of an insured support system, if you lose your job through no fault of your own then you are entitled to be paid back your contributions upto an agreed limit of money and time, that gives you time to look for another job, with no hassle, see paying NI contributions as paying into a bank account, you draw out the money as its yours if and when you are ever in that position and meet rules. That principle is now gone as NI is used as a stealth tax. If you dont have stamps left and have used up all your contributions then pressure is put on a person to ensure that they are genuinely looking for work as they would be living directly 100% off the state and thats fair as the state shoulnt carry the load assuming the economy is healthy. People do make concsious choices not to work, a lifestyle choice, topping up benefits by working on the fly, theft / various illegal activities, and unfortuntley they, the work shy malingerers, the lumpen proletariat ( Marx the greatest anti capitalist ever, recognised the failings in sections of what he refered to as the feckless underclass...lumpen proleteriate..... ) are spoiling and will spoil any system so as far as Im concerned hit them damn hard. The blind blanket use of sanctions and a one size fits all, on all unemployed people is totally unfair. Ive worked for 40 years if I lose my job tomorrow I would be looking for another job, I dont need some clown threatening me nor imposing sanctions on me for not trunng up / missing some stupid meeting afterall Id be off looking for work, as I see it, Ive paid in enough NI contributions to get a period of grace where I can under my own endevours look for work. Speak to anyone..... who actually advertises jobs in a Job centre, first thing people do is go to private recruitment agencies, network, cold call / approach likely employers, reply to ads in papers web sites etc anyone who thinks that by signing on they will get access to advertised jobs at JCP are deluded. You have to do the work of getting a job yourself, do not rely on JCP as they are a waste of space and time. Thats another point....what do JCP do.....pay benefits / try and help people into work....throwing sanctions into the mix just confuses their perceived role. As an employer I never ever approached JCP ever, first thing we would do is contact employment agencies, get CV's they would arrange interviews we would interview and bam....job usually done very quickly. People sign on at JCP soley for benfits not to look for work through jobs at JCP and thats a fact.

If someone has 5 planned kids then yes theyve made that choice, so they have to live with it and get on with things, as they knew their financial situation. Of course "accidents" do happen but not to the extent of 5 accidents. Public opinion polls....well.....since when did anyone pay any attention to them, if polled to bring back hanging a large % of the public would vote for it, thats why in a civilised society the public rightly are not offered the chance to vote on that issue, we elect governments to govern, we dont and cannot govern by referendum which is why the indy2 demands is nonsense and illogical, we have a government lets see them govern. Personally I think it shameful that the SNP are comming out with / alluding to "fairer / more benefits / less austerity as they put it" when they havent spelled out how this is to be financed...well thats another unavoidable fact as the only way they can do this is by raising taxes. Anyone can make fairy tale promises.......free beer for life, bread and circuses etc .delivering them is entirely different. ALl we have seen is some minor ( though welcome ) tinkering around the margins of the benefits system, whats needed is a root and branch review to get a more workable benefits system and that aint happening.

BetterTogether
25-Sep-15, 14:04
Rob you've got the job if you can rustle up something quickly, back of a fag packet will do and send it to Ms Sturgeon c/o Holyrood by the end of the year you'll be in charge of SNP policy for benefits and don't worry about figures they can go back a number of years to prove you're hitting targets in fact any old time they hit a target will do as proof.

rob murray
25-Sep-15, 14:11
Rob you've got the job if you can rustle up something quickly, back of a fag packet will do and send it to Ms Sturgeon c/o Holyrood by the end of the year you'll be in charge of SNP policy for benefits and don't worry about figures they can go back a number of years to prove you're hitting targets in fact any old time they hit a target will do as proof.

BTG.....All I posted was a regurgitation of the insured benefit concept, first introduced in Germany in 1880's and GB under Llyod George c 1910...simple principles really which worked, SNP dont have any policy on benefits other than fantasies.......and I rather suspect any policies that they do have are fag packet jobs. I wouldnt touch the SNP not even if offered a million quid !!! ( well Id take the dosh then have a sudden "illness" lol lol lol )

rob murray
25-Sep-15, 14:43
This is a good unbiased source on poverty in Scotland, house of commons scottish affiars committe https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jN_eFRaKjWwC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=able+work+shy+in+scotland&source=bl&ots=XIuGQIGUPy&sig=i5TwcAwnlbe45hH5VHc87mbjcqs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCWoVChMIkfe46KaSyAIVgr0UCh3pyg2P#v=on epage&q=able%20work%20shy%20in%20scotland&f=false see pages 64 -70 odd, interesting and factual...reports from employers of people "refered" to them by JCP who freely admit they dont want to work.....wasting employers time, also raises issue of immigrants 20,000 in work in Glasgow area yet the lumpen proletariate % stayed static, proving that there are / were jobs and people ( as stated in evidence given ) were freely admitting that they didnt want to work !!!!! Underclaiming of befits nearly 100% focuses on elderly who due to pride and struggles with the system werent claiming what was rightfully theirs. NOw thats a genuine shame.

theone
26-Sep-15, 01:38
The shame is that these are not isolated cases, they happen again and again. 58% of successful appeals may show an appeals system which works but it shows a sanctions regime which is failing - affecting people who should never have been Sanctioned in the first place.

I'm sure they do happen again and again, but that doesn't show an unacceptable system without quantifying 'again and again'. There's something like 5 million people in the UK who don't work and receive benefits.

Even with a 99.9% success rate we could expect 5000 wrongly applied sanctions a year. 99% would be 50000 and 90% 500000.

Even a 90% success rate in a benefits system so open to abuse by those who don't want to work would not show a sanctions regime that was failing in my opinion.




In addition people who work with those on benefits have identified significant numbers of claimants who have not been informed of their right to appeal.

Then that is a failure of the staff who implement the policy. Unless you have evidence that it is a deliberate policy to deceive claimants then you can hardly blame the government for that one.



It seems that if appeals are too high then just make it more difficult to appeal and that's the same attitude as "if policies are affecting people to the extent that they are suicidal we will just put in suicide training for staff dealing with said people". The implementation in government policies are at fault and there is not even the slightest attempt to change it


Again, this assumes the policy is at fault.

Define the success rate which would be acceptable. 90%? 95%? What success rate could realistically be achieved whilst trying to ensure those paying their taxes are not being ripped off by benefit cheats?

The higher the number you demand, the more cheats slip through the net. I'm sure the majority of taxpayers want it to be as hard as possible to commit benefit fraud.



And as for hard hearted people closing their hearts and minds, well the lorry leaving Caithness full of donations for refuge would suggest that is not the case. Thank goodness.

A whole lorry? From a population of 30,000 people? Wow.

BetterTogether
26-Sep-15, 07:24
A very big Lorry or a small Lorry could it even be a transit van or estate car given the posters relish for conflating everything it could well be part of an Eddie Stobart Box set complete with realistic decals !

Alrock
26-Sep-15, 10:31
Then that is a failure of the staff who implement the policy. Unless you have evidence that it is a deliberate policy to deceive claimants then you can hardly blame the government for that one...

I'll assume then that you didn't see the Pamorama programme a few months back that went undercover into the benefits system...

squidge
26-Sep-15, 11:52
I'm sure they do happen again and again, but that doesn't show an unacceptable system without quantifying 'again and again'. There's something like 5 million people in the UK who don't work and receive benefits. Even with a 99.9% success rate we could expect 5000 wrongly applied sanctions a year. 99% would be 50000 and 90% 500000..Even a 90% success rate in a benefits system so open to abuse by those who don't want to work would not show a sanctions regime that was failing in my opinion.Then that is a failure of the staff who implement the policy. Unless you have evidence that it is a deliberate policy to deceive claimants then you can hardly blame the government for that one..There is evidence, journalists have evidence, the CAB, CPAG, JRF, a variety of activist group have evidence, there's a woman standing outside Ashton-u-Lyne Jobcentreplus office has evidence, food banks have evidence, various health charities - MIND, ENABLE, have evidence, the social security committee at Westminster has evidence..... But nothing happens except the greater the amount of evidence the more "poverty porn" we see on the telly and the more woman with 57 children gets £1 million in benefits a week stories we see in the papers.
Again, this assumes the policy is at fault.Define the success rate which would be acceptable. 90%? 95%? What success rate could realistically be achieved whilst trying to ensure those paying their taxes are not being ripped off by benefit cheats?The higher the number you demand, the more cheats slip through the net. I'm sure the majority of taxpayers want it to be as hard as possible to commit benefit fraud.Benefit sanctions are not to do with fraud theone. Not at all. These aren't fraudulent claims or benefit cheats and it is wrong to conflate the two issues. These are people who are genuine claimants. Sanctions aren't designed to catch fraudulent claimants. These are cases where a decision is made by a member of staff that someone has broken a rule and as a result that persons money is stopped - immediately. Often with no thought given to the reasons - so we have people who have an interview for a job and a signing on time and they are sanctioned for going to the interview despite the fact that they told the Jobcentreplus they had said interview. That happens again and again. Often the person doesn't even know they have been sanctioned so they go to the post office or hole in the wall and have no money and there is nothing they can do about it. It is not about fraud. Successful Appeals should be down at less than 20% because we should not be pushing people into utter destitution without being absolutely sure we are right.
A whole lorry? From a population of 30,000 people? Wow. It's not the first load lol. I don't know how big it was but the Highland Group have just been given a building to use free so that we can store and sort stuff properly. It's fantastic
The current storage space is full and still stuff arrives. They need volunteers to sort if you are interested in helping out lol

theone
27-Sep-15, 00:11
There is evidence, journalists have evidence, the CAB, CPAG, JRF, a variety of activist group have evidence, there's a woman standing outside Ashton-u-Lyne Jobcentreplus office has evidence, food banks have evidence, various health charities - MIND, ENABLE, have evidence, the social security committee at Westminster has evidence.....

You're not answering my question.

I'm sure all these people have evidence of failures of the system, poor sanctions etc. I was asking for evidence that Government Ministers in Westminster have set a policy to hide the appeals process to those on sanctions. Because that was your original point.


Benefit sanctions are not to do with fraud theone. Not at all. These aren't fraudulent claims or benefit cheats and it is wrong to conflate the two issues. These are people who are genuine claimants. Sanctions aren't designed to catch fraudulent claimants. These are cases where a decision is made by a member of staff that someone has broken a rule and as a result that persons money is stopped - immediately.

I agree it would be wrong to conflate the two issues, but I don't believe I am.

Sanctions are ABSOLUTELY to do with fraud and with catching claimants who should not be receiving benefits.

Those who receive disability benefits, for example, have to prove they have that disability and that it prevents from from working. That is the rule.

If people fail to turn up to a meeting to prove it, they should not receive tax payers money in the same way someone not turning up to work would not get paid.


Successful Appeals should be down at less than 20% because we should not be pushing people into utter destitution without being absolutely sure we are right.

Okay. That's better. Lets talk figures.

In your opinion, less than 20% of appeals should be successful. I wouldn't disagree, that sounds achievable - 4 out of 5 sanctions applied correctly, 1 out of 5 wrong.

It's difficult to quantify precise numbers, but from what is reported in the Guardian, around a million received sanctions in a year. Some report 900,00, some 1.2 million. Lets call it an even million. So if that's in a year, lets call it 500,000 in 6 months.

The independent reports that there were 1300 appeals to sanctions in the first 6 months of the year. 1300 appeals from 500,000 sanction. It's fair to say that in those cases where no appeal was made, the sanctions were correct. Out of those 1300 appeals, 53% were overturned. So 754 people had wrongly been sanctioned, 611 were correct.

So out of 500,000 sanctions, 754 were wrong. 1.5% were wrong.

A 98.5% success rate in ensuring benefits were stopped to those who weren't entitled to receive them.

499,246 who shouldn't have been getting benefits caught.

I'd call that a win for the taxpayer, and a successful policy.

Sources for figures used here:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/26/benefit-sanctions-review-urged-amid-concern-over-regimes-effectiveness

and here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/appeals-against-dwp-fit-to-work-decisions-more-successful-than-ever-before-10495119.html

As you Squidge, it's easy to get carried away with stories of single mothers with 57 kids in the right leaning press. But it is equally as easy to get carried away with stories of quadruple amputees getting sent to work in a sweat shop in the left leaning press.

What I find is that when you remove the emotion these articles are designed to promote, whether it be hatred or empathy, and look into the stories with your head instead of your heart - at the big picture and facts instead of isolated cases - only then can you make a reasoned judgement.