Sanctions and suicide

[BetterTogether]

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]

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]

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]

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/...in-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This is a good unbiased source on poverty in Scotland, house of commons scottish affiars committe https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...otland&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.