Sanctions and suicide

[squidge]

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]

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]

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...ner-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-wel...uicide/data/uk

[cptdodger]

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]

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]

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...ner-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-wel...uicide/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, 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]

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, 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]

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.