# Benefit Busters: C4, 9pm 20th Aug



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

This series looks like it is going to be a good catalyst for U75 rage.

So here is a thread to facilitate the expression of that.

Starts next Thursday.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters



> *Episode 1*
> 
> Hayley Taylor's job is to persuade single mothers on benefits to go back to work.
> 
> ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 11, 2009)

A4E = shite.

My other half went through them and they were absolutely rubbish, at least in the Leeds branch.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2009)

I can feel my bile rising already...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 11, 2009)

Jobseekers treated like cattle - _JOBSEEKERS claim they are being 'treated like cattle' by government contractors employed to help them find work. Scores of people have revealed a catalogue of shortcomings in job-searching facilities and health and safety on training courses delivered by Action 4 employment - A4e - a private skills firm paid by the Department for Work and Pensions. Job hunters say up to 200 of them are crammed into premises in Minshull Street, Manchester, where they have two computers, and no telephone access, for job searching and just one toilet each for men and women. _

Fraud inquiry into government jobs scheme - _Recruitment companies getting tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to find jobs for the unemployed are at the centre of a fraud probe after staff made false claims of getting people into work. The Observer found that A4e, one of the government's biggest private contractors, is at the centre of the Department for Work and Pensions inquiries. It is understood that at least two other recruitment companies have been probed by the DWP. Last night Yvette Cooper, the work and pensions secretary, confirmed that investigations were under way and said she could cancel multimillion-pound contracts if widespread fraud was uncovered. _


----------



## Rikbikboo (Aug 11, 2009)

Yeah  A bit like SHAW TRUST  when I was looking for work after being long term sick.

They put me in a group with totally deaf ppl and at times just left us alone in a group on our own. At one point i was told to lead the class. I may as well have been an alien as I was unable to communicate.

total complete farce and all done arse upwards.. no help at all.  Did it all myself in the end.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

comment on C4 site said:
			
		

> Well,the time is getting closer,adverts for the documentry are already been shown,big shock as we didnt realise there would be adverts for it.....silly us. we really enjoyed being part of this, i personally met a few very good friends while on this course and got alot out of it.Our tutour Hayley Taylor is just the best of the best. but was utterly dissapointed once the figures of the amount lost if we were to come off benefits were shown to her.Im sure everyone on benefits who want to return to work would like the goverment to change things for the better and make it more worth while for them to do so. its ok feeling better about working but at the end of the day there are bills to pay and children to feed,sometimes its a very sad fact that its better to stay on benifits untill the time is right for ones personal situation. hope you enjoy watching xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 11, 2009)

> Hayley Taylor is just the best of the best. but was utterly dissapointed once the figures of the amount lost if we were to come off benefits were shown to her.



Did this slight flaw not come up in the research she/the agency/the government did beforehand?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Did this slight flaw not come up in the research she/the agency/the government did beforehand?



ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I doubt much resarch went on- I'm cynical enough to think this contract was awarded through sheer cronyism.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Did this slight flaw not come up in the research she/the agency/the government did beforehand?


It doesn't really make sense either - I haven't come across a case yet where a single parent isn't at least £50p/w better off in work due to tax credits payments, even at 16 hours of work a week - the government has deliberately structured the benefits and tax credits system to achieve this situation.

That's not to say that A4E aren't an utter shower of bastards who shouldn't be trusted, nor that I support the current policies to make single parents have to seek work from ever diminishing ages of their youngest child, under threat of financial sanctions from poverty-level benefits.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 11, 2009)

Interesting given the research showing how much better children fare when looked after by their own parents that the govt is so keen to shove them into childcare.

Is there a lower cut-off age for this I wonder?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 11, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Interesting given the research showing how much better children fare when looked after by their own parents that the govt is so keen to shove them into childcare.
> 
> Is there a lower cut-off age for this I wonder?


Currently 12, down to 10 from October, then 7 next year. Also, they recently published a Green paper as well as an academic study that recommended single parents being mandated to undertake work-related activities when their child reaches 1.

And I agree with you on the childcare point - it's also the case that much current childcare provision is inaccessible, inappropriate or unaffordable despite the promised improvements. The government has said that this issue will be taken into account when a parent signs on but when private contractors are chasing big bucks, it's easy to see how vulnerable people could be pressured into a course of action that isn't the best for them or their family.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 11, 2009)

I'm not a single mum but . . 

I had an ace time at the job centre yesterday. 

"Look at this job"
"Humm, it appears to be for experienced personal installing intercoms and planning the wiring of new developments. I'm really not sure I could do that"
"well it came up under your job type number"
"TV and Radio production and journalism? Well, I don't think it should really be there"
"the intercoms have a screen"
"I see"
"Well you are going to have to apply for different sorts of jobs anyway because you are not doing so well in your own line of work"
"I have been" 
"and"
"and I guess they wanted to give the jobs to people with experience or who clearly wouldn't leave as soon as something better in their own field came along. I have been working in broadcast media for 15 years"
"Oh, never mind I see here that your benefit runs out next week so you wont be unemployed anymore anyway"
"Yes I will, you just won't be giving me anymore money"
"well you wont be a statistic and you won't have to come in here"
"Whoopieee"

Also it turns out they stopped my benefit again for the third time for no reason. I just phone up and they say - Ooops, I'll put it though now. Good job I don't rely on it or I would constantly be having kittens.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 11, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Currently 12, down to 10 from October, then 7 next year. Also, they recently published a Green paper as well as an academic study that recommended single parents being mandated to undertake work-related activities when their child reaches 1.
> 
> And I agree with you on the childcare point - it's also the case that much current childcare provision is inaccessible, inappropriate or unaffordable despite the promised improvements. The government has said that this issue will be taken into account when a parent signs on but when private contractors are chasing big bucks, it's easy to see how vulnerable people could be pressured into a course of action that isn't the best for them or their family.



Why not just train them all to be professional childminders?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Why not just train them all to be professional childminders?


this has been suggested - get all the single parents looking after each other's sprogs, problem solved.....be careful, if DWP read this, it'll be in the next Green paper.....


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 11, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Currently 12, down to 10 from October, then 7 next year. Also, they recently published a Green paper as well as an academic study that recommended single parents being mandated to undertake work-related activities when their child reaches 1.
> 
> And I agree with you on the childcare point - it's also the case that much current childcare provision is inaccessible, inappropriate or unaffordable despite the promised improvements. The government has said that this issue will be taken into account when a parent signs on but when private contractors are chasing big bucks, it's easy to see how vulnerable people could be pressured into a course of action that isn't the best for them or their family.



'Tis as I feared. Ta.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 11, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> this has been suggested - get all the single parents looking after each other's sprogs, problem solved.....be careful, if DWP read this, it'll be in the next Green paper.....



What about the single parents who have 3 under 5 like me? I wouldn't be allowed to look after anyone else's under school-age kids (even if I wanted to )


----------



## geminisnake (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Why not just train them all to be professional childminders?



Just because a person has children doesn't mean they like children(in general), or want to look after more of them


----------



## Upchuck (Aug 11, 2009)

This show is going to make me angry.  Not everyone should be tried to get into work.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 11, 2009)

weepiper said:


> What about the single parents who have 3 under 5 like me? I wouldn't be allowed to look after anyone else's under school-age kids (even if I wanted to )



Then you have your quota.  How much do you charge per child? 



geminisnake said:


> Just because a person has children doesn't mean they like children(in general), or want to look after more of them



If you like your own children mind them, if you don't set up a childminding childswapshop. 


Everyone's happy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Then you have your quota.  How much do you charge per child?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

People could exchange their children for loaves of bread and televisions and stuff - then they wouldn't need to claim benefits at all. The children could be stockpiled somewhere with low living costs by the state, while we think what to do with them. Possibly they could be used as some kind of carbon offset measure.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 11, 2009)

I hear romamian orphanages are competitively priced.  I'm sure if you put the job out to tender one of them would come up with a suitably modest proposal.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2009)

> Hayley Taylor's job is to *persuade *single mothers on benefits to go back to work.



What jobs?
How can they get away with this fluffy shite that all that needs to happen is to 'empower' or 'motivate' people and a job will magically appear for every single one of them.
It will not.

Never mind, I don't think there's anything wrong with mums looking after their own kids, anyway. I know this is a heresy these days for them not to be "working" but it does seem a bit crazy when the government will theoretically, give them money for someone else to look after their children, but not them.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 11, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> What jobs?
> How can they get away with this fluffy shite that all that needs to happen is to 'empower' or 'motivate' people and a job will magically appear for every single one of them.
> It will not.
> 
> Never mind, I don't think there's anything wrong with mums looking after their own kids, anyway. I know this is a heresy these days for them not to be "working" but it does seem a bit crazy when the government will theoretically, give them money for someone else to look after their children, but not them.



Apparently the recession is only real if you believe it is so.

This show is pure fucking anti working class shite, pushing people into 'flexible' low wage jobs to maintain the shitty minimum wage economy and impose greater discipline on the working class within employment. Someone needs to get fucking Baader Meinhof on the head of these companies.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 11, 2009)

It's rather strange that they're so determined to get single mothers out to work really, because I work 16 hours a week, and the government is now paying me _more_ in combined Working Tax Credits/childcare payments than it previously was in tax credit and Income Support combined


----------



## revol68 (Aug 11, 2009)

weepiper said:


> It's rather strange that they're so determined to get single mothers out to work really, because I work 16 hours a week, and the government is now paying me _more_ in combined Working Tax Credits/childcare payments than it previously was in tax credit and Income Support combined



Yes but it's not simply about the governments spending, it's the government maintaining the fluid functioning of the "economy" and that means subsidising the private sector with public money, it's essentially bourgeois welfare.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 11, 2009)

revol68 said:


> it's essentially bourgeois welfare.



Of course it is, Tax Credits are just benefits by another name. I wish they'd not pretend otherwise tbh.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2009)

weepiper said:


> It's rather strange that they're so determined to get single mothers out to work really, because I work 16 hours a week, and the government is now paying me _more_ in combined Working Tax Credits/childcare payments than it previously was in tax credit and Income Support combined



Because WFTC CTC etc are not benefits but 'tax credits' they don't go into the 'spending pot' re the PSBR. As such they can spend more but it doesn't appear on the benefits/spending bill. That it is also administered by HMRC and not the DWP 'adds' to the smoke and mirrors.

WFTC is, in a short term way, certainly helpful especially to working class working single mothers and to a lesser degree single fathers. It does help alleviate the problems caused by childcare affordability. However as wevol points out it does in effect subsidise low wages in both the public and private sectors.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 11, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Because WFTC CTC etc are not benefits but 'tax credits' they don't go into the 'spending pot' re the PSBR. *As such they can spend more but it doesn't appear on the benefits/spending bill*. That it is also administered by HMRC and not the DWP 'adds' to the smoke and mirrors.
> 
> WFTC is, in a short term way, certainly helpful especially to working class working single mothers and to a lesser degree single fathers. It does help alleviate the problems caused by childcare affordability. However as wevol points out it does in effect subsidise low wages in both the public and private sectors.



Ah, that makes sense. Well there's certainly no way I could afford to go to work without all the Tax Credit money, but as someone mentioned above it's depressing and confusing that they will pay me to pay someone else a living wage to look after my kids, but they won't pay me to stay at home and look after them myself.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2009)

weepiper said:


> Ah, that makes sense. Well there's certainly no way I could afford to go to work without all the Tax Credit money, but as someone mentioned above it's depressing and confusing that they will pay me to pay someone else a living wage to look after my kids, but they won't pay me to stay at home and look after them myself.



No it doesn't appear on the 'Welfare' bill, but that's just smoke and mirrors really. As you said, it costs 'em more to pay someone else to look after kids (esp if someone's got more than one) - I suppose that's why the tories never did it.

I don't have anything against the idea of claiming wftc - except for the obv fact it gives employers cheap subsidised labour - but the hounding of lone parents on benefits to, effectively, claim more benefits (no matter where the money is "counted" from) is weird.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 11, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> No it doesn't appear on the 'Welfare' bill, but that's just smoke and mirrors really. As you said, it costs 'em more to pay someone else to look after kids (esp if someone's got more than one) - I suppose that's why the tories never did it.
> 
> I don't have anything against the idea of claiming wftc - except for the obv fact it gives employers cheap subsidised labour - but the hounding of lone parents on benefits to, effectively, claim more benefits (no matter where the money is "counted" from) is weird.



It's not weird though. The PSBR budget decreases, good PR, the job less figures drop (though not  1 for 1 as most single parents claim Income Support and as such are not 'unemployed), people have more money to spend which in turn means more goods and services. It makes perfect sense for a government.


----------



## Rikbikboo (Aug 13, 2009)

Aside all of that surely some people would have to agree the tax credit system is pretty good.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2009)

Is that woman's dress, in the trailer, part of the A4E programme: to brainwash the unemployed into accepting the government's bullshit?

Nice bit of promotion for the company, in troubled times, of course. Though maybe channel 4 will take a different view.


----------



## nadia (Aug 14, 2009)

Rikbikboo said:


> Aside all of that surely some people would have to agree the tax credit system is pretty good.



Paying people a living wage would be better


----------



## foo (Aug 14, 2009)

what nadia said.

plus, they continually fuck up peoples' WTC and make the recipients pay it back asap, even thought the fuck up was their fault.


----------



## Cloo (Aug 14, 2009)

I'm just disturbed by this idea that staying at home with your kids should be a privilege of the better off. Mums who can afford to stay at home without benefits - marvellous. Mums who need benefits to stay at home with their kids - leeches on the state, boo!


----------



## beeboo (Aug 14, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> It's not weird though. The PSBR budget decreases, good PR, the job less figures drop (though not  1 for 1 as most single parents claim Income Support and as such are not 'unemployed), people have more money to spend which in turn means more goods and services. It makes perfect sense for a government.



Quite.  It's perfectly rational - just rather depressing the way that macroeconomic management works it's way down to whether a parent can stay home to look after their kids or not.   



Cloo said:


> I'm just disturbed by this idea that staying at home with your kids should be a privilege of the better off. Mums who can afford to stay at home without benefits - marvellous. Mums who need benefits to stay at home with their kids - leeches on the state, boo!



I don't really think the government is encouraging *any* mums to stay at home.  I think there are increasing pressures from government/society for all mums to work. It's just that those who are better off get to exercise their own choice in the matter, rather than be at the mercy of the various financial carrots and sticks of benefits and tax credits.  Not that it's fair, but as with many things £ = choice.


----------



## ukbix (Aug 18, 2009)

I would love to know what consent the claimaints gave to appear on tv..

All I could find out was from a a4e article that stated along the lines of the claimaints new from day one the camera crew would be present, and they all turned up for the classes, then they loved it.

However, surely they *have* to turn up for their classes, or get their benefits sanctioned?

i.e they had no choice in the matter?

Were they given the opportunity to say to channel 4 at the end of filming, hey dont show us on tv?

Second, anyone notice that a show about the welfare reforms, which include the concept of forced labour - ie work for your benefits, in other words no job for x amount of time, and they will make you work for your jobseekers, in effect working for less than 1.50 an hour (cant recall exact amount per hour) - much less than minimum wage, and also covers sick/disabled people being told their is nothing wrong with them etc - is sponsored by VW (Volkswagen)...

read their history page..

here




> Some 20,000 forced labourers, prisoners of war, and later also concentration camp prisoners, work at the plant.
> 
> In September 1998, in recognition of the events of that time, VOLKSWAGEN AG established a humanitarian fund on behalf of the forced labourers compelled to work at Volkswagen during the Second World War. By the end of 2001 more than 2,050 people in 26 countries had received humanitarian aid from the fund. Furthermore, a Memorial in remembrance of the forced labour employed at the Volkswagenwerk plant is currently being established at Wolfsburg, involving contributions from present-day Volkswagen apprentices.



Seems the type of subject area you would think they would be keen to avoid at all costs, as it would be pretty darn insulting to any victims or relatives/descendants of them to think they are pushing for the same sort of thing to happen again.

OK its not like the government is doing camps, but the principle, work doing what we say, for under the national minimum wage (breaching human rights no doubt) OR lose your benefits and become homeless and starve is remarkably similar surely?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

Those reforms are amongst the most crooked things ever.

Apparently, according to the guy who told me about it (I rarely give much time to SWP wankers but this really made me stop and sign his petition) the government are planning to let companies lay workers off, and then re-employ them for 1.50 an hour under these schemes.  It's fucking disgusting.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Those reforms are amongst the most crooked things ever.
> 
> Apparently, according to the guy who told me about it (I rarely give much time to SWP wankers but this really made me stop and sign his petition) the government are planning to let companies lay workers off, and then re-employ them for 1.50 an hour under these schemes.  It's fucking disgusting.



Jesus. Do they have some actual proof of this, though?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

I mean it was an SWP type.  So he was probably exaggerating.  If it's true people ought to be demonstrating about it...


----------



## ukbix (Aug 18, 2009)

It is bound to happen..

Think of the logistics of it all.

The government will allow private companies to bid to get the unemployed working for them at less than 1.50 an hour (jsa is about 60 quid a week, you should be able to do the math to get an exact figure).

Those companies will then be able to bid for contracts to do work.

Who is a council or company going to employ, a company charging a lot, because they pay their workforce the legal going rate, or the company that can undercut everyone else, because they have slaves working for them?

Company paying going rate gets no work - goes bust, and the employees end up working as a slave a year or so down the road if they dont get re-employed in the mean time.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I mean it was an SWP type.  So he was probably exaggerating.  If it's true people ought to be demonstrating about it...



The sticking point is that people are supposed to have remained on benefits for two years before they can be used for workfare/ slave labour.

However, I expect that will be revised downwards ASAP by the tories when they get in.

I've no doubt that companies will be queueing up to use free labour provided by the workfare schemes, though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 18, 2009)

ukbix said:


> Company paying going rate gets no work - goes bust, and the employees end up working as a slave a year or so down the road if they dont get re-employed in the mean time.



...and so the cycle continues until everyone is a mandatory voluntary worker unable to apply for proper jobs _because they're working full time_ but not entitled to an actual wage either. 

Although it's worth noting that there are already plenty of people working for private companies on slave pay, courtesy of her majesty's prison system. No doubt the companies that benefit from that little scam will be shitting their pants with glee at the thought of a massive increase in the number of available slaves, only this time it's those guilty of nothing more than not having a job in a country where jobs are vanishing faster than unattended cigarettes in a prison canteen.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Aug 18, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> It doesn't really make sense either - I haven't come across a case yet where a single parent isn't at least Â£50p/w better off in work due to tax credits payments, even at 16 hours of work a week - the government has deliberately structured the benefits and tax credits system to achieve this situation. That's not to say that A4E aren't an utter shower of bastards who shouldn't be trusted, nor that I support the current policies to make single parents have to seek work from ever diminishing ages of their youngest child, under threat of financial sanctions from poverty-level benefits.


 are they really better off though? I mean when you take into account losing all those other peripheral benefits like free school meals and dentistry and eye stuff?


----------



## revol68 (Aug 18, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> are they really better off though? I mean when you take into account losing all those other peripheral benefits like free school meals and dentistry and eye stuff?



yeah that's a good point and that's before you even mention the benefits of looking after your own kids rather than having some else do it as a job.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> are they really better off though? I mean when you take into account losing all those other peripheral benefits like free school meals and dentistry and eye stuff?



Getting WFTC/CTC also gets you health exemptions such as free prescriptions, free dentistry etc  etc


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

revol68 said:


> yeah that's a good point and that's before you even mention the benefits of looking after your own kids rather than having some else do it as a job.



Which don't seem to be important!


----------



## revol68 (Aug 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Getting WFTC also gets you health exemptions such as free prescriptions, free dentistry etc  etc



really?

So it is basically just a means of using public money to subsidise a low wage economy.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 18, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Which don't seem to be important!



there's also the less obvious costs of transport to work, having less time to prepare meals and so more of a push towards convenience food.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

Still, at least it does mean it's sort of affordable to have kids and work in a lowish paying job, before you had the choice of benefits or not having kids or being well off and having kids.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

BUT in cities like Newcastle, there simply aren't any jobs at the moment, so it's fucking impossible to get off benefits.


----------



## ukbix (Aug 18, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...and so the cycle continues until everyone is a mandatory voluntary worker unable to apply for proper jobs _because they're working full time_ but not entitled to an actual wage either.
> 
> Although it's worth noting that there are already plenty of people working for private companies on slave pay, courtesy of her majesty's prison system. No doubt the companies that benefit from that little scam will be shitting their pants with glee at the thought of a massive increase in the number of available slaves, only this time it's those guilty of nothing more than not having a job in a country where jobs are vanishing faster than unattended cigarettes in a prison canteen.



Not all will be guilty of not having a job due to lack of jobs.

Part of the welfare reforms, is kicking (1 million with labours current plan, 1.5 million with tory proposed plan) of Incapacity benefit, who are legally / medically unfit to work at present into work by moving the goal post and changing the test so they are now 'suddenly' cured and fine to work.

They will then be unable to get a job, for obvious reasons, not just lack of jobs out there, but they are actually suffering from a medically recognised and proven illness/disease/injury, but according to the DWP they are fine - but realistically which employer will employ someone who has not been working for many years, and still has lots of health issues...


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2009)

revol68 said:


> really?
> 
> So it is basically just a means of using public money to subsidise a low wage economy.



It is yes, however it has also allowed mainly working-class women lone parents the ability to work. Short of a legally enforced decent minumum wage or our class taking power it has been a 'positive' reform for many low paid women.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> It is yes, however it has also allowed mainly working-class women lone parents the ability to work. Short of a legally enforced decent minumum wage or our class taking power it has been a 'positive' reform for many low paid women.



But it isn't a reform, it's a means of increasing the labour pool whilst safeguarding poverty level wages.

On a micro level I'm sure many low paid women have gained from it, but on a macro scale it is just another means of attacking the working class.

Just to add, isn't that how most anti working class measures are pushed through, by giving on one hand and more from the other, much like Thatcher's Right to Buy Scheme, there is no doubt it benefited quite a few working class households but in the final instance it an attack on the working class.


----------



## DRINK? (Aug 18, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Interesting given the research showing how much better children fare when looked after by their own parents that the govt is so keen to shove them into childcare.
> 
> Is there a lower cut-off age for this I wonder?



this f*cks me off as well....all the problems we see with society etc invariably will be attributed to lack of family, whats the solution pack the mums off to work and leave the kids with someone else..


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm to all intents and purposes a single parent on benefits at the moment, as while my wife can work it's a virtual impossibility for her to find anything meaningful, and it's quite hard for her to support the kid, she isn't entitled to any benefits being on a No Recourse visa, she finds so much stuff here a struggle etc, and I've been applying for jobs, but to no avail, I'd take something even if it paid bog standard wages as with the WTC and Child care tax credit on top it would be a huge boost.

I don't think people understand how grim it can be to be stuck at home in this country with a kid, you need money to do anything, everything's so far away.  I'd take a job right now, drop him off to nursery in the mornings, get him in the evening, it's much better for him to be at nursery interacting with other kids and stuff, I'm trying to get my life sorted and entertain him at the same time, it's a total total nightmare.

The government bringing in that side of it is actually fucking good.  It means the working but less well off can sort of afford to have children.

it's the workfare reforms I'm a bit more perturbed about - presumably they won't include the opportunity to do something actually interesting in return for your benefit, like get work experience in a decent place, it will probably be really really cack.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 18, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I don't think people understand how grim it can be to be stuck at home in this country with a kid, you need money to do anything, everything's so far away.



word.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

and that's now, in the 'summer'.

Mind you, this is the North East.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

It's not so much the idea behind wftc that is "bad" enabling people to go out to work is good. It's the forcing people to do  it - even when there a) aren't the jobs and b) not enough childcare anyway that is stupid. And some parents for various reasons would rather spend time at home, just as some would rather not.

If there were basically free or very subsidised and easily available childcare, most of the reason for wftc would be lost, and if the minimum wage could be lived on, even more of the need for it would go.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2009)

revol68 said:


> But it isn't a reform, it's a means of increasing the labour pool whilst safeguarding poverty level wages.
> 
> On a micro level I'm sure many low paid women have gained from it, but on a macro scale it is just another means of attacking the working class.



So was allowing women to work in many industruies, so were a number of 'reforms', yes they are 'two handed' but you display a staggering ignorance about the effect it has had on the lives of working class mainly female lone parents. Tell you what, take it away and see what happens to that same section of working-class mainly women....


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

That's true - I believe in Scandinavia they have free childcare from when the baby is born, for any family who wants it.  I say 'Scandinavia' but I forget where or if it's all of them.

But it's interesting that 6-7 years ago people were saying that birth rates were at a dangerously all-time low and now they're on the up - could that be partly because the government has made it a bit easier to have kids than before?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> So was allowing women to work in many industruies, so were a number of 'reforms', yes they are 'two handed' but you display a staggering ignorance about the effect it has had on the lives of working class mainly female lone parents. Tell you what, take it away and see what happens to that same section of working-class mainly women....



Exactly, the choice is between being stabbed to death, as we were under the Tories, or being prodded to death, as we are now, yes it would be great to see a truly revolutionary government committed to proper pay for all, but in the near future that isn't going to happen.  What may well happen is Cameron getting in, abolishing all these bits and pieces and making it even worse.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

Would the idea of free childcare really be revolutionary? !


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

In this country it probably would


----------



## revol68 (Aug 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> So was allowing women to work in many industruies, so were a number of 'reforms', yes they are 'two handed' but you display a staggering ignorance about the effect it has had on the lives of working class mainly female lone parents. Tell you what, take it away and see what happens to that same section of working-class mainly women....



Didn't I accept the fact that it it is of some benefit to working class lone parents? 

I'm not suggesting a campaign to remove it or some such shit, just pointing out the fact that in the wider analysis it is a mechanism by which the government further shores up a low wage 'flexible' economy. Christ it's not even like it was a hard fought for 'reform', it was entirely a top down 'reform' from the state.

If I pointed out that the State allowing women to work in factories during the War was simply a means of maintaining the war economy and had nothing to do with any desire for sexual equality, does that imply I think women should have been removed from the factories?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2009)

revol68 said:


> Didn't I accept the fact that it it is of some benefit to working class lone parents?
> 
> I'm not suggesting a campaign to remove it or some such shit, just pointing out the fact that in the wider analysis it is a mechanism by which the government further shores up a low wage 'flexible' economy. Christ it's not even like it was a hard fought for 'reform', it was entirely a top down 'reform' from the state.
> 
> If I pointed out that the State allowing women to work in factories during the War was simply a means of maintaining the war economy and had nothing to do with any desire for sexual equality, does that imply I think women should have been removed from the factories?



Your implication, explicit as it was, was that it wasn't a reform at all. It was, you claimed it was "but in the final instance it an attack on the working class". As such why would we keep in such an attack in place surely it should be removed??


----------



## revol68 (Aug 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Your implication, explicit as it was, was that it wasn't a reform at all. It was, you claimed it was "but in the final instance it an attack on the working class". As such why would we keep in such an attack in place surely it should be removed??



It is in the final instance part of a general attack on the working class, just as the right to buy was, as was the war economy that saw women go into the factories. None of that means we should simply look to repeal them back to how they were before, that is reactionary in the true sense of the word. Instead we act from where we are, we don't ask sections of the working class to give up their "freedoms" for the benefit of the 'wider class' or some such shite, instead we we make new demands that take this freedom as a starting point but which go beyond them, eg demanding more benefits for stay at home parents.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

They aren't making single parents on Single Parent Income Support go into work though. The most they'll do is ring you up to *suggest* work.  It's the people on JSA who are being told to apply or go into work


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2009)

revol68 said:


> It is in the final instance part of a general attack on the working class, just as the right to buy was, as was the war economy that saw women go into the factories. None of that means we should simply look to repeal them back to how they were before, that is reactionary in the true sense of the word. Instead we act from where we are, we don't ask sections of the working class to give up their "freedoms" for the benefit of the 'wider class' or some such shite, instead we we make new demands that take this freedom as a starting point but which go beyond them, eg demanding more benefits for stay at home parents.



 Nowhere did I say it was 100% great, indeed paying-usually women-to stay at home has it's downsides too.  I would agree with the increase in benefits though. In the first instance i'd also support an increase in WFTC. As part of a process.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 18, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus;9575834]are they really better off though? I mean when you take into account losing all those other peripheral benefits like free school meals and dentistry and eye stuff?[/QUOTE]Well that's where benefits advice gets difficult said:


> yeah that's a good point and that's before you even mention the benefits of looking after your own kids rather than having some else do it as a job.


As was discussed earlier on, there is a complete paradox in the approach of government, so that people who want to stay at home with their kids are castigated and effectively bullied into giving up that "choice", whereas they also berate parents for not knowing what their kids are doing and not paying proper attention to their upbringing. 

For 2 parent families, this can be a manageable tension, for a single parent, the choice is much less clear cut and if you're a single parent with more than one child, it's often extremely difficult to manage the simple logisitics of getting the sprogs to school/childcare and then getting to & from work, let alone deal with issues such as school holidays or disability.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> They aren't making single parents on Single Parent Income Support go into work though. The most they'll do is ring you up to *suggest* work.  It's the people on JSA who are being told to apply or go into work



They are moving lone parents off income support onto job seekers allowance. This will be happening very soon.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> They are moving lone parents off income support onto job seekers allowance. This will be happening very soon.



So will they be expected to bring their kids into the Job Centre?


----------



## revol68 (Aug 18, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> They aren't making single parents on Single Parent Income Support go into work though. The most they'll do is ring you up to *suggest* work.  It's the people on JSA who are being told to apply or go into work



I'm not seeing the relevance of this point, I was quite clear that it is a carrot to strengthen the stick of low wages and shitty conditions for the working class in general.

Just to give another example, technological advances are generally done with a view to undercut workers wages, deskill them or in other ways undermine any potential power or leverage they have, these are often also of quite immediate benefit of workers eg removing repetitive or tiring tasks, when such technology is introduced we don't respond to it like Luddites, instead we accept the new conditions and seek to make use of them in a manner in the interest of the class.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Nowhere did I say it was 100% great, indeed paying-usually women-to stay at home has it's downsides too.  I would agree with the increase in benefits though. In the first instance i'd also support an increase in WFTC. As part of a process.



I never said you said it was great.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> So will they be expected to bring their kids into the Job Centre?



If childcare isn't available arf arf yes they are.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> So will they be expected to bring their kids into the Job Centre?



Got absolutely no idea, I daresay a lot of will be down to the individual people in job centres/ A4E  maybe it will be like my friend was told to bring her ASD kid into the centre with her - it was okay because they had "security" if he kicked off.

As usual, no one will have thought it through properly.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2009)

When's that happening then


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 18, 2009)

From October this year, it's for single parents with a youngest child aged 10 or more, from October 2010, all single parents with a youngest child aged 7 or more will have to sign on for JSA.

There are plans in the latest Green Paper to extend this approach down as far as a youngest child of 3 (altho the government's adviser was pushing for from age of 1).


----------



## ukbix (Aug 18, 2009)

Yup,their getting rid of income support...


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> From October this year, it's for single parents with a youngest child aged 10 or more, from October 2010, all single parents with a youngest child aged 7 or more will have to sign on for JSA.
> 
> There are plans in the latest Green Paper to extend this approach down as far as a youngest child of 3 (altho the government's adviser was pushing for from age of 1).



Has there been anything said about "what if the parent can't get childcare" etc esp if they are on benefit for 2 years and get made to do workfare?

Has anyone even thought about this?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 18, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Has there been anything said about "what if the parent can't get childcare" etc esp if they are on benefit for 2 years and get made to do workfare?
> 
> Has anyone even thought about this?


The usual platitudes about personalised, tailored support being available, that takes account of people's circumstances etc etc.....

The workfare potential has definitely been raised repeatedly as a problem for single parents and disabled people being forced to claim JSA - they're clearly the people who have most to lose and the the least to gain from mandatory work for shit-all money. I was quite surprised that Cooper decided to pursue that particular policy as everyone thinks it's a pile of shit...


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> The usual platitudes about personalised, tailored support being available, that takes account of people's circumstances etc etc.....
> 
> The workfare potential has definitely been raised repeatedly as a problem for single parents and disabled people being forced to claim JSA - they're clearly the people who have most to lose and the the least to gain from mandatory work for shit-all money. I was quite surprised that Cooper decided to pursue that particular policy as everyone thinks it's a pile of shit...



Basically, they are forcing people to look for jobs who may not be in a position to actually take jobs, at the very least, the ones they may be able to apply for will be so few and far between is it worth it?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 18, 2009)

if the personalised, tailored support is anything like my experience you'd be better off on your own.

they raise this shit time and time again and yet never deliver. it's a fucking scandal.

now they're doing away with IS?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 18, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Basically, they are forcing people to look for jobs who may not be in a position to actually take jobs, at the very least, the ones they may be able to apply for will be so few and far between is it worth it?


more importantly employers wont hire these people in the first place and consequently these people will then get criticised by the system for not trying hard enough and so the cicrle they find themselves in decreases ever more viciously.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> more importantly employers wont hire these people in the first place and consequently these people will then get criticised by the system for not trying hard enough and so the cicrle they find themselves in decreases ever more viciously.



I know! It is hard enough to look for a job if you are qualified and have had any time off for any reason at all (childcaring, unemployment). But people who have been off sick for any reasons at all get their health records held against them too. 

Unfortunately the response to this, seems to be to say it doesn't happen and it's all down to the individual for not trying hard enough.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2009)

ukbix said:


> Yup,their getting rid of income support...



Well that may have just hit a glitch.... The policy of DWP to 'direct' Lone parents 'with a disability or health condition' to ESA has been declared as potentially illegal and that counsel have advised DWP that *"Counsel’s opinion and solicitors advice is that we do not have sufficient legal cover for ending IS for existing lone parents if they have a disability or health condition or for them to claim ESA" *. Which means they might have to re-thing the idea.....


----------



## ukbix (Aug 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Well that may have just hit a glitch.... The policy of DWP to 'direct' Lone parents 'with a disability or health condition' to ESA has been declared as potentially illegal and that counsel have advised DWP that *"Counsel’s opinion and solicitors advice is that we do not have sufficient legal cover for ending IS for existing lone parents if they have a disability or health condition or for them to claim ESA" *. Which means they might have to re-thing the idea.....



Any chance of a link or source for that qoute?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Well that may have just hit a glitch.... The policy of DWP to 'direct' Lone parents 'with a disability or health condition' to ESA has been declared as potentially illegal and that counsel have advised DWP that *"Counsel’s opinion and solicitors advice is that we do not have sufficient legal cover for ending IS for existing lone parents if they have a disability or health condition or for them to claim ESA" *. Which means they might have to re-thing the idea.....


i've just heard the same thing as it happens. Seems that their cunning plan to shunt sick and disabled LP's off IS and onto ESA is technically illegal. Still planning to change the regs to allow this to go forward in the future tho...


----------



## pboi (Aug 18, 2009)

fucking peasants


----------



## weepiper (Aug 18, 2009)

bloody hell. It's not that far removed from the Poor House


----------



## weepiper (Aug 18, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> They aren't making single parents on Single Parent Income Support go into work though. The most they'll do is ring you up to *suggest* work.  It's the people on JSA who are being told to apply or go into work



At the moment they make you attend a 'work focussed interview' every 6 months but they will accept 'I have 3 little kids and I can't afford the childcare' as a reasonable excuse. Sounds like that might not last for much longer though .


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 18, 2009)

weepiper said:


> At the moment they make you attend a 'work focussed interview' every 6 months but they will accept 'I have 3 little kids and I can't afford the childcare' as a reasonable excuse. Sounds like that might not last for much longer though .


in principle, it should do. the problem is when discretion and/or targets are introduced, along with privatisation, so that welfare to work providers begin to see their profits compromised by your intransigence in not leaving your kids to look after themselves whilst you slave away 48 hours a week in your national minimum wage job  (topped up by working tax credits though so that's alright ) nowhatimean?


----------



## ukbix (Aug 18, 2009)

Re-assurances were given during the welfare reform debates in parliament that single parents would not be sanctioned if they could not afford healthcare,however I would not hold out much hope of any re-assurance or promise meaning anything.

After all, a previous minister (read more) gave a promise that absolutely no-one would suffer a cash loss on moving from IB to ESA, as their benefits level would be protected.

Yeah, like that was true...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 18, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> So will they be expected to bring their kids into the Job Centre?



The job centre has been full of little kids last couple of times I've been there


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

pboi said:


> fucking peasants



_faux_-iconoclastic half-wit.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 19, 2009)

ukbix said:


> Any chance of a link or source for that qoute?



There is no link, I work for the DWP and on an Income Support section, it was part of an email attachment sent round.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 19, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i've just heard the same thing as it happens. Seems that their cunning plan to shunt sick and disabled LP's off IS and onto ESA is technically illegal. Still planning to change the regs to allow this to go forward in the future tho...



They're certainly looking at it. however they're not too pleased.


----------



## ovaltina (Aug 19, 2009)

I think this will prob be more of an expose of the hopeless situation single mothers are in, benefits or poorly paid jobs, rather than another 'point and laugh at poor people' show. Maybe that's impossibly optimistic....


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 19, 2009)

Is this show solely about single mothers? I'm not so sure.


----------



## pboi (Aug 19, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> _faux_-iconoclastic half-wit.



self important, bed ridden, benefit leech


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 19, 2009)

fuck me but you're a smug twat.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2009)

Didn't pboi put a picture up of himself wearing a gold-buttoned blazer? Looked like a cross between Rick Astley and Lloyd Webber iirc.

I'd be a bitter twat with those natural characteristics and dress sense. I'd probably be less repetitive and witless though.


----------



## pboi (Aug 19, 2009)

gold buttoned blazer? are you kidding me!

poor show taking the piss out of pics put up, shows what a cunt you are.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2009)

I think you lost the right to be outraged when you start characterising a certain disabled urbanite as 'bed ridden benefit leech.' The constant carping about 'peasants' makes you look like a tiresomely witless goon, but that was simply unpleasant.

Fuck you frankly. And the comment about the blazer stands.


----------



## pboi (Aug 19, 2009)

oh so he is actually disabled? that was just a guess based on his baiting in a private schools thread (iirc) and post count.

fuck you right back you forum warrior. eat a dick


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2009)

I think the appropriate response was an apology there peebers, even allowing for the fact you're a graceless twat.

You can carry on the good fight against the peasants from your gated compound all you like. I suspect you wouldn't say boo to a goose irl.


----------



## pboi (Aug 19, 2009)

and yeh this tv show was/willbe full of horrible little peasants on benefits.

i dont mind people who need them getting them, with single mums lacking a family support network totally deserving of them.

interesting times ahead for this country, the recession is getting started now and many many people will be doing jobs they thought they were too good for. Accelerated as some migrants return home due to Forex weakness.


my banter with fellow brockwell gaters appear over your slanty eyed head ( your words not mine, dont get offended).


Apologise?  If somebody acts like an arsehole, they should get the appropriate response. I expect it ( and of course get it), so should he.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Aug 19, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Is this show solely about single mothers? I'm not so sure.


it's a 3 parter, next week they are doing the jobless and the week after people on incapacity benefit - sounds awful I won't be watching.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 19, 2009)

There's a programme on BBC1 in the mornings at the moment called Saints and Scroungers about people diddling the system and others helping people to benefits who don't realise they're entitled to them.

It's hosted by Dominic whathisname


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 19, 2009)

dynamicbaddog said:


> it's a 3 parter, next week they are doing the jobless and the week after people on incapacity benefit - sounds awful I won't be watching.


i can only hope that, as it's on c4, it might be a little less reactionary.


----------



## ukbix (Aug 19, 2009)

Saints and Scoungers was interesting, in how incredibly biased it was.

A very poor attempt to try and cover up the blatent lets brainwash the public into hating claimaints, by showing a small number of genuine cases, vs loads of fraud cases.

Reality is, fraud is very low, for incap benefits its 0.5 percent last time I checked, so really, to be fair the show should be showing 99.5 percent genuine and 0.5 percent fraudsters, not it seems the other way round....

Also, they are hot on showing as much detail as possible on all fraud cases, but when their is a GREAT BIG opportunity for them to expose a real issue that affects non fraud cases, they avoid it with a barge pole.

For example, the person that was losing his sight, and had his incap benefits stopped dead after a medical. He got help from a charity who got his benefits back, they 'see it all the time' sort of thing was put across.

BUT they didnt investigate what the fact that many people get their benefits stopped due to very dodgy practices by ATOS and decision makers who seems to rubber stamp crazy reports.

It was ideal tv content, loads of people and organisations (take your pick, CAB, former Tribunal Service bosses, countless claimaints, welfare advisors etc) who could give damning evidence to a huge scam that is going on.

But nope, ignored almost completely.

No mention of how bad the medical was that he was failed over, or how bad the report was, or the fact that many,many people report the examiners (who are not always doctors) ignore evidence, over-rule and ignore specialists findings, write contradictory reports, and produce reports with many untruthes, sometimes reporting the opposite of what the evidence actually was.

You really would not believe how bad these reports can be, and they were paid 500 million by the DWP to do these reports... Oh and its software driven, and the software is biased and dangerous in many peoples opinion, not that anyone has been allowed to have a copy yet - they seem terrified to let it be examined...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 19, 2009)

ukbix said:


> Saints and Scoungers was interesting, in how incredibly biased it was.
> 
> A very poor attempt to try and cover up the blatent lets brainwash the public into hating claimaints, by showing a small number of genuine cases, vs loads of fraud cases.
> 
> ...


 

Quite.  It should really concentrate on informing those people who are entitled to benefits what they are entitled to.

I don't think I got any help when I claimed for my b/f and was totally unaware of what he was entitled to, thereby losing him 3 months worth of money as they wouldn't backdate it.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2009)

weepiper said:


> At the moment they make you attend a 'work focussed interview' every 6 months but they will accept 'I have 3 little kids and I can't afford the childcare' as a reasonable excuse. Sounds like that might not last for much longer though .



To be honest, I've never heard of anyone being allowed to not go to the _interview_ because they couldn't get childcare, and that includes carers of disabled children as well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

pboi said:


> self important, bed ridden, benefit leech



yep, and I'm still less of a shit-cunt than you are!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

tarannau said:


> I think the appropriate response was an apology there peebers, even allowing for the fact you're a graceless twat.
> 
> You can carry on the good fight against the peasants from your gated compound all you like. I suspect you wouldn't say boo to a goose irl.


Hey, if it makes him feel manly...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

pboi said:


> and yeh this tv show was/willbe full of horrible little peasants on benefits.


Watched by the sort of scrotum-faced idiots who think it's apposite to call benefits claimants "peasants".


> i dont mind people who need them getting them, with single mums lacking a family support network totally deserving of them.
> 
> interesting times ahead for this country, the recession is getting started now and many many people will be doing jobs they thought they were too good for. Accelerated as some migrants return home due to Forex weakness.


You presuppose that those jobs will still exist. Unfortunately for your supposition, a contracting economy usually has an effect on *all* employment sectors, including "menial" jobs.



> my banter with fellow brockwell gaters appear over your slanty eyed head ( your words not mine, dont get offended).


Anyone dumb enough to buy or rent those shoddily-made monuments to bad construction really doesn't have much latitude to mock others about things being over their head, you know.


> Apologise?  If somebody acts like an arsehole, they should get the appropriate response. I expect it ( and of course get it), so should he.


I wouldn't want you to apologise. I don't believe in forcing people to act out of character.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2009)

pboi said:


> self important, bed ridden, benefit leech



that's really nasty stuff even for here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

ukbix said:


> Saints and Scoungers was interesting, in how incredibly biased it was.
> 
> A very poor attempt to try and cover up the blatent lets brainwash the public into hating claimaints, by showing a small number of genuine cases, vs loads of fraud cases.
> 
> Reality is, fraud is very low, for incap benefits its 0.5 percent last time I checked, so really, to be fair the show should be showing 99.5 percent genuine and 0.5 percent fraudsters, not it seems the other way round....


Well, as has been stated many times on Urban over the years, if you're on long-term IB, then you have to undergo *independent* medical exams *and* have your GP and consultant(s) confirm your diagnosis. If you're such a good actor that you can fool so many people, you'd make more money treading the boards at the Globe theatre.


> Also, they are hot on showing as much detail as possible on all fraud cases, but when their is a GREAT BIG opportunity for them to expose a real issue that affects non fraud cases, they avoid it with a barge pole.
> 
> For example, the person that was losing his sight, and had his incap benefits stopped dead after a medical. He got help from a charity who got his benefits back, they 'see it all the time' sort of thing was put across.
> 
> BUT they didnt investigate what the fact that many people get their benefits stopped due to very dodgy practices by ATOS and decision makers who seems to rubber stamp crazy reports.


Yep, and that's why the pass rate at appeal is still between 55-65% even when ATOS have supposedly addressed the "problem" of seemingly arbitrary adjudications.


> It was ideal tv content, loads of people and organisations (take your pick, CAB, former Tribunal Service bosses, countless claimaints, welfare advisors etc) who could give damning evidence to a huge scam that is going on.
> 
> But nope, ignored almost completely.
> 
> ...


And this is just IB, this doesn't even get into the problems with EMPs doing medical examinations for DLA, and how the £100+ fee per examination is an open invitation for a doctor with a scruple deficit to cram in as many as possible on his/her day off...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> that's really nasty stuff even for here.



Shows him up for what he is though, so I don't mind. 
I've been verbally abused by experts, and this boy isn't any kind of expert.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Quite.  It should really concentrate on informing those people who are entitled to benefits what they are entitled to.
> 
> I don't think I got any help when I claimed for my b/f and was totally unaware of what he was entitled to, thereby losing him 3 months worth of money as they wouldn't backdate it.



There's no percentage for tv companies in informing people of their entitlements, though, just as theres no percentage in the DWP etc making entitlements clearer. The Treasury *LOVES* the fact that billions of pounds of unclaimed benefits get "rolled back" into Treasury funds every year. They're not going to let spending departments queer the Treasury pitch by actually telling people they have an entitlement, rather than letting them find out (or not) for themselves.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 19, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, as has been stated many times on Urban over the years, if you're on long-term IB, then you have to undergo *independent* medical exams *and* have your GP and consultant(s) confirm your diagnosis. If you're such a good actor that you can fool so many people, you'd make more money treading the boards at the Globe theatre.


 

My b/f hasn't had any medical exam 

Maybe they just accept what's written in his disability forms as they'd probably contact the relevant doctors no?  

or is it because he's on DLA?


----------



## pboi (Aug 19, 2009)

impressive level of snide there VP, you have been working on it.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Aug 19, 2009)

weepiper said:


> Of course it is, Tax Credits are just benefits by another name. I wish they'd not pretend otherwise tbh.


 I think the point they were trying to make is that continuing to pay you benefits, whatever they're called, when a person is working, is effectively the government, i.e. The taxpayer, subsidising low saying employers. Basically, working benefits enable employer to minimise their staff cost overheads and as a result maximise the profits.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Aug 19, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Those reforms are amongst the most crooked things ever. Apparently, according to the guy who told me about it (I rarely give much time to SWP wankers but this really made me stop and sign his petition) the government are planning to let companies lay workers off, and then re-employ them for 1.50 an hour under these schemes. It's fucking disgusting.


I suggested something similar a while ago. Well, not about the lay offs, but more about what employers will do given the choices. I think someone mentioned ages ago that Asda might participate in this line of workfare scheme. At the time I said I couldn't imagine As da continuing to employ even minimum wage shelf stackers  because why would they say someone to do a job when they can get free labour through a government scheme?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 19, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I suggested something similar a while ago. Well, not about the lay offs, but more about what employers will do given the choices. I think someone mentioned ages ago that Asda might participate in this line of workfare scheme. At the time I said I couldn't imagine As da continuing to employ even minimum wage shelf stackers  because why would they say someone to do a job when they can get free labour through a government scheme?



It's fucking shady.  You have a job for 10 years, then suddenly get laid off and re-employed for a quarter of the pay.

There's something dodgy about that which even pboi must admit it wrong.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I suggested something similar a while ago. Well, not about the lay offs, but more about what employers will do given the choices. I think someone mentioned ages ago that Asda might participate in this line of workfare scheme. At the time I said I couldn't imagine As da continuing to employ even minimum wage shelf stackers  because why would they say someone to do a job when they can get free labour through a government scheme?



ASDA already do get people for free through new deal schemes, so I imagine they would be first in line for this kind of shit.

Oh, and to whatshisname who thinks it will be "good" to make people "do" jobs they think they're too good for - what jobs? where? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get even a minimum wage job if you have been off work for any reason, especially on long term sick. Employers are not rushing toward you with job offers, even before the recession got started. 

Waiting to exploit you for nothing, yes - pay you the going rate not really!


----------



## ukbix (Aug 19, 2009)

Check this site out...

http://trueblueblood.com/2009/08/uk-needs-workfare-the-wasted-generation-6-million-on-state-benefits-193bn-benefits-payouts/

A tory supported writing about the 'workfare' slave labour workforce and how it could be put to good use, replacing 



> Call Centres.  Rather than outsource all the call centre work to India and other Asian countries, why not staffed via workfare?
> 
> -  Schools:  Help at schools, after passing background checks, classroom help, help with PE, cleaning, making school dinners etc.
> 
> ...



workers - with free slaves, obviously putting those currently working doing the jobs - out of work.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 19, 2009)

'help with PE'?

This is almost pure socialism, as warped by the lens of conservative reactionary capitalism. How fucked up!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 19, 2009)

ukbix said:


> Check this site out...
> 
> http://trueblueblood.com/2009/08/uk-needs-workfare-the-wasted-generation-6-million-on-state-benefits-193bn-benefits-payouts/
> 
> ...


you missed this bit:

_After 2 years, an individual would no longer receive state support.  Hence, they have the motivation to seek work, which may involve retraining_

Of course, the fact that the numbers of people unemployed has sky-rocketed recently, due to the lack of, um, jobs available, has escaped this joker's attention.

Let alone the fact that workfare is expensive to adminster and implement, is unsuitable for people with the biggest barriers to work (as found by DWP research) and can actually undermine and/or hinder people's ability to undertake jobsearch activity....


----------



## Greebo (Aug 19, 2009)

All the stuff about people thinking they're too good for some jobs is IMHO getting things the wrong way around.

In the early 90s, I knew a senior management type (he went self-employed, then bankrupt) who applied for a job as a toliet cleaner/attendant.  He wasn't taking the piss, he really wanted the job because it'd at least clear the bills.  He didn't even get an interview.  The rejection letter claimed he was overqualified and lacked experience - he passed it around the unemployment scheme we were on at the time and framed it.

Then there are the interviews which went swimmingly until the (chippy non graduate who said to my face he/she believed I'd have difficulty working under non-graduates) interviewer said words to the effect of - "the trouble with you is I'm not convinced you'll stay here once you can find something better".   FFS my CV mentioned cleaning, filing, silver service, and kitchen portering temp jobs taken to clear my student overdraft - WTF more do you have to do to show you really want a job even though it's not part of your ideal career plan?


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Aug 19, 2009)

They seem to miss the point as well that there previously was employment, working in call centres for banks for example, but those jobs were out sourced, because the banks just wanted cheaper labour. It was never about the banking sector struggling to get by and looking to cut costs to keep the business afloat, it was always, always about making ever more obscene profits. 

Likewise, the privatisation of cleaning services in hospitals. That was always about both cutting costs for the n h s *and * about enabling private contractors to make obscene amounts of profit. Why should companies profit from the nhs - shouldn't it be a not-for-profit? 

The stupidity of not being able to see that reminds of Tim Nice But Dim.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 19, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> 'help with PE'?
> 
> This is almost pure socialism, as warped by the lens of conservative reactionary capitalism. How fucked up!



it's not socialism at all, it's pure capitalism


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 19, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> it's not socialism at all, it's pure capitalism


of course not, but these people are seeing it as some kind of social justice, tough love, help the helpless, god's own work crap. So they perceive themselves as being altruistic and in their own sad way, socialist.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 19, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> of course not, but these people are seeing it as some kind of social justice, tough love, help the helpless, god's own work crap. So they perceive themselves as being altruistic and in their own sad way, socialist.



Tony Blair 'socialism'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> My b/f hasn't had any medical exam
> 
> Maybe they just accept what's written in his disability forms as they'd probably contact the relevant doctors no?
> 
> or is it because he's on DLA?



It's likely that the medical evidence provided was good enough on it's own to satisfy the adjudication officer (I didn't need a medical examination at my last DLA renewal, either), but it's usual unless you've got a good case, and significant memory problems due to brain damage plus mobility issues is a fairly good case.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you missed this bit:
> 
> _After 2 years, an individual would no longer receive state support.  Hence, they have the motivation to seek work, which may involve retraining_
> 
> ....



"state support" is a bit of a weaselly way of putting working for well below the minimum wage (while creating more unemployment as workfare takes peoples jobs)
It will happen though, if they can get away with it.  Exploit people - still calling them 'workshy' when they're working - and then leave them to starve if they can't get paid work. Mind you, I suppose they called slaves "lazy" as well.

"Motivation" to seek work - ffs still playing into this idea that people don't have a job simply because they don't want one. It's just a lie.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

pboi said:


> impressive level of snide there VP, you have been working on it.



Nothing snide about anything that I said.

You *are* still a bigger shit-cunt than me, even with all my failings.

People who call benefits claimants "peasants" *do* have faces like scrotums.

There are likely to be *fewer* jobs during an economic contraction, regardless of immigrants returning home early, and supposedly leaving "menial" jobs available.

My assessment of Brockwell Gate is borne out by the frequent need for repairs to properties that aren't even 10 years old, so I do believe that someone who'd willingly buy or rent there doesn't have any room to mock the judgement or intellect of others.

It *would* be against your character to apologise.

And you *must* derive SOME form of pleasure from your studied obnoxiousness, so to presume that it makes you feel manly is the obvious choice of pleasure. I'd never have have assumed that you got some *sexual* _frisson_ from doing so instead, but perhaps I'm wrong!

See, no snideness, it's all fair comment.


----------



## pboi (Aug 19, 2009)

and it keeps coming! with added bold!


----------



## AURORA (Aug 19, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> It doesn't really make sense either - I haven't come across a case yet where a single parent isn't at least £50p/w better off in work due to tax credits payments, even at 16 hours of work a week - the government has deliberately structured the benefits and tax credits system to achieve this situation.
> 
> That's not to say that A4E aren't an utter shower of bastards who shouldn't be trusted, nor that I support the current policies to make single parents have to seek work from ever diminishing ages of their youngest child, under threat of financial sanctions from poverty-level benefits.



I work 20 hours a week and and am only 17 pounds a week better off.


----------



## AURORA (Aug 19, 2009)

I thinkwomen now have little chance to get away from a crap violent relationship.They say with the man or work their arses off and don't see their kids.I see women at my work who work 16 hours for a social thing-they don't need the money and could stop any time and stay at home while their rich husbands wokr.Working class lone parents do not have this option


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 19, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's likely that the medical evidence provided was good enough on it's own to satisfy the adjudication officer (I didn't need a medical examination at my last DLA renewal, either), but it's usual unless you've got a good case, and significant memory problems due to brain damage plus mobility issues is a fairly good case.




ah right, glad about that, because seeing him, people that don't know him, wouldn't know there was anything wrong with him, barring the fact that he's got a walking stick 

Glad you don't have to go through the hell of a medical examination


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 19, 2009)

pboi said:


> and it keeps coming! with added bold!


prick


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 19, 2009)

AURORA said:


> I work 20 hours a week and and am only 17 pounds a week better off.


Might be worth getting a benefit check to make sure you're getting all that you're entitled to. Check out your local CABx or law centre or similar.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 19, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> To be honest, I've never heard of anyone being allowed to not go to the _interview_ because they couldn't get childcare, and that includes carers of disabled children as well.



no, I meant as an excuse for not taking a job. I had to take my kids to the interview (and it was a bloody nightmare)


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 20, 2009)

weepiper said:


> no, I meant as an excuse for not taking a job. I had to take my kids to the interview (and it was a bloody nightmare)



I know, the problem is they've been making people go with their disabled carees (whether they are children dependents or adult ones) and in some instances, people simply are unable to actually get out of the house on their own with them, never mind anything else - and people just don't seem to get it!

If I was still on my own, no way on earth could I go to a job centre interview - or anything else for that matter - with both children.


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 20, 2009)

Why the fuck is this on Channel 4?

I thought they were the more liberal of TV channels?


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Aug 20, 2009)

I fear I shan't be able to watch this as I might smash something.

The woman they've chosen at A4E-I just find her repellent

She was on BBC Breakfast earlier and I wanted to strangle her silly little neckerchief thing


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 20, 2009)

Throbbing Angel said:


> I fear I shan't be able to watch this as I might smash something.
> 
> The woman they've chosen at A4E-I just find her repellent
> 
> She was on BBC Breakfast earlier and I wanted to strangle her silly little neckerchief thing



Kate Silverton really, really didn't like her or her ethos - you could tell.


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Aug 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Kate Silverton really, really didn't like her or her ethos - you could tell.



aye - good












I've only skimmed the thread but I am assuming the comparison has already been made


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Why the fuck is this on Channel 4?
> 
> I thought they were the more liberal of TV channels?



Because this sort of toss (especially if it's broadcast by a "liberal" channel who *obviously* wouldn't do anything to shit on benefits claimants) boosts ratings.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2009)

I like the way everyone has formed their opinions about this show before they've even watched it...


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 20, 2009)

Yeah maybe they'll all be fluffy and nice!

The adverts look horrendous, I'm not sure I want to watch it on the strength of them.

Although the conversation on this thread has mainly been about peoples actual experiences of job centres, and why not?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I like the way everyone has formed their opinions about this show before they've even watched it...


Have they really? _everyone...._


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Have they really? _everyone...._



Pedant!


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Why the fuck is this on Channel 4?
> 
> I thought they were the more liberal of TV channels?



er, no. they try to show lots of different viewpoints. there's been quite a few right-wing, 'illiberal' authored documentaries on the channel. niall ferguson's hardly a liberal, neither is david starkey or peter oborne, yet they've all made programmes for c4


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Pedant!


temper temper dear boy, watch the old b/p


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I like the way everyone has formed their opinions about this show before they've even watched it...


not the show, a4e.


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> er, no. they try to show lots of different viewpoints. there's been quite a few right-wing, 'illiberal' authored documentaries on the channel. niall ferguson's hardly a liberal, neither is david starkey or peter oborne, yet they've all made programmes for c4



But Channel 4's remit is to provide an "alternative" viewpoint.

We already have the 700 other channels on Sky to spout right wing nonsense.

Channel 4 was the last bastion of informed debate, or so it seemed.


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Aug 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I like the way everyone has formed their opinions about this show before they've even watched it...



Oh no, it's just her I've taken an immediate dislike to after seeing her bullying the women at the start of the course ("if you don't come in because you have a headache or a belly ache I'll stop your benefits"   ffs  if they are ill, they're allowed to be off, if they are taking the piss you need to prove that and not act like a cunt from minute one)


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 20, 2009)

Throbbing Angel said:


> Oh no, it's just her I've taken an immediate dislike to after seeing her bullying the women at the start of the course ("if you don't come in because you have a headache or a belly ache I'll stop your benefits"   ffs  if they are ill, they're allowed to be off, if they are taking the piss you need to prove that and not act like a cunt from minute one)



Did she say this?

Oh God?

One thing though, the trailer says it's about helping single mums back into work. At the moment (it is changing, but not till next year) single mums don't have to sign on or look for work, so aren't they there voluntarily anyway? I know the "interviews" are mandatory, but a course???


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 20, 2009)

Where are these jobs anyway?

Recently there were 4000 applications for 300 jobs in a new supermarket in Edmonton according to my local paper.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Where are these jobs anyway?
> 
> Recently there were 4000 applications for 300 jobs in a new supermarket in Edmonton according to my local paper.



tch it's not a question of lack of jobs it's down to not being incentivised enough!!


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> But Channel 4's remit is to provide an "alternative" viewpoint.
> 
> We already have the 700 other channels on Sky to spout right wing nonsense.
> 
> Channel 4 was the last bastion of informed debate, or so it seemed.


informed debate surely means allowing ALL viewpoints, even the ones you may find unpalatable?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Where are these jobs anyway?
> 
> Recently there were 4000 applications for 300 jobs in a new supermarket in Edmonton according to my local paper.


The new Primark in Bristol had something similar.

Jobseekers are kept in a holding pattern twilight world where they are forced onto workfare-a-like schemes to perform, by tedious rote, with no real hope of getting anything concrete and stable or building a future ('that's not what we're here for').


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 20, 2009)

Even before seeing this programme, my bits are hurting through fury.

I know it's not a very left wing view point, but is it acceptable to harm a hideous, TV fame seeking woman with a bicycle chain?


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> informed debate surely means allowing ALL viewpoints, even the ones you may find unpalatable?



Such as pro Government propaganda shit like this?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2009)

Well.

Only two and a half hours till everyone can sit down and shout at the telly and get it off their chests.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Such as pro Government propaganda shit like this?



you haven't watched the programmes yet, so how do you know this?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Where are these jobs anyway?
> 
> Recently there were 4000 applications for 300 jobs in a new supermarket in Edmonton according to my local paper.





There's not a bean to be had up here in Newcastle.  Coming back from China was quite possibly a bad career move on my part.  Either that, or giving up the very steady council job I used to have to go there in the first place...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Well.
> 
> Only two and a half hours till everyone can sit down and shout at the telly and get it off their chests.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> you haven't watched the programmes yet, so how do you know this?



Because encouraging people to look for work must be an inherently evil thing to do. Particularly mums who should devote their whole lives to bringing up their kids.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 20, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> Because encouraging people to look for work must be an inherently evil thing to do. Particularly mums who should devote their whole lives to bringing up their kids.


encouraging them by threatening to cut their benefits. for wanting the choice of how to bring up their kids.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 20, 2009)

arn't a4e being invistigated for fraud


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 20, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> encouraging them by threatening to cut their benefits. for wanting the choice of how to bring up their kids.



If this is true then the programme makers should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 20, 2009)

likesfish said:


> arn't a4e being invistigated for fraud



I believe they are.

I hope that bitch in the program gets abused in the street, the hateful cunt.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 20, 2009)

has this been on yet? If not when is it on?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 20, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> has this been on yet? If not when is it on?



duuur - clue in title!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 20, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> duuur - clue in title!



Too vague. The exact year of screening is not specified.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 20, 2009)

I don't know if I can make myself watch this, might do myself an injury.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 20, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Even before seeing this programme, my bits are hurting through fury.
> 
> I know it's not a very left wing view point, but is it acceptable to harm a hideous, TV fame seeking woman with a bicycle chain?



Here, I happen to have one to hand *passes chain* This woman is a horror


----------



## revol68 (Aug 20, 2009)

When did they start giving League of Gentlemen characters their own spin off shows?


----------



## jigotai (Aug 20, 2009)

Arghghgh!!!!!


----------



## moomoo (Aug 20, 2009)

Is this woman real?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 20, 2009)

Brilliant stuff. Like a cross between the office and League of Gentlemen.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 20, 2009)

maybe this is actually  the idea of a left wing subversive genius?


----------



## jigotai (Aug 20, 2009)

My cruel evil bitch of a gf is forcing me to watch this shite! She justifies herself with some bullshit, but Argh. 

This is painful. Really painful. I can tell, because I;m pleased that the ads have started.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 20, 2009)

'you wanna go back when you're ready? alright darling' after she's just accused the poor woman of being alcoholic?  oh fuck the fuck off you horrible patronising cow


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

I'm fucking FUMING already. This is a total hatchet job and it's ony the first ad break!


----------



## Northern Uproar (Aug 20, 2009)

Pure Pauline


----------



## weepiper (Aug 20, 2009)

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## moomoo (Aug 20, 2009)

weepiper said:


> 'you wanna go back when you're ready? alright darling' after she's just accused the poor woman of being alcoholic?  oh fuck the fuck off you horrible patronising cow



I'd need a stiff drink if I had to spend any time with that woman as well.


----------



## Lot 49 (Aug 20, 2009)

No joke, is this a mocumentary?

I honestly can't tell.


----------



## pboi (Aug 20, 2009)

why dont they all lose some weight for a start.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 20, 2009)

How the fuck does a single mother get herself into £75k of debt? She had the biggest fucking tv I have ever seen, am I meant to feel sorry for her?


----------



## pboi (Aug 20, 2009)

this is horrible


----------



## jigotai (Aug 20, 2009)

It puts me in mind of listening to Vogon poetry.


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 20, 2009)

this woman has left me speechless!!!


----------



## jigotai (Aug 20, 2009)

Phew, another break!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

I'm beyond speechless that anyone can think this isn't a set up. How some hectoring bullying tart can get away with this shit is beyond me. Absolutely beyond me.


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 20, 2009)

i wish someone would give those stupid scarves she wears a vigorous yank. until her head exploded, like in that film


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

1927 said:


> How the fuck does a single mother get herself into £75k of debt? She had the biggest fucking tv I have ever seen, am I meant to feel sorry for her?


Well of course they juxtaposed her story with pictures of her plasma tv so of course we are meant to side with the lovely Hayley whose infallible intuition is as credible as her peerless skills as a mental health professional. 

This is sick.


----------



## pboi (Aug 20, 2009)

and she is so proud of herself. oh tea and biscuits with queen bitch as a reward. youve really made it to the next level of thundercuntdom.  collect your pukka pie and pass go

pat on the back with your fucking fat face choker on


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

'tea with emma'

fuck me!


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 20, 2009)

"we can go to hayley when we're upset".

bad idea!


----------



## pboi (Aug 20, 2009)

I do not understand the world I am watching. Its alien.


----------



## jigotai (Aug 20, 2009)

"Do you have Asda Smart price or do you have Birdseye?"

Classic Quote!


----------



## pboi (Aug 20, 2009)

hang this broad with her choker


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 20, 2009)

jigotai said:


> "do you have asda smart price or do you have birdseye?"
> 
> classic quote!



partridge lives, yes!!!


----------



## YouSir (Aug 20, 2009)

Just given up on this, because it's just as shit as I expected it to be. That fucking tutor woman's like a mix between the job advisor from the League of Gentlemen and Alan Partridge. Even C4 knew it given the music and camera angles, I'm sure that was all a conscious attempt to take the piss.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

I have done this job...this is hammed up for the cameras.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

up the stairs to the keyboard again to vent. I'm getting more exercise in these ad breaks than anywhere else!

'in't she brave ladies!'

Now fuck off and work for poundland!


----------



## YouSir (Aug 20, 2009)

Mixed, I hasten to add with a healthy dose of bullying and shitey, biased editing.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

Hayley m'luv, do you have kids?

Twenty bucks says no; she's a career woman who loves her what not to wear book.


----------



## Dowie (Aug 20, 2009)

fuck me - I thought at one point she was going to get some pens out and start rolling her jaw - I wonder if she's ever watched league of gentlemen


you just couldn't write this stuff - on the pound land job ..."and I think it will be a wonderful opportunity for our clients to enter a thriving motivating environment" - it then cuts to a clip of two rather depressed looking workers on the tills...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Now fuck off and work for poundland!



Back yto work is one thing...encouraging people into dead end jobs is another. In my time doing that job I recognised the need for addressing underlying issues with the lond term unemployed which has lead me into cousellor training. Most of these training providers are businesses. The day the boss brought a white board into the office and started talking figures, I knew it was time to leave.


----------



## lizzieloo (Aug 20, 2009)

jigotai said:


> Phew, another break!



WhyDon'tYouJustSwitchOffYourTelevisionSetandGoandDoSomethingLessBoringInstead?


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 20, 2009)

and to top it off we had an ad for the imminent 'jamie's american road trip'.

*vomits*


----------



## weepiper (Aug 20, 2009)

a two week UNPAID 'work trial' at Poundland


----------



## jigotai (Aug 20, 2009)

Volunteer work at Poundland!!??!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

2 week unpaid trial? 

* punches wall.


----------



## moomoo (Aug 20, 2009)

weepiper said:


> a two week UNPAID 'work trial' at Poundland



I just came on to say that! 

And then they 'might' be offered a job at the end of it.  Well, woopie fucking doo!!!


----------



## pboi (Aug 20, 2009)

those eyerbows scare me

also

'you could sell sand to an arab'


----------



## jigotai (Aug 20, 2009)

"You could sell sand to an Arab!"


----------



## pboi (Aug 20, 2009)

she also has a 5 o clock shadow


----------



## YouSir (Aug 20, 2009)

Look on the bright side, The Wire's on later and following that? Happy dreams of Omar and his shotgun executing that mad, smug, deluded bitch.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2009)

One advantage of working for poundland is the slack security. You can rob all the tat and shonky straight-to-video DVD's you want.


----------



## lizzieloo (Aug 20, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> 2 week unpaid trial?
> 
> * punches wall.



I'm kind of half watching, is that what they were all made up about? 

I thought they'd done the trial and were being offered jobs.


----------



## jigotai (Aug 20, 2009)

I can see two weeks volunteering at Poundland being the new gap year experience - rivalling counting dolphins in tropical seas...


----------



## pboi (Aug 20, 2009)

this is so transparent. cant believe they are sitting in that wenchs country pile talking about the mums.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

My mums don't sit on chairs like this and ring door bells like that....


----------



## ymu (Aug 20, 2009)

*speechless


----------



## YouSir (Aug 20, 2009)

She's working unpaid in Pound Land. She's started drinking. Spot the link, I'd be fucked too.


----------



## moomoo (Aug 20, 2009)

But it's alright cos she cares. 

*Vomits*


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

moomoo said:


> But it's alright cos she cares.
> 
> *Vomits*


----------



## pboi (Aug 20, 2009)

this blonde lady is upsetting me bless her. she deserves better


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 20, 2009)

no, there's more next week!

GRRRR.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 20, 2009)

fuck's sake


----------



## 1927 (Aug 20, 2009)

Innit funny how you are all slagging this off, and yet the women in the programme actually thought it benefitted them and are still working in Poundland!!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

nicksonic said:


> no, there's more next week!
> 
> GRRRR.



My world next week....


----------



## weepiper (Aug 20, 2009)

1927 said:


> Innit funny how you are all slagging this off, and yet the women in the programme actually thought it benefitted them and are still working in Poundland!!



except the one with more than 2 kids who was financially worse off.


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 20, 2009)

"everything has gone tits".

couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

1927 said:


> Innit funny how you are all slagging this off, and yet the women in the programme actually thought it benefitted them and are still working in Poundland!!



These programs have their benefit, but they only do so much and are really more about earning the training companies money. The social good is lost most often and the resources to help the clients in other ways are crap to say the least.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

and to cap it all off, the person who railed against the benefits system saying she got paid too much was the one person who 'quit'. 

Something very wrong with that show.

I wish I could explain what I mean, but throughout that entire show the whole perception of the system (which no one would argue isn't flawed) was totally wrong. The whole premise they worked from just seemed balls to me. Now I feel sick. Next week looks fun.

I'd like to know the dirt on this show.


----------



## lizzieloo (Aug 20, 2009)

Did antone else notice how it was Christmas when the nice chap at Poundland offered to let them all work for nowt?

Genius


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

moomoo said:


> I just came on to say that!
> 
> And then they 'might' be offered a job at the end of it.  Well, woopie fucking doo!!!


looks like that wonderful opportunity led to something permanent. Isn't that luck!

And what's this? Hayley's a trained alchohol rehab counsellor and therapist type as well?

This woman's talents are wasted on those feckless women clearly!


----------



## 1927 (Aug 20, 2009)

weepiper said:


> except the one with more than 2 kids who was financially worse off.



But that's the fault of the crazy system, she was happy to stay there otherwise. I just think that people have been to keen to slag off the likes of Poundland, when the women actually seemed to enjoy being in a working environment and the camaraderie. Maybe there lives will be changed in a positive way. I hope so.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

lizzieloo said:


> Did antone else notice how it was Christmas when the nice chap at Poundland offered to let them all work for nowt?
> 
> Genius


I noticed as well. 

Still looks good on the old CV eh! That's all that matters.

I was told a few months ago that most employers are not taking much notice of CV's these days (and that was from someone who works for the complete opposite of the likes of A4E).


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 20, 2009)

how bizarre. it's more balanced than saints or scroungers. which isn't saying much.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 20, 2009)

Only caught the last 15 minutes but that small segment left me with a sense of an evangelical approach, something not a million miles away from those millionaire tv preachers in the USA. Need to watch the whole thing.


----------



## Dowie (Aug 20, 2009)

Its pretty shocking tbh... they were all manipulated rather well into taking the job - sort of a mixture of sales tactics from the woman taking the course and simple peer pressure - everyone being offered the job trial, all meeting in the pub one by one and getting the phone call (as if any of them were actually going to be turned down at that stage) - I wonder if the manager of that poundland store got a kick back of some sort/cut of the commission earned for getting them the job....

Seems to be a lot of money in it all at least - perhaps explaining this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/28/fraud-inquiry-government-jobs-scheme

I also do wonder what the tea party at the mansion would be like if the cameras weren't present - perhaps more talking figures - rewarding the star salespeople/job advisors - and no doubt a bit of 'banter' about the 'clients'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

Dowie said:


> Its pretty shocking tbh... they were all manipulated rather well into taking the job - sort of a mixture of sales tactics from the woman taking the course and simple peer pressure -




Yeap!


> Seems to be a lot of money in it all at least - perhaps explaining this:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/28/fraud-inquiry-government-jobs-scheme



Yeap!


----------



## smokedout (Aug 20, 2009)

worth mentioning that this was a pilot scheme, which almost certainly means that all the women were attending voluntarily and not under threat of benefit sanction - something not pointed out


----------



## JHE (Aug 20, 2009)

I have never heard anything good about A4E from anyone who has worked for them or been an unemployed client of them.

What I didn't realise until seeing (most of) the programme tonight was how much the wretched thing runs on fashionable emoting:  tissues, tears, hugs, 'tough love', 'I'm only doing this because I care'.  What a terrible load of nasty, manipulative, disingenuous shite.

Perhaps the programme should have been subtitled 'The uses and abuses of femininity' - or would it have been the same with a male tutor and a male or mixed group of clients?  



I used to work for someone who, along with some rather pleasant officials from the DWP, ran (and probably still runs) courses for single mums trying to get into work.  The person in question was in one very important way a terrible boss, but she was so much better (nicer, kinder) with the clients than that 'tutor' from A4E.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2009)

JHE said:


> I have never heard anything good about A4E from anyone who has worked for them or been an unemployed client of them.
> 
> What I didn't realise until seeing (most of) the programme tonight was how much the wretched thing runs on fashionable emoting:  tissues, tears, hugs, 'tough love', 'I'm only doing this because I care'.  What a terrible load of nasty, manipulative, disingenuous shite.
> 
> ...



Recently been on a similar course (run by an a4e-alike) with five other blokes and we ripped him to shit about the economy, the state of the world and his own involvement with an NGO taking money bullying people into jobs they were not suited for.

After his coating he helped out with CV design for those that needed it.


----------



## gnoriac (Aug 20, 2009)

How much was it A4E get per person they take on, £104 a week and a bonus if that person lands a job? Between that, the banks bailout and PFI, this is a govt that really doesn't have a problem with giving out handouts.


----------



## Cloo (Aug 20, 2009)

Did that woman remind anyone else of Margery Dawes?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> After his coating he helped out with CV design for those that needed it.



Technically that's his job.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2009)

Cloo said:


> Did that woman remind anyone else of Margery Dawes?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 20, 2009)

4 jobs in poundland at xmas. fucking way to go. lets design our welfare-to-work strategy around some permanent pseudo-religious festivalism affair that involves people handing out baskets and wagon wheels whilst wearing stupid hats for 3 weeks afore you lay them off after 51 weeks so you don't get into any of that pesky employment law protection nonsense.....


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 20, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/01/david-blunkett-private-companies


----------



## gnoriac (Aug 20, 2009)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/01/david-blunkett-private-companies



When I heard how much A4E were making off this scheme, I was wondering how they got into this dodgy business...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2009)

So I was out and didn't see it.

The responses on here suggest that it didn't portray the process in a positive light.

Is this the way the majority of viewers will have interpreted it?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> So I was out and didn't see it.
> 
> The responses on here suggest that it didn't portray the process in a positive light.
> 
> Is this the way the majority of viewers will have interpreted it?


everyone thought it was rubbish!!!!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> everyone thought it was rubbish!!!!



What I mean is, what message will the unpoliticised, unenlightened masses have taken away from viewing it?


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2009)

What a terrible programme, Ch 4 should be ashamed of themselves, i have complained to them and have rang the ASA about the newspaper adverts of the 'fat coach potato' can you imagine liberal Ch4 doing simiar with say refugees or BEM's?


As for the Marie Antoinette of Derbyshire i have had personal experience of the said Emma Harrison, she is a bit like Branson: she had her honeymoon in India, she needs to be liked and possibly be famous and has massive parties at her pile, like Branson she leans towards the happy clappy style of businesss, which is really often the most brutal. There are as with Branson(see Tom Bower) dark questions of corruption. in terms of her family, i met her father on a number of occasions: he made his money from training ex steel workers in the 80's, while his wife worked at the MSC, surely a conflict of interest? Training is now a licence to make money but suffers little scrutiny, unlike say the NHS, I wonder why?.

btw, this may backfire on this queen of the workhouse...


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

YouSir said:


> She's working unpaid in Pound Land. She's started drinking. Spot the link, I'd be fucked too.


and for someone stinking of sauce she seemed remarkably coherent and didn't seem to stagger around like some old souse.

no one can deny that, that's my opinion and i have every right to express it because hayley said so. the stupid supine bullying ignorant intolerant threatening painted up haridan.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> What I mean is, what message will the unpoliticised, unenlightened masses have taken away from viewing it?


women need persuasion.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> how bizarre. it's more balanced than saints or scroungers. which isn't saying much.


how much balance can there be in a programme called saints or _scroungers!_


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

Dowie said:


> Its pretty shocking tbh... they were all manipulated rather well into taking the job - sort of a mixture of sales tactics from the woman taking the course and simple peer pressure - everyone being offered the job trial, all meeting in the pub one by one and getting the phone call (as if any of them were actually going to be turned down at that stage) - I wonder if the manager of that poundland store got a kick back of some sort/cut of the commission earned for getting them the job....
> 
> Seems to be a lot of money in it all at least - perhaps explaining this:
> 
> ...


the delectable hayley is a s much a product of a4e as much as she propagates it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> So I was out and didn't see it.
> 
> The responses on here suggest that it didn't portray the process in a positive light.
> 
> Is this the way the majority of viewers will have interpreted it?


i take it the video recorder hasn't reached the teuchter household


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 20, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Recently been on a similar course (run by an a4e-alike) with five other blokes and we ripped him to shit about the economy, the state of the world and his own involvement with an NGO taking money bullying people into jobs they were not suited for.
> 
> After his coating he helped out with CV design for those that needed it.


ah cv design; that old standby.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 20, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> how much balance can there be in a programme called saints or _scroungers!_


it really is quite spectacularly awful tho. there was some kind of deeper point to BB than SoS, or less hyperbole. but the media generally has been pretty poor on welfare strategies of late, or representing the actual outcomes of such programmes. demonisation and stereotyping and propagandising (don't know if that's a real word?).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> ah cv design; that old standby.



i was never shown how to do a cv at a4e - that was done by kennedy scott a few weeks beforehand.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> i take it the video recorder hasn't reached the teuchter household



I prefer to consume all media output through the lens of U75.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 20, 2009)

It is a bit odd though, just coming back from a visit to Cambodia where there is no benefits system whatsoever, to see how amazingly privileged we are to actually have a system that does look after people, however imperfectly. At least these mums aren't selling their kids into prostitution so they can get fucked by western tourists to bring a few dollars home.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> It is a bit odd though, just coming back from a visit to Cambodia where there is no benefits system whatsoever, to see how amazingly privileged we are to actually have a system that does look after people, however imperfectly. At least these mums aren't selling their kids into prostitution so they can get fucked by western tourists to bring a few dollars home.


you've never heard of 'the maiden tribute of modern babylon' have you? if you'd wanted to, in the early 1880s, you could have gone out and bought yourself a virgin on the streets london. it was only after a series of campaigning articles about this that the law was changed to prevent this sort of thing happening.


----------



## ukbix (Aug 21, 2009)

I could not face actually watching it at the time, but later when feeling up to it, I go to look on channel 4 catchup, and no sign of it.

Hope they put it online, no reason for them not to, unless they are to embarassed..


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> you've never heard of 'the maiden tribute of modern babylon' have you? if you'd wanted to, in the early 1880s, you could have gone out and bought yourself a virgin on the streets london. it was only after a series of campaigning articles about this that the law was changed to prevent this sort of thing happening.



It's illegal in Cambodia, too. But dollars rule.


----------



## Dowie (Aug 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> you've never heard of 'the maiden tribute of modern babylon' have you? if you'd wanted to, in the early 1880s, you could have gone out and bought yourself a virgin on the streets london. it was only after a series of campaigning articles about this that the law was changed to prevent this sort of thing happening.



rather dodgy thing about that was that the Victorian journalist who decided to expose the whole thing went out and purchased then raped a 13 year old girl in order to write his story....


----------



## revol68 (Aug 21, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> It is a bit odd though, just coming back from a visit to Cambodia where there is no benefits system whatsoever, to see how amazingly privileged we are to actually have a system that does look after people, however imperfectly. At least these mums aren't selling their kids into prostitution so they can get fucked by western tourists to bring a few dollars home.



That isn't privilege it was hard fought for by working class struggle, thinking it is some privilege is reactionary nonsense in the same way it would be if some cock said "I was just out in Saudi Arabia where women can't do shit and it made me think how privileged woman are here" or "I was just out in Iran seeing homosexuals hung in public squares and it made me realise how privileged gays are in this country that they aren't executed and only have to put up with the occasional beating etc etc.


----------



## ymu (Aug 21, 2009)

^^This.


----------



## AURORA (Aug 21, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Currently 12, down to 10 from October, then 7 next year. Also, they recently published a Green paper as well as an academic study that recommended single parents being mandated to undertake work-related activities when their child reaches 1.
> 
> And I agree with you on the childcare point - it's also the case that much current childcare provision is inaccessible, inappropriate or unaffordable despite the promised improvements. The government has said that this issue will be taken into account when a parent signs on but when private contractors are chasing big bucks, it's easy to see how vulnerable people could be pressured into a course of action that isn't the best for them or their family.



Lone parensts have jobs-looking after their kids!Parentingo on your own is very difficult,It makes me sick the why socity disregards the care of children.Its a recession and they want a cheap labour pool,simple as that.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> It is a bit odd though, just coming back from a visit to Cambodia where there is no benefits system whatsoever, to see how amazingly privileged we are to actually have a system that does look after people, however imperfectly. At least these mums aren't selling their kids into prostitution so they can get fucked by western tourists to bring a few dollars home.


How is that odd?


----------



## Endeavour (Aug 21, 2009)

revol68 said:


> That isn't privilege it was hard fought for by working class struggle, thinking it is some privilege is reactionary nonsense in the same way it would be if some cock said "I was just out in Saudi Arabia where women can't do shit and it made me think how privileged woman are here" or "I was just out in Iran seeing homosexuals hung in public squares and it made me realise how privileged gays are in this country that they aren't executed and only have to put up with the occasional beating etc etc.


Right


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

It seems as a 'client' on one of these dreadful a4e programmes you have to submit to the politics and perceptions of the tutor. This leads to scenarios such as: "you could all work for burger king tomorrow. Why not? You obviously don't want a job then"
That's just ridiculous - why aren't they finding these people something better. _Poundland?_ Really? Is that a long term career then? Of course not, but it's a placement and so cha-ching!
Then you have what appears to me a hideous and indiscriminate transgression of personal boundaries. I certainly don't want to end up in tears in front of complete strangers, or be called an alchoholic by some cow with no clue. Or even be told what not to wear! 

This is all just so immoral. It really is the modern day poorhouse.


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 21, 2009)

I have never been so wound up by a programme in all my life, and never hated a woman as much since Margaret Thatcher......this programme was obscene. New Labour getting prime time one hour election broadcast free, to humiliate those who dare to want to bring their own kids up. I dunno what was worse, the patronising nature of the arsehole tutor, the stately home the boss has (upkeep of which is being paid for by the govt, fuck knows what wage she's on) , there was even one woman on it intimidated into taking a shit job which left her nearly £100 a week worse off - you would think Mrs clever clogs would've done her sums first?


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 21, 2009)

cheeky bastard even lectured one of em for daring to have a drink thru the week!


----------



## STFC (Aug 21, 2009)

It must be a spoof, surely?

She's a cross between Pauline from League of Gentlemen and Marjorie Dawes from Little Britain.

She can't be real, can she?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 21, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> 'tea with emma'
> 
> fuck me!



We have tea and cakes and set the world to rights.


----------



## jusali (Aug 21, 2009)

I'd totally bone the Tutor though


----------



## STFC (Aug 21, 2009)

I can't remember exactly how it went, but that bit when she asked the blonde lady, who was a complete nervous wreck, how she unwinds of an evening was excruciating:

-Music, a bath, a glass of wine...

-Just the one glass? Are you sure?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 21, 2009)

Saints and Scroungers showed Brixton on this morning's episode


----------



## pboi (Aug 21, 2009)




----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

jusali said:


> I'd totally bone the Tutor though


I'd rather fuck my own hand then punch myself in the face.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

STFC said:


> I can't remember exactly how it went, but that bit when she asked the blonde lady, who was a complete nervous wreck, how she unwinds of an evening was excruciating:
> 
> -Music, a bath, a glass of wine...
> 
> -Just the one glass? Are you sure?


Yet, despite apparently reeking of booze, she wasn't staggering around and didn't slur her speech or give any other sign of being drunk at all. Even then, this stupid tutor isn't qualified to deal with people that have alchohol problems - which assumes much about the person concerned in the first place. The fucking nerve. Of course she's the tutor so her word is gospel, while the lone parent will just be seen as a problem/troublemaker etc. Outrageous.

I wonder if the point of this programe was to highlight just how ridiculous these tutor types are by making them look like the charicatures they have become in their jobs. Though of course her relationship to Queen Emma was not that much different to her with her 'mums'. 

That DJ woman who made the 'mistak' of not asking her potential employers if they can ferry her back home after work then got roasted by Hayley and thus of course is deemed lazy etc. This is just awful. She went for the interview, didn't do very well (which is probably the worst you could put it) and then gets stigmatised and denigrated as though she'd bloody murdered someone! FFS how is that helping anyone? And how realistic is it to expect someone, at an interview with a complete stranger and already nervous, to ask if that employer will drive them home after each shift? Ridiculous!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2009)

STFC said:


> I can't remember exactly how it went, but that bit when she asked the blonde lady, who was a complete nervous wreck, how she unwinds of an evening was excruciating:
> 
> -Music, a bath, a glass of wine...
> 
> -Just the one glass? Are you sure?



That should not have happened on camera.
Doing a similar job I have had to approach clients about possible alcohol and substance abuse. It is a private conversation because of serious concerns. I could then refer the client to people trained to help them. Not ridicule them or make them feel vulnerable.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Aug 21, 2009)

I didnt watch it but should I get clobbered Im gonna set myself up as a 'self employed trader' on ebay, selling 'boho/retro' fashion ( ie anything my kids and I have outgrown or picked up in thirft shops)
declared hours 16+ earnings, practically nowt.....
I know a single parent who did just this and theyve left her alone... its not her fault business is bad, theres a recession on didnt you know?


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Aug 21, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> That should not have happened on camera.
> Doing a similar job I have had to approach clients about possible alcohol and substance abuse. It is a private conversation because of serious concerns. I could then refer the client to people trained to help them. Not ridicule them or make them feel vulnerable.



makes you wonder whether the tutor unwinds in a similar fashion and whether she thinks its acceptable to be hummiliated as part of her job- for which she gets a weekly income... Oh no, but its ok for her to do it to the jobseeker... because they are poor and getting their money from the government, not minted and doing the fucking same


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> It is a bit odd though, just coming back from a visit to Cambodia where there is no benefits system whatsoever, to see how amazingly privileged we are to actually have a system that does look after people, however imperfectly. At least these mums aren't selling their kids into prostitution so they can get fucked by western tourists to bring a few dollars home.



So.. we don't have to sell our kids into prostitution, so that makes everything alright.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> makes you wonder whether the tutor unwinds in a similar fashion and whether she thinks its acceptable to be hummiliated as part of her job- for which she gets a weekly income... Oh no, but its ok for her to do it to the jobseeker... because they are poor and getting their money from the government, not minted and doing the fucking same


you can tell she lives and breathes her job. though i doubt she's real. no one can seriously be that much of a tool, can they? living and breathing a4e and saying her prayers in front of a photo of queen emma, no doubt, before beddy byes.


----------



## STFC (Aug 21, 2009)

My girlfriend reckoned that the tutor has definitely got 'issues' of her own..

That bit when she was so excited she could hardly talk - I thought she was going to say that one of the women had found employment.

No, it was because the boss was visiting. That was straight out of The Office.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 21, 2009)

STFC said:


> No, it was because the boss was visiting. That was straight out of The Office.


 

I thought the Queen or Prince Charles was paying a visit


----------



## STFC (Aug 21, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I thought the Queen or Prince Charles was paying a visit



Pphh. They are nobodies compared to Emma.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2009)

LilMissHissyFit said:


> makes you wonder whether the tutor unwinds in a similar fashion and whether she thinks its acceptable to be hummiliated as part of her job- for which she gets a weekly income... Oh no, but its ok for her to do it to the jobseeker... because they are poor and getting their money from the government, not minted and doing the fucking same



She unwinds by getting dressed up and visiting the company owners' mansion.
They then have tea and talk about 'her mums' getting jobs in poundland, whilst drinking earl grey from bone china teacups and sitting on £5,000 leather armchairs.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 21, 2009)

Class traitor with sadistic libidinal tendencies and low self-esteem. Classic cult-recruitment material IMO - if she wasn't doing this she'd be berating newbie Scientologists about their body thetans or something. Perfect _Aufseherin_ material.


----------



## big eejit (Aug 21, 2009)

The latest in a long line of great TV monsters. 

I like her moment of revelation when she grasps that a job at Poundland can't compete with state bens for a single mum of four. (How could she have not have known this before?) A 'does not compute' look flashes across her face before she announces that something must be done! The 'something' would obviously be to reduce the benefits given her glee when one of the mums was shamed and bullied into admitting she thought she was paid too much in benefits.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 21, 2009)

Poundland could be a career. Shop floor, team leader, management, regional...lots of money, paying off debts. `

Naughty naughty urbans sneering at Poundland


----------



## revol68 (Aug 21, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Class traitor with sadistic libidinal tendencies and low self-esteem. Classic cult-recruitment material IMO - if she wasn't doing this she'd be berating newbie Scientologists about their body thetans or something. Perfect _Aufseherin_ material.



Perfect fucking fertiliser material more like, chop that bitch up and put her on the compost heap.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 21, 2009)

big eejit said:


> The latest in a long line of great TV monsters.
> 
> I like her moment of revelation when she grasps that a job at Poundland can't compete with state bens for a single mum of four. (How could she have not know known this before?) A 'does not compute' look flashes across her face before she announces that something must be done! The 'something' would obviously be to reduce the benefits given her glee when one of the mums was *shamed and bullied *into admitting she thought she was paid too much in benefits.



Bollocks she was. She'd said it before when she was at home. 

Bless her thinking £240 a week for a woman alone with four children was too much! How beaten down she must be


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2009)

big eejit said:


> The latest in a long line of great TV monsters.
> 
> I like her moment of revelation when she grasps that a job at Poundland can't compete with state bens for a single mum of four. (How could she have not have known this before?) A 'does not compute' look flashes across her face before she announces that something must be done! The 'something' would obviously be to reduce the benefits given her glee when one of the mums was shamed and bullied into admitting she thought she was paid too much in benefits.



Aren't tax credits meant to make it at least equal to benefits? Or are they not as generous as I thought?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Bollocks she was. She'd said it before when she was at home.
> 
> Bless her thinking £240 a week for a woman alone with four children was too much! How beaten down she must be



I think the too much thing was _in copmparason_ to what she could earn in a low skilled/low paid job. 

It's a common problem.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 21, 2009)

STFC said:


> Pphh. They are nobodies compared to Emma.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 21, 2009)

Poundland could be a career for a very small proportion. And the costs of advancement for women with children might well outweigh the benefits, both in personal terms and in terms of wider society.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Poundland could be a career. Shop floor, team leader, management, regional...lots of money, paying off debts. `
> 
> Naughty naughty urbans sneering at Poundland


must be a pretty good wage to enable all that in a fortnight.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Bollocks she was. She'd said it before when she was at home.
> 
> Bless her thinking £240 a week for a woman alone with four children was too much! How beaten down she must be


 

She should have given it to the one who had one kid and owed over £70,000


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

So how did these mums arrange childcare for their stint at poundland (and beyond)? 

That woman who believed benefits were too much was just saying what the camera wants to hear. I bet if her kids dinner money was reduced etc she'd realise how wrong she was. It's a ridiculous thing for someone to say, single mum or not, and it's an irresponsible thing to go unchallenged in a so-called documentary. 

But Hayley went one better by not only condoning it (with no experience as she isn't a single mum on the dole), but commending encouraging the woman for 'speaking her mind'. Didn't commend or encourage DJ Mum though, who was the only one to go for an interview though did she?

And what exactly does Hayley actually _do?_ Other than arrange cheap labour for the likes of £land?


----------



## STFC (Aug 21, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> Poundland could be a career. Shop floor, team leader, management, regional...lots of money, paying off debts. `
> 
> Naughty naughty urbans sneering at Poundland



The manager obviously isn't stupid. Getting a group of women to work unpaid for two weeks over Christmas was a stroke of genius.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 21, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Aren't tax credits meant to make it at least equal to benefits? Or are they not as generous as I thought?



I think it depends on what hours and how many kids you have. I expect in this case the childcare for four kids for full-time hours was just too much (tax credits only pays a maximum of 80% of your total childcare costs)


----------



## big eejit (Aug 21, 2009)

STFC said:


> The manager obviously isn't stupid. Getting a group of women to work unpaid for two weeks over Christmas was a stroke of genius.



It seemed overly harsh to put them all in a room together to await the phone calls to see whether they'd been accepted as free labour or not.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 21, 2009)

big eejit said:


> It seemed overly harsh to put them all in a room together to await the phone calls to see whether they'd been accepted as free labour or not.



It was fucking disgusting. 'Oooh look you've been accepted as slave labour!!! Cheer, dammit! Come on, look happy!!!'


----------



## STFC (Aug 21, 2009)

What I want to know is, who paid for the pub lunch?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 21, 2009)

Lot of stuff to process in that hour, some distractions some quite interesting.

On the central point of enabling single mothers who want to return to the workplace but feel lost and unempowered, the course worked,  at least for these women. Must be hugely difficult to get back into the workplace after a decade or more.

Poundland was very zeitgeist. I found myself hoping the boost in confidence and re-connection with the workplace would act as a stimulas to develop 21st century skills and enable them to progress away from minimum wage. 

It felt like a process, but one in which the women could take increasing responsibility.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 21, 2009)

STFC said:


> What I want to know is, who paid for the pub lunch?


 

I wondered that myself.  That burger and chips probably cost at least £5


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 21, 2009)

the tv company, obviously.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Lot of stuff to process in that hour, some distractions some quite interesting.
> 
> On the central point of enabling single mothers who want to return to the workplace but feel lost and unempowered, the course worked,  at least for these women. Must be hugely difficult to get back into the workplace after a decade or more.
> 
> ...



How can you progress away from the minimum wage if you aren't even being paid?

Don't you think poundland just take their stream of freebies from the dole and then don't have to  employ someone fulltime?

There's nothing wrong with getting people to volunteer somewhere, but a private company that makes profits out of getting free workers? Why not a charity, a hospital, school or community project?


----------



## STFC (Aug 21, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I wondered that myself.  That burger and chips probably cost at least £5



I wish I could afford a pub lunch.

Bloody scroungers, they live the life of Riley...


----------



## revol68 (Aug 21, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Lot of stuff to process in that hour, some distractions some quite interesting.
> 
> On the central point of enabling single mothers who want to return to the workplace but feel lost and unempowered, the course worked,  at least for these women. Must be hugely difficult to get back into the workplace after a decade or more.
> 
> ...



You are either very good at dead pan or a complete fucking moron.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 21, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> How can you progress away from the minimum wage if you aren't even being paid?
> 
> Don't you think poundland just take their stream of freebies from the dole and then don't have to  employ someone fulltime?
> 
> There's nothing wrong with getting people to volunteer somewhere, but a private company that makes profits out of getting free workers? Why not a charity, a hospital, school or community project?


I thought the woman fiddling with the little Christmas trees on the shelf said they'd been told they would be taken on after the trial period?

And the other woman came in with a pay slip, or a projection of her earnings, and said she couldn't afford to work?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 21, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I thought the woman fiddling with the little Christmas trees on the shelf said they'd been told they would be taken on after the trial period?
> 
> And the other woman came in with a pay slip, or a projection of her earnings, and said she couldn't afford to work?



She said she'd been told something about them all being kept on after the trial, although she didn't seem too convinced. Then the shows post-script said they were all still there except for the one with the projected earnings slip. And that projected earnings thing came from the Job Center I think, not from Poundland.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 21, 2009)

Cool. So in a year or so, once they've sharpened up mentally and physically and proved reliable, they could have a chance with, say, M&S; better pay and conditions, pension scheme, flexible hours and a children-aware employer.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 21, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Cool. So in a year or so, once they've sharpened up mentally and physically and proved reliable, they could have a chance with, say, M&S; better pay and conditions, pension scheme, flexible hours and a children-aware employer.





You don't half give away just what a middle class cunt you obviously are.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 21, 2009)

Go away and bite someone else's ankles you silly, thrush-infected, cock choking, argument-free internet warrior.

Thanks to the Firefox add-on, we won't be taking again.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

the programme was very vague as to the outcome for these mums. Did they all get employed permanently? Was that at the time of production? How long has their job with Poundland lasted? What are the full details? If there are genuine jobs with Poundland and they are a decent employer who bother with the rigmarole and charade of free labour through a4e?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Cool. So in a year or so, once they've sharpened up mentally and physically and proved reliable, they could have a chance with, say, M&S; better pay and conditions, pension scheme, flexible hours and a children-aware employer.



Mmmm, because everyone knows that all the big retailers are hiring during a recession, rather than freezing recruiting or shrinking their workforce.


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 21, 2009)

A4E?

Sounds like one of those companies that advertise during Judge Judy during the day on ITV2 for selling them your gold or claiming for compenstation.

From reading on here they don't sound too far removed, but are funded by our taxes through the Government.

If the Government really want to humiliate those on the dole, why not make an appearance on the Jeremy Kyle show a condition of receiving benefits?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 21, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mmmm, because everyone knows that all the big retailers are hiring during a recession, rather than freezing recruiting or shrinking their workforce.


I did say after about a year. Besides that, what's the argument, that the were wrong to take these jobs at Poundland? 

Why were they wrong?


----------



## revol68 (Aug 21, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I did say after about a year. Besides that, what's the argument, that the were wrong to take these jobs at Poundland?
> 
> Why were they wrong?



Keep missing the bigger picture.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Aug 21, 2009)

It's on 4OD now: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters/4od#2932683


----------



## girasol (Aug 21, 2009)

I went on one of those 'back to work' schemes back in the 90s (I'd been signing on for 6 months), and they sent me on 3 month Business Admin NVQ course (basically learning how to touch type, excel, word, bit of health and safety, shorthand).

Why doesn't that happen anymore?    (or maybe it does?)  I got a couple of good secretarial jobs out of that, and then developed a taste for programming 

I was very young back then, but there were people of all ages in this training.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2009)

Incidently....it is not uncommon to meet clients that have done these kinds of courses up to 7-8 times. Many have other underlying (blatantly obvious) issues which are repeatedly ignored by the job centre who want to meet their own targets of getting people off JSA and into training.


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 21, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> I went on one of those 'back to work' schemes back in the 90s (I'd been signing on for 6 months), and they sent me on 3 month Business Admin NVQ course (basically learning how to touch type, excel, word, bit of health and safety, shorthand).
> 
> Why doesn't that happen anymore?    (or maybe it does?)  I got a couple of good secretarial jobs out of that, and then developed a taste for programming
> 
> I was very young back then, but there were people of all ages in this training.



Why bother with this when you can shove people into unpaid jobs at Poundland?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2009)

Did they actually do some training at all?


----------



## dlx1 (Aug 21, 2009)

^ how to meet and greet, dress code no jeans.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 21, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> ^ how to meet and greet, dress code no jeans.


 

I hope they gave them money to buy trousers that weren't denim


----------



## dlx1 (Aug 21, 2009)

I been on one on there thing it like slow death. looking at last weeks newpapers for jobs Virus ridden slow computer one between 5 people.

Them kind of place throw money at you well vouchers travel & clothes! But should you ask for some money to sit an exam that be a no.

We was show how to answers a phone  Pigeon hole unemployed = thick, lazy, fat weaning sportswear.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> I been on one on there thing it like slow death. looking at last weeks newpapers for jobs Virus ridden slow computer one between 5 people.
> 
> Them kind of place throw money at you well vouchers travel & clothes! But should you ask for some money to sit an exam that be a no.
> 
> We was show how to answers a phone  Pigeon hole unemployed = thick, lazy, fat weaning sportswear.



Hmm.. if this kind of low quality "training" is being exposed it is a good thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I did say after about a year.


Because everything will be "back to normal" for the economy in a year, won't it? 


> Besides that, what's the argument, that the were wrong to take these jobs at Poundland?


The argument is that your scenario is a fantasy, a "might be" that experience tells us will remain so.


> Why were they wrong?


Only an idiot asks a question based on a previous question while presupposing their previous question has utility.
You, sir, are an idiot.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 21, 2009)

I missed the bginning of this so didn't say how much money they got before they got the job at Poundland.

Bearing in mind once they got a job they'd have rent to pay etc., were any of the women (barring the one with four kids) better off?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Did they actually do some training at all?


they learned that batteries contain no negative charge.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 21, 2009)

and the art of applying lip gloss.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

I'd imagine that plastic chemically veneered monstrosity leaning over you, with her grotesque mocking mammaries and a stench of tear-inducing perfume would be a health hazard.


----------



## jusali (Aug 21, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I'd imagine that plastic chemically veneered monstrosity leaning over you, with her grotesque mocking mammaries and a stench of tear-inducing perfume would be a health hazard.



See, I'm gonna have to go and have a wank now


----------



## jusali (Aug 21, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> and the art of applying lip gloss.



That's it I'm off where's the kleenex


----------



## ukbix (Aug 21, 2009)

I think halyley was more accurate with her battery obsession than she realised.

She, and many people think that power flows from battery from the positive end,thats the magic end so to speak.

In reality, it's the other way round, it goes from the negative TO the positive, just like all the money is flowing from a negative situation (exploiting the poor), to the positive situation (emma being rich and living in a mansion). Plus like a battery, when the power is all removed from the negative end, its discarded and a fresh battery has to be used (a new set of poor to exploit).


----------



## JHE (Aug 21, 2009)

*It all depends what you mean by...*



_angel_ said:


> Did they actually do some training at all?



Are you one of those old fashioned people who think that training means teaching someone to do a job?

'Training' nowadays means all sorts of weird and unwonderful things, usually involving psycho-babble and supposedly inspiring words of dubious wisdom.  A lot of 'training' for unemployed people means what I would call pep talks plus help with job searching (sometimes useful), CV-writing (often useful) and application-writing (quite often helpful).

To be honest, the pep talk stuff, though a lot of it makes me cringe, can be useful for _some_ people.

Going by the prog, the A4E course was particularly focused on the pep talk stuff and it took an especially heavy (bullying) form.

From my POV, there are two esp. galling things about this sort of 'training' for unemployed people (not only from A4E, which seems esp bad):

1.  The presumption that there's something wrong with the unemployed person - drugs, drink, laziness, personal hygiene, low literacy and numeracy, fecklessness, pathologically low self esteem etc etc.  Of course, all these very different problems exist, but there are lots of people without jobs who do have any of them.

2.  The belief that everyone will have a job as long as he/she tries to get one.  The implication of this belief, clearly, is that when unemployment goes up, it's not really because of macroeconomic problems, but because the number of lazy people has increased.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 21, 2009)

See the amount of tea that battleaxe was slurping down? Her _breath_


----------



## JHE (Aug 21, 2009)

This series of three progs will be seen by lots of people, here and elsewhere, as an exposé of A4E, but I think Emma H and her lieutenants will love it.  It's three hours of free advertising, including lots of opportunity to push their view of unemployed people and the way to deal with them.  The customers, to whom A4E are selling their services, are not the unemployed prospective clients, but the DWP and other dishers-out of taxpayers' money to 'training providers' and 'welfare-to-work' scamsters.  I fear these progs will go down very well with the customers.


----------



## STFC (Aug 21, 2009)

I think (hope?) the series will have the opposite effect. On the basis of the first episode I don't think A4E and their methods will come out of it well at all.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 21, 2009)

STFC said:


> I think (hope?) the series will have the opposite effect. On the basis of the first episode I don't think A4E and their methods will come out of it well at all.


What? 4 people placed in work, who could barely be bothered to make a cup of tea before. It's clear that A4E are genii in dealing with moving people into sustainable employment (i.e. a job that lasts 13 weeks). Bargain, £500 per client, cheap at twice the price....


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2009)

JHE said:


> Are you one of those old fashioned people who think that training means teaching someone to do a job?



Heh



> 'Training' nowadays means all sorts of weird and unwonderful things, usually involving psycho-babble and supposedly inspiring words of dubious wisdom.  A lot of 'training' for unemployed people means what I would call pep talks plus help with job searching (sometimes useful), CV-writing (often useful) and application-writing (quite often helpful).
> 
> To be honest, the pep talk stuff, though a lot of it makes me cringe, can be useful for _some_ people.
> 
> ...



And the number of people who _have_ jobs who manage to be thick as two short planks never fails to amaze me![/quote]


> 2.  The belief that everyone will have a job as long as he/she tries to get one.  The implication of this belief, clearly, is that when unemployment goes up, it's not really because of macroeconomic problems, but because the number of lazy people has increased.




That is totally what all this shit is about, basically. There are people out there (and a few on urban) who just _do not believe _there aren't jobs for everybody falling out of the sky.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 21, 2009)

Get on yer bike!


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2009)

The thing is these modern day workhouses have been operating for ten or more years since Brown instituted his 'New Deal', yet there has been little scrutiny of these companies by civil society, the left etc, indeed the only protest i can think of was because A4E work in Israel!


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2009)

has anyone else rang Ch4?


----------



## revol68 (Aug 21, 2009)

treelover said:


> The thing is these modern day workhouses have been operating for ten or more years since Brown instituted his 'New Deal', yet there has been little scrutiny of these companies by civil society, the left etc, *indeed the only protest i can think of was because A4E work in Israel!*



That's depressing, shocking and yet not at all surprising.


----------



## JHE (Aug 21, 2009)

treelover said:


> has anyone else rang Ch4?



To say what?  That they shouldn't show a docu about A4E?  That it is a badly made docu?  I didn't see all of it and what I did see I didn't see with absolutely full attention, but going by what I saw I don't think it's a bad docu.  It's something for them to show and the rest of us to discuss.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 21, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> The argument is that your scenario is a fantasy, a "might be" that experience tells us will remain so.


It's a pretty strightforward question, should the women accept the jobs at Poundland?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 22, 2009)

If the best this organisation, under it's multi-millionairess queen bee, can achieve is to facilitate a 2 week unpaid job in minimum wage retail work (a trial organised not by them it would appear but by the jobcentre itself) then something is terribly wrong. The juxtaposition, as has been pointed out elsewhere, between tea at the manor with lady muck and a bunch of bewildered emotionally staggered proles working for nowt at poundland is...stark.

This course is supposedly a confidence building course. I wouldn't trust that woman to build anything. Totally untrained, unprofessional and utterly ill equipped to deal with real problems. She sets herself up as judge and jury as well as emotional therapist, drug and alchohol counseller, debt adviser and yet didn't even know fuck all about benefits. 

Parading people past the jobcentre like some missionary was as ridiculous as the expression of the woman at the back's face portrayed. A stupid crass woman with no real experiuence of what she's dealing with and only a series of cliches and stock beliefs, no doubt passed down from queen emma, to rely on. woe betide anyone who doesn't agree with them.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 22, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's a pretty strightforward question, should the women accept the jobs at Poundland?



absolutely not.

The national minimum wage is applicable to all intern jobs or any role which would otherwise be done by an employed worker.  If you work then you get paid. 

The 'job's' that these women were offered were in fact slave labour for no money for 2 weeks without pay.

For which the company gets a subsidy for taking them on (so no wage bill and getting paid to have staff) the placement company get paid (by number of clients who are returned to work (this counts as a return to work they get paid) and of course there is no guarantee that once the free period of work ends they will then be taken on which they aren't if there's another 30 people behind them in the queue looking for that 'opportunity' to 'work' in poundland. 

Moreover it prevents those who would otherwise have been employed and be entitled to full working/employment rights from getting these jobs. why employ someone with rights and wanting money to work when you can get workers for free and be govt subsidised.

why if all types intern or work experience now attract minimum wage clauses do these services also not?

what really annoyed me was the program seemed to reflect that the benefits given were too much not that the minimum national wage is too little.

so it was an apologist program for the system little else, which seemed as did the nasty patronising shit running these training courses all do well out of the only ones to not do well out of it are these poor unfortunates stuck in the shitty govt sponsored no wage jobs...


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 22, 2009)

Why were they so pleased to be offered the chance to work?

I've never been a single mum out of the work place for a decade with next to no self-esteem, living on a very limited income, no workplace skills and a wall of prejudice facing me so I can't say for sure, but looking at these women they seemed happy to take the deal of a 2-week trial followed by employment, especially in a climate of 2.5 million unemployed.

If you're going to offer opportunity to people who haven't worked for a decade and have no skills, you have to be financially incentivised. As an employer, why would you bother otherwise? You don't need that, you just tell yourself they're single parents and will take too much time off to look after the kids and move on to some gormless 18-year old.

I do though feel quite comfortable with letting them decide what they should do rather than the Internet people.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 22, 2009)

Why is it acceptable to be an employer who pays people nothing, but it's unacceptable to refuse a work trial for no wages - just because you're, horror of horros, unemployed.

This society is so very wrong.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Why were they so pleased to be offered the chance to work?
> 
> I've never been a single mum out of the work place for a decade with next to no self-esteem, living on a very limited income, no workplace skills and a wall of prejudice facing me so I can't say for sure, but looking at these women they seemed happy to take the deal of a 2-week trial followed by employment, especially in a climate of 2.5 million unemployed.
> 
> ...




Why does the employer have to be "financially incentivised" but not the employee - who needs the money more?

Big businesses shouldn't be getting workers for nothing - especially if they're not even being taught how to do anything special.

I love all the excuses for businesses to, basically, get slave labour though. People should be paid if they are working. I might have taken the trial if it'd been offered to me but it would still have been exploitative. Not working for a decade doesn't mean you've got "no skills" though. You just talked about discrimination, and this kind of thinking is part of it - assuming they aren't worth anything more and that automatically there's nothing they can do.

If they're going to send people to work for nothing why not make it a charity or something like a community scheme that at least isn't making profits for a company that should be paying people.

It's not even like you need skills or experience to work in a shop anyway FFS like you said. I have worked in places like that when I was at school and been paid. Why on earth should they get adults with families to support for no pay at all?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 22, 2009)

I'd reply, I'd just be repeating the same points. Lets leave it there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's a pretty strightforward question, should the women accept the jobs at Poundland?



It's not a straightforward question at all, because (as i mentioned earlier, but you've conveniently ignored) you've based it on an *assumption* of future economic conditions rather than the current economic reality, and a rather tired view of the possibility of job progression. 

Should they accept the jobs?
That's not for me to say.
What *is* for me to say is that they shouldn't be coerced into doing so through emotional manipulation. If they wish to work, given their financial and familial strictures then fair enough. If what they want is *real* training so that they don't have to settle for Tax Credit-subsidised McJobs, then they should be offered that.
These "trainers" should be facilitators, not shills for local businesses or "sales-persons" for the company they work for.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> That isn't privilege it was hard fought for by working class struggle, thinking it is some privilege is reactionary nonsense in the same way it would be if some cock said "I was just out in Saudi Arabia where women can't do shit and it made me think how privileged woman are here" or "I was just out in Iran seeing homosexuals hung in public squares and it made me realise how privileged gays are in this country that they aren't executed and only have to put up with the occasional beating etc etc.



Good comparison.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2009)

It is actually, I don't see why anyone should class themselves as "lucky" just because they don't have to sell their kids into prostitution or any other type of crime happening to them!


----------



## revol68 (Aug 22, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Why were they so pleased to be offered the chance to work?
> 
> I've never been a single mum out of the work place for a decade with next to no self-esteem, living on a very limited income, no workplace skills and a wall of prejudice facing me so I can't say for sure, but looking at these women they seemed happy to take the deal of a 2-week trial followed by employment, especially in a climate of 2.5 million unemployed.
> 
> ...



Middle class cunt fails to grasp the wider picture shocker.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 22, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> It is actually, I don't see why anyone should class themselves as "lucky" just because they don't have to sell their kids into prostitution or any other type of crime happening to them!



If you don't appreciate how privileged you are to live in a country with such a strong welfare state then you probably won't fight for it when it's slowly eroded as you will see it as a right, not a hard fought for state that took years in the making.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 22, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> If you don't appreciate how privileged you are to live in a country with such a strong welfare state then you probably won't fight for it when it's slowly eroded as you will see it as a right, not a hard fought for state that took years in the making.



eh, seeing something as a privilege implies it is undeserved or gained at the expense of others, that you have no right to expect it.

you've got this arse about tit.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 22, 2009)

revol68 said:


> eh, seeing something as a privilege implies it is undeserved or gained at the expense of others, that you have no right to expect it.
> 
> you've got this arse about tit.



I think the UK became a wealthy country and maintains its wealth at the expense of poorer countries round the world. I don't think people born here have a natural right to expect anything. Most of the people on this planet live in complete poverty. Being born here is just a matter of luck.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> If you don't appreciate how privileged you are to live in a country with such a strong welfare state then you probably won't fight for it when it's slowly eroded as you will see it as a right, not a hard fought for state that took years in the making.



What are you saying then? That people shouldn't complain - like now - when the welfare state is being eroded?

It is a right - but only because it was fought for in the first place. Everybody pays into the system - including the people claiming it - which is very conveniently forgotten by a lot of people.

What we have here, though, is (some) people saying we should just accept that it will be taken away from us.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 22, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> What are you saying then? That people shouldn't complain - like now - when the welfare state is being eroded?
> 
> It is a right - but only because it was fought for in the first place. Everybody pays into the system - including the people claiming it - which is very conveniently forgotten by a lot of people.
> 
> What we have here, though, is (some) people saying we should just accept that it will be taken away from us.



I don't think that helping people to find jobs is eroding the welfare state. And we should definitely fight to make our system better than it is now.


----------



## ymu (Aug 22, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> I don't think that helping people to find jobs is eroding the welfare state. And we should definitely fight to make our system better than it is now.


Helping people to find jobs is fine. Forcing them to work for nothing, or for a fraction of the minimum wage, or for less than they need to live on, is not. 

A functional welfare state ensures that employers must act with a minimum of decency. Without this we end up with a situation like India, where some of the richest people in the world live alongside hundreds of millions of the poorest, who work long days for a couple of quid, less than a quid in the worst cases, and may be forced to sell their children into slavery. Employers will always pay as little as they can get away with and people will always work for them if every other means of feeding themselves and their family is denied.

Offering up the long-term unemployed as free or sub-minimum wage labour is an abuse of the welfare state, a simple means of transferring wealth from the poorest to the richest. Apart from the (mostly corporate) tax-dodgers, we all pay tax to pay benefits for those for whom there are no jobs. Those people are then forced to work for little or nothing because there is no job available for them. The work they do for free further reduces the number of jobs available, making more people unemployed, who are then forced to work for little or nothing. And so it goes on.

Simultaneously, we are paying tax for top-up benefits for those who are in work but paid too little to survive on, subsidising low-paying employers and allowing them to remain staffed and in business, further reducing the supply of jobs which pay a living wage.

It's stupid. Every bit as stupid as the bankers which paid salesmen to sell dodgy loans and rewarded brokers for covering it up, leading to the inevitable collapse in the value of the property which underpinned those same loans. Duh! The difference is that, unlike the bankers, the politicians know exactly what they're doing. They're just too corrupt or too gutless to admit it, and we're powerless to stop them.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> I don't think that helping people to find jobs is eroding the welfare state. And we should definitely fight to make our system better than it is now.



No, but what IS eroding it is forcing people - lone parents in this case, but also vulnerable disabled people - to look for work, or work for less than the minimum wage or risk having their safety net/ food for their kids taken off them. I appreciate that hasn't happened just yet, but it will happen as of 2010.

You don't need to threaten to people to "help" them find jobs. They could do a lot more to really help people find long lasting jobs than they are doing, as well, considering the money they are being paid to do it.


----------



## ymu (Aug 22, 2009)

The mean income in this country is around £33k. The median is around £23k. This difference is due to an asymmetry in the income distribution - we have a lot of people on very low incomes and a tiny handful on very very large ones.

There's a £10k difference between these two measures of the average. The average wage-earner in this country is down by £10k because of the obscene amount a handful of the super-rich cream off the top. Yet large numbers of ordinary average wage-earners can still be persuaded that people on benefits are the problem, rather than the people who pay themselves hundreds of times the amount they pay to their average employee. It's beyond me, it really is.


----------



## pboi (Aug 22, 2009)

mean income in this country is 25k

london is 33k

london banking/finance is 53k


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2009)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/01/david-blunkett-private-companies



Watching the programme left me foaming at the mouth.

Thanks for this link. Now seems that BASTARD Blunket is paid as a consultant for one of these "providers" of help to the unemployed. I want to string him up personally with piano wire.

I could understand a Tory agreeing with this. Depressing the programme was really about New Labour social "policy". 

Read most of this thread. Particularly liked the info from Paulie Tandoori and others on the real effects of this company. Awesome Wells post I agree with


----------



## pengaleng (Aug 22, 2009)

I saw this prog and dispaired at the ladies all being seemingly overjoyed at them ALL being taken on.... oh really... I wonder why that was....  because they don't have to pay you perhaps?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 22, 2009)

Does anyone know what really happened to these women? The show claimed they were still working there. But what's the real story? I mean there was not even lip service paid to the issue of childcare for any of them. How was that suddenly arranged?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 22, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Does anyone know what really happened to these women? The show claimed they were still working there. But what's the real story? I mean there was not even lip service paid to the issue of childcare for any of them. How was that suddenly arranged?



They were all murdered shortly after filming and their children sold into slavery.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 22, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> They were all murdered shortly after filming and their children sold into slavery.


well at least they had their pride.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2009)

you can't take it with you you know


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Why were they so pleased to be offered the chance to work?


well I'm sure there werre some in mao's china that also felt they needed re-educating it still doesn't make it right...

so you're saying it's perfectly ok to take a group of vulnerable people who potentially have other issues which are preventing them from entering the work place and entirely brain wash them whilst giving them the impression that they best they can aspire to is a job in poundland as a free worker who because of the scheme isn't even entitled to the minimum wage and must for their unemployment penance do 2 weeks hard labour for free... 

you deserve to be wiped from the gene pool you and all your relations... 

Please point to any evidence provided within the program or beyond that these free workers had the opportunity to turn their 2 weeks into a real sustainable job.  Which you know allowed them the opportunity of development career progression and above all else the opportunity to climb up the class ladder to the lofty unqualified status of say their job counsellor... or their job counsellors boss, emma the thievish tax stealing cunt... 



London_Calling said:


> I've never been a single mum out of the work place for a decade with next to no self-esteem, living on a very limited income, no workplace skills and a wall of prejudice facing me so I can't say for sure, but looking at these women they seemed happy to take the deal of a 2-week trial followed by employment, especially in a climate of 2.5 million unemployed.



Of course they are 'happy' to take the job failing to will without good reason, mean they are kicked of the benefits and pittance they do receive...





London_Calling said:


> If you're going to offer opportunity to people who haven't worked for a decade and have no skills, you have to be financially incentivised. As an employer, why would you bother otherwise? You don't need that, you just tell yourself they're single parents and will take too much time off to look after the kids and move on to some gormless 18-year old.



none of which are legal or appropriate reasons for refusing someone a job nor in reality as other supermarkets will demonstrate amply is it the cash... 

and moreover as previously state prevent genuine job seekers looking for you know paid employment with the same level of working rights as everyone else at a distinct disadvantage... 

If you think for one moment that the tubby bitch living in the opulent statley home either deserved the cash to purchase such a dwelling or conversley gives two fucks about the welfare of the people her company 'helps' you're a fucking moron... 

suspermarkets are where you get jobs if you have no skills... 

are you so removed from the modern age you've never been in one... 



London_Calling said:


> I do though feel quite comfortable with letting them decide what they should do rather than the Internet people.



Right can you point to anything which has been published on the internet which established any credibility to the hyperbolic nonsense?

anything at all which proves that the internet has prevented any of the shows subjects from getting a job, something like and official statement expressing regret from channel 4 saying you know if only they'd received more support on the internet or they poll had been different what dramatic changes it could have made in their lives....



people like you could do with a good dose of destitution and homelessness to give you more of an insight... you know might give you a touch of humility...


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 23, 2009)

I don't care to write  time-consuming replies after  personal attacks so you don't need to include question marks.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 23, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I don't care to write  time-consuming replies after  personal attacks so you don't need to include question marks.



Does swearing offend your middle class sensibilities? 

(((London Calling)))


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 23, 2009)

were those poundland jobs even full time? Even though it was a fairly large shop (and Xmas), most retail jobs are part time with only one or two full time staff + management/supervisors. So the woman who was better off on benefits might not have had the chance to qualify for WTC.

This programme has really bummed me out.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I don't care to write  time-consuming replies after  personal attacks so you don't need to include question marks.



utterly failing to have a solid or substantial point you opt for the indigence of faux offence to cowardly slither away from your previous stance...  

you've got a lot, as in significant, growing up to do.


----------



## pboi (Aug 23, 2009)

confrontationally stupid, how apt!

Are you violent pandas apprentice?   the Sith!!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

pboi said:


> confrontationally stupid, how apt!
> 
> Are you violent pandas apprentice?   the Sith!!



nope I am legend 

you got any evidence to support this clowns nasty run people down lunatic points or is it like when most right wing head bangers get together the circle jerk means it's way to hard for anyone of you carbon copy thickos to have anything like you know reflective argument based on well supporting evidence and dare I say it fact.... 

say what you like about the acceptability of abusive commentary but in order for it to not look like children throwing toys out of the pram ideally your indicative should have some level of valid point behind it...

as both your clown shoes points are toss ergo your comments are irrelevant...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> were those poundland jobs even full time? Even though it was a fairly large shop (and Xmas), most retail jobs are part time with only one or two full time staff + management/supervisors. So the woman who was better off on benefits might not have had the chance to qualify for WTC.
> 
> This programme has really bummed me out.



again all it shows is that the minimum wage needs to be increased so that people are better off in work rather than on the pittance handed out on benefits... 

After all the lady who was no better off in the job wasn't coining it in on the benefits she was barely making ends meet as it was so reducing that further would in effect be worsening conditions for her children...


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 23, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you've got a lot, as in significant, growing up to do.




Get back to me when you can debate points as a mature adult rather than like an abusive,  monochrome-visioned Student Union rep.


----------



## pboi (Aug 23, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> nope I am legend
> 
> you got any evidence to support this clowns nasty run people down lunatic points or is it like when most right wing head bangers get together the circle jerk means it's way to hard for anyone of you carbon copy thickos to have anything like you know reflective argument based on well supporting evidence and dare I say it fact....
> 
> ...



i just cant respond to this level of douchebaggery, much like violent pandas posts.   

keep on fighting the fight, some people just take it the internet as seriously as you do


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

pboi said:


> i just cant respond to this level of douchebaggery, much like violent pandas posts.
> 
> keep on fighting the fight, some people just take it the internet as seriously as you do



ok even to my dyslexic addled brain doesn't get what you are wittering on about here...

I mean really wtf does 

keep on fighting the fight some people just take it (what? the fight the internet which has yet to be mentioned in this sentence what is it?) the internet as seriously as you do?

really mean....

or is it just that as you cannot think of anything substantial to say that in fact you are simply coming back to the thread and hoping that no one will notice the verbal diarrhoea you've got... 

tell me do you get up spectacularly early in the morning to practice being this much of a cretin?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Get back to me when you can debate points as a mature adult rather than like an abusive,  monochrome-visioned Student Union rep.



get back to me when you have something close to a substantial point which is you know related to the environmental damage of you being allow internet access and in the carbon foot print it creates to allow your bullshit nonsense to be poured out to the world... 

as clearly you can add nothing to this thread other than to satisfy your own wounded psychic penis... 

you are a perfect example of why morons should be banned from the internet for the sake of the environment...


----------



## pboi (Aug 23, 2009)

yes yes very good. keep it coming.

keep on fighting the fight, some people just dont take the internet as seriously as you do. you have a busy day of posting ahead of you.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 23, 2009)

It's abut my wounded psychic penis! Who else knew?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 23, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> again all it shows is that the minimum wage needs to be increased so that people are better off in work rather than on the pittance handed out on benefits...
> 
> After all the lady who was no better off in the job wasn't coining it in on the benefits she was barely making ends meet as it was so reducing that further would in effect be worsening conditions for her children...



It's not just that, it's the whole culture that on one hand says 'aspire' 'be the best you can be' 'it oculd be you', then says 'tough shit, accept this job in Poundland or lose your entitlement to even the crumbs off Emma's table and be branded the worst kind of social pariah'. Why aren't the government 'elevating' people to do something decent and productive they can do as a career long term, rather than 'encouraging' them to apply, along with the thousands of other people, for the same, bottom end, jobs. If there are a thousand jobs in an area at the local tesco and three times as many out of work, then why not arrange those jobs to go to the best suited and get the people best suited to other things doing that instead, or working toward something else they can (and want to) do? This blinkered ignorant attitude of 'work at all costs' is just bullshit. 

But the saddest thing of all is how people are now so cowed they have come to believe that it is more enobling and 'decent' to say 'how high' when the state asks you to jump.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> It's not just that, it's the whole culture that on one hand says 'aspire' 'be the best you can be' 'it oculd be you', then says 'tough shit, accept this job in Poundland or lose your entitlement to even the crumbs off Emma's table and be branded the worst kind of social pariah'. Why aren't the government 'elevating' people to do something decent and productive they can do as a career long term, rather than 'encouraging' them to apply, along with the thousands of other people, for the same, bottom end, jobs. If there are a thousand jobs in an area at the local tesco and three times as many out of work, then why not arrange those jobs to go to the best suited and get the people best suited to other things doing that instead, or working toward something else they can (and want to) do? This blinkered ignorant attitude of 'work at all costs' is just bullshit.
> 
> But the saddest thing of all is how people are now so cowed they have come to believe that it is more enobling and 'decent' to say 'how high' when the state asks you to jump.



what i've never understood is that these services would be better off building some kind of sustainable jobs which suit the needs of the local community and provide a niche service which others cannot do.  I mean the main problem we have in this country is a total lack of manufacturing base which means we rely entirely on a credit based economy to keep it buoyant.

yet if we created work and built firms which a manufacturing base you'd ensure long term employment and also a far wider range of jobs going forward...

and it would mean that instead of the cunt emma getting rich of the backs of others the local economy and therefore in time the national economy would pick up significantly...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

pboi said:


> yes yes very good. keep it coming.
> 
> keep on fighting the fight, some people just dont take the internet as seriously as you do. you have a busy day of posting ahead of you.



repeating your dipshit comment doesn't serve to illuminate further you know... 



London_Calling said:


> It's abut my wounded psychic penis! Who else knew?



we all know, all the time...

its fucking transparent...


----------



## pboi (Aug 23, 2009)

did globalisation pass you by?


----------



## pboi (Aug 23, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> repeating your dipshit comment doesn't serve to illuminate further you know...



and you continually waging war with your forum posts just makes you look like more of a cunt each post you make.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

pboi said:


> did globalisation pass you by?



the real question is is globalisation the way forward?



pboi said:


> and you continually waging war with your forum posts just makes you look like more of a cunt each post you make.



you're the one who feels the need to actually respond to the poster rather than their comments, dear hard, usually a sign you've got nothing to actually say which is considered on the topic...

you see calling out cretins and pointing out why they are wrong and also why they are a moron is the preserve of those who have a considered opinion, and a substantial point to get over.  as you have neither I suggest you look in a mirror some time... 

anyways stop derailing the thread attempting to get the upper hand on and conveniently diverting the topic of the thread away from a subject you are clearly attempting to prevent from beings discussed you shill...


----------



## pboi (Aug 23, 2009)

blah blah blah dot dot dot

blah blah blah dot dot dot

blah blah blah dot dot dot




yes globalisation is the way forward, of course it is.   However I do believe we need to improve our tech/engineering status in the world, something like expertise in Renewables we could export to developing countries.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

your point caller?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2009)

pboi said:


> i just cant respond to this level of douchebaggery, much like violent pandas posts.


What you mean is you're not equipped to argue beyond "yah-boo, sucks!", and we all know it.


> keep on fighting the fight, some people just take it the internet as seriously as you do


If you didn't take it (and yourself) so seriously, you wouldn't be reduced to humiliating yourself quite so often, would you?


----------



## pboi (Aug 23, 2009)

you two are peas in a pod!


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 23, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> It's not just that, it's the whole culture that on one hand says 'aspire' 'be the best you can be' 'it oculd be you', then says 'tough shit, accept this job in Poundland or lose your entitlement to even the crumbs off Emma's table and be branded the worst kind of social pariah'. Why aren't the government 'elevating' people to do something decent and productive they can do as a career long term, rather than 'encouraging' them to apply, along with the thousands of other people, for the same, bottom end, jobs. If there are a thousand jobs in an area at the local tesco and three times as many out of work, then why not arrange those jobs to go to the best suited and get the people best suited to other things doing that instead, or working toward something else they can (and want to) do? This blinkered ignorant attitude of 'work at all costs' is just bullshit.
> 
> But the saddest thing of all is how people are now so cowed they have come to believe that it is more enobling and 'decent' to say 'how high' when the state asks you to jump.




I think this was the last sensible post on here before it degenerated into willy waving 

The bottom line is - if they want to get all these people into work there need to be enough jobs for everyone. But also, enough jobs that people can do and actually live on the money they get paid from them.

It's no good if the only job you might be able to do is about 30 miles away, or the only thing that fits in with school hours attracts about 500 applications per job.

Or if all the "jobs" only last about a week.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> what i've never understood is that these services would be better off building some kind of sustainable jobs which suit the needs of the local community and provide a niche service which others cannot do.  I mean the main problem we have in this country is a total lack of manufacturing base which means we rely entirely on a credit based economy to keep it buoyant.


Way back in the mists of antiquity (well, the mid 1980s to be precise), even the fucking Tories knew there was more point in providing (at least for adults) training that actually involved more than learning how to write a CV and be properly sheep-like at an interview. You could still even do a diploma or a degree course part-time while claiming dole.
Now, all we've got is "training" that's actually a complete contradiction of the word, that incentivises private companies to lie so that they can suck more off of the public tit in a week than a whole classroom of "trainee job-seekers" could "scrounge" in a year.
Kafka-fucking-esque.


> yet if we created work and built firms which a manufacturing base you'd ensure long term employment and also a far wider range of jobs going forward...


Yeah, but you've just used a phrase that governments have deliberately made themselves forget over the last 30 years, Garf: "Long-term".
Nothing is about long-term thinking nowadays. Not investment decisions, not political policy and certainly not social policy. "The market", the institution that proved to be another idol with feet of clay, is still king to those (including the politicians) who see the acquisition of wealth as *the* measure of character.


> and it would mean that instead of the cunt emma getting rich of the backs of others the local economy and therefore in time the national economy would pick up significantly...


People like Emma aren't interested in local economies, though. They're only interested in the taking, not in giving.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2009)

pboi said:


> did globalisation pass you by?



Globalisation has been an economic reality for over a hundred years. It isn't globalisation _per se_ that is a problem to economies, it's the economic mode within which globalisation exists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> the real question is is globalisation the way forward?


"Globalisation", i.e. the interlinkage of economies and an international trade in goods and services, is pretty much unavoidable. *However*, globalisation within a worldwide consensus toward a neo-liberal economic model is not only *not* the way forward, we've also recently found out that it's a very fast method of causing a chain reaction of massive unforeseen consequences if only a couple of those interlinkages suffer an economic failure.
Globalisation under a less acquisitive economic model *might* be sustainable, given a decent series of checks and balances, but the current way of doing things....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> I think this was the last sensible post on here before it degenerated into willy waving
> 
> The bottom line is - if they want to get all these people into work there need to be enough jobs for everyone. But also, enough jobs that people can do and actually live on the money they get paid from them.


Preferably without the government having to use public funds to "incentivise" employers, or to top up appallingly low wages via "tax credits".
All most people want is a decent day's pay for a decent day's work.


> It's no good if the only job you might be able to do is about 30 miles away, or the only thing that fits in with school hours attracts about 500 applications per job.
> 
> Or if all the "jobs" only last about a week.


Especially if you live somewhere that has poor transport and/or transport infrastructure.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 23, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Preferably without the government having to use public funds to "incentivise" employers,* or to top up appallingly low wages via "tax credits".*
> All most people want is a decent day's pay for a decent day's work.
> .



Problem with that now though........

i receive TC and could not manage without them but there is no way my employer would raise my wages by the same amount if they were abolished..........am not minimum wage by the way either !


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> Problem with that now though........
> 
> i receive TC and could not manage without them but there is no way my employer would raise my wages by the same amount if they were abolished..........am not minimum wage by the way either !



That *is* a problem, and a difficult one too. Unfortunately, business knows that, so there's an incentive for them to keep wages as low as possible within the bounds of the job you do. They *know* the government will pick up the tab so that you're just about able to stay afloat, just like they know you (or your colleagues) will work your arses off just to keep that (subsidised) job. They get to exploit you from every direction.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 23, 2009)

So the government is also incentivising single mothers (and not just them, i believe), by offering them, for a year, £40/week on top of their wage. That's 2/3 of the current JSA!

Combined with WTC it's entirely likely for a year the state will pay someone more than they would be getting for being unemployed. Given the jobs these people are likely to be doing, how long will they stay in that job and what happens if they quit/switch jobs?

So people in work are even greater scroungers!

This whole thing is bum backwards.

I would have thought doing voluntary work rather than a casual and probably temporary stint in £land would have been better - unless the government is really willing to invest in getting people into proper careers, which IMO should be their priority.

But this new poundland, how many people applying must there have been? Yet through state interference and the machinations of A4E the jobs get replaced by unpaid slavery. Something is very wrong here. 

Aside from the DJ why was there no discussion of what these women wanted to do - what they were good at? Hayley spent more time in her moment of cult (that's cunt with an L)-like emotional reinforcement of Yvette's misguided understanding of the benefit system than in support of Donna's experience applying for the DJ job she couldn't get transport home from.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

pboi said:


> you two are peas in a pod!



as we both have educated opinions which contradict your hyperbolic bullshit nonsense...

why yes we do...

as i said your point caller...

perhaps this scope could be widened to your point on this planet caller?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 23, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Way back in the mists of antiquity (well, the mid 1980s to be precise), even the fucking Tories knew there was more point in providing (at least for adults) training that actually involved more than learning how to write a CV and be properly sheep-like at an interview. You could still even do a diploma or a degree course part-time while claiming dole.
> Now, all we've got is "training" that's actually a complete contradiction of the word, that incentivises private companies to lie so that they can suck more off of the public tit in a week than a whole classroom of "trainee job-seekers" could "scrounge" in a year.
> Kafka-fucking-esque.



disgusting is what it is.  

not only is it screwing this generation over but all future generations. 

it's probably time that the unemployment riots started.



ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, but you've just used a phrase that governments have deliberately made themselves forget over the last 30 years, Garf: "Long-term".
> Nothing is about long-term thinking nowadays. Not investment decisions, not political policy and certainly not social policy. "The market", the institution that proved to be another idol with feet of clay, is still king to those (including the politicians) who see the acquisition of wealth as *the* measure of character.



needs to be done these 5 year caretakers aren't up to the job and future generations will eviscerate them when the time comes.  the question begins to become about legacy, as i what do we as a society wish to see last through to the next round of our societal development.  

Unless people start taking that control back soon we are going to see very much it's entirely dictated by only those with a seat at the table.



ViolentPanda said:


> People like Emma aren't interested in local economies, though. They're only interested in the taking, not in giving.


people like emma will be dragged from their houses and left on fire in a ditch after being shot... 

here's hoping at least that someone burns her pile to the ground... 
maybe we can start a facebook group to aid in this aim...
burn the bitch to the ground.  We can widen the scope of the group to include bankers too... 



ViolentPanda said:


> "Globalisation", i.e. the interlinkage of economies and an international trade in goods and services, is pretty much unavoidable. *However*, globalisation within a worldwide consensus toward a neo-liberal economic model is not only *not* the way forward, we've also recently found out that it's a very fast method of causing a chain reaction of massive unforeseen consequences if only a couple of those interlinkages suffer an economic failure.
> Globalisation under a less acquisitive economic model *might* be sustainable, given a decent series of checks and balances, but the current way of doing things....


we need one world-ism which of course is a form of globalisation we do not need however the current trend of neo lib globalisation which is entirely shit for all and in essence merely modern slave politics..


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 23, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Why aren't the government 'elevating' people to do something decent and productive they can do as a career long term, rather than 'encouraging' them to apply, along with the thousands of other people, for the same, bottom end, jobs.
> 
> But the saddest thing of all is how people are now so cowed they have come to believe that it is more enobling and 'decent' to say 'how high' when the state asks you to jump.



I agree with a lot of your posts but id like to make one point here. There are a lot of jobs that are now said to be dead end jobs. Street cleaning, Shop assistant, care work, cleaning work etc. (I can see what Garfield says about the UK economy becoming service based and losing skilled manufacturing jobs). However for a lot of people these are the kinds of jobs they will always do. 

  They are also necessary jobs that society couldnt function without. Nor are that always that easy either. Increasingly these jobs have been "casualised" and "outsourced" into "McJobs". Ive done these jobs and you often get from employers that these arent "real" jobs. They are what u do in between something else. That way employers think they can get away with low pay. Its ( and I can say this from personal experience) often implied its your fault for doing the job (especially if you complain). You could do something "better". If you say if I left it would only mean someone else doing it for crap pay and i dont like being in a society which assumes this is normal they get narked.

  IMO its actually part of the problem to call them "dead end" jobs. Its not the jobs that are dead end its the pay,conditions,hours and rights you have. IMO I dont see why a street cleaner shouldnt get more respect for doing a socially useful job than that bitch on the C4 programme and the other top bitch ,her boss, Emma.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 23, 2009)

Thats not to say i dont think the course they were sent on was crap. Six weeks course-they could have all learnt something useful like IT or be offered a course in something they were interested in. 

 My local Adult Education college has put its fees up and reduced courses over the years as the Government doesnt support Adult education like it used to. Yet the Government berates single parents who might want to do a course if it was there.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 23, 2009)

Gramsci said:


> I agree with a lot of your posts but id like to make one point here. There are a lot of jobs that are now said to be dead end jobs. Street cleaning, Shop assistant, care work, cleaning work etc. (I can see what Garfield says about the UK economy becoming service based and losing skilled manufacturing jobs). However for a lot of people these are the kinds of jobs they will always do.
> 
> They are also necessary jobs that society couldnt function without. Nor are that always that easy either. Increasingly these jobs have been "casualised" and "outsourced" into "McJobs". Ive done these jobs and you often get from employers that these arent "real" jobs. They are what u do in between something else. That way employers think they can get away with low pay. Its ( and I can say this from personal experience) often implied its your fault for doing the job (especially if you complain). You could do something "better". If you say if I left it would only mean someone else doing it for crap pay and i dont like being in a society which assumes this is normal they get narked.
> 
> IMO its actually part of the problem to call them "dead end" jobs. Its not the jobs that are dead end its the pay,conditions,hours and rights you have. IMO I dont see why a street cleaner shouldnt get more respect for doing a socially useful job than that bitch on the C4 programme and the other top bitch ,her boss, Emma.



This sounds scarily like socialism. You have gone too far.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 23, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> This sounds scarily like socialism. You have gone too far.




Despite my being told here on Urban that im an insult to the real Gramsci and general reformist I do tend to naturally go that way


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 23, 2009)

Gramsci said:


> I agree with a lot of your posts but id like to make one point here. There are a lot of jobs that are now said to be dead end jobs. Street cleaning, Shop assistant, care work, cleaning work etc. (I can see what Garfield says about the UK economy becoming service based and losing skilled manufacturing jobs). However for a lot of people these are the kinds of jobs they will always do.
> 
> They are also necessary jobs that society couldnt function without. Nor are that always that easy either. Increasingly these jobs have been "casualised" and "outsourced" into "McJobs". Ive done these jobs and you often get from employers that these arent "real" jobs. They are what u do in between something else. That way employers think they can get away with low pay. Its ( and I can say this from personal experience) often implied its your fault for doing the job (especially if you complain). You could do something "better". If you say if I left it would only mean someone else doing it for crap pay and i dont like being in a society which assumes this is normal they get narked.
> 
> IMO its actually part of the problem to call them "dead end" jobs. Its not the jobs that are dead end its the pay,conditions,hours and rights you have. IMO I dont see why a street cleaner shouldnt get more respect for doing a socially useful job than that bitch on the C4 programme and the other top bitch ,her boss, Emma.


I agree in many ways. Any job I suppose can be made crap/good by virtue of conditions and boss attitude etc. Not all retail is sitting at a till in tescos of course.

My point is that it's stupid policy to just shunt everyone who's unemployed into the first job that comes along - especially as that job will invariuably be of the more casual and 'dead end' variety. Now if someone wants to do a given job in Poundland, then let them. But the approach that Jobcentres take where they call up their magic list of whatever they have on their system is just stupid. There is no attempt made to help people train, get skills, qualifications or move forward in any other way. the ONLY approach seems to revolve around getting a job right now, at all costs. As if the world would otherwise end. Not to build the client up for his future and help him get a proper career. 

of course once you've been shunted into one of the jobs the jobcentre offers (and of course the jobcentre won't canvas for work on your behalf or do anything of the kind) - often by virtue of having all other options clinically and very stressfully removed - you are quickly forgotten about. You're on your own even more.

Organisations like A4E are very good at lining the pockets of their management but you can bet your arse they would have refused point blank had any of those women asked to get funding for something like a degree.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 23, 2009)

Gramsci : of course, the problem is it being seen as alright that some people have jobs that basically don't pay enough to live on. That people are able to work fulltime, and not get enough to live on without claiming government benefits and being treated as if it's their fault for not trying hard enough. As you say, someone will always be expected to do those jobs, so they should be paid.

This is where rightwingers start blustering on about how companies "can't" pay their workers enough to live on, in order to be "competitive" as if not being able to pay the rent and still eat is only some kind of imaginary inconvenience.


----------



## XR75 (Aug 23, 2009)

Yet another PR programme from channel 4.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 23, 2009)

There are plenty of "dead end" jobs about. "Dead end" really means "that job's not going to change and you're not going to earn any more, no matter how much you try, unless you get a different job" - it's not like if you do a really good job in Poundland you're going to start earning more.

But similarly, there are lots of technical jobs where you don't have the opportunity to do that either, and many people are quite happy to take them. The difference being, you get paid several times more in those jobs, so if you're happy enough to do them day in day out you won't have any trouble paying the bills. A "dead end" job is only a problem if either you don't like the job, or being in that dead end means you don't have any bloody money.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 24, 2009)

whether or not people think Poundland is a dead end job is really not the issue. It's the fact this is the best a4e seem to manage and that these places are ready and willing to accept people without paying them. Anyone who wants to work there, or work for free, is making their own (hopefully informed) choice. Coercion through withdrawal of benefits and such isn't a choice it's duress.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There are plenty of "dead end" jobs about. "Dead end" really means "that job's not going to change and you're not going to earn any more, no matter how much you try, unless you get a different job" - it's not like if you do a really good job in Poundland you're going to start earning more.


London_Calling appears to believe that working at PoundLand will give the women the tools to progress up the ladder of the retail industry, or at least to move across to a more "classy" employer.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 24, 2009)

Why do you have 'classy' in quotation marks; isn't it  a bit sad you think you need to smear people with ridiculous nonsense?

Otherwise yes, I do think, with experince rather than training under their belts, these women are more desirable to employers who can offer them more benefits, like flexible hours, better pay rates, pension contributions, and to whom they are currently not desirable.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2009)

The experience in a retail environment would be helpful yes for someone who has no skills or any work experience. Putting people in jobs that only pay them enough to scrape by and they have a high probability of getting disillusioned/unmotivated and leaving/losing it.

I say again from experience of doing this job that these companies have a habit of pushing clients into jobs they don't really want to do, not addressing other issues by referring clients to relevant agencies and seeing the clients as 'figures' or job outcomes, that are then used to tender for other contracts with the DWP.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 24, 2009)

Sure, it's a valid concern.


----------



## treelover (Aug 24, 2009)

As I said earlier, the biggest scandal is how the unions, churches, the left, etc have allowed such a situation to develop, unemployed people are basically on their own.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2009)

treelover said:


> As I said earlier, the biggest scandal is how the unions, churches, the left, etc have allowed such a situation to develop, unemployed people are basically on their own.



Stop finger pointing and think of solutions....what would you do?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2009)

I believe the Smiler had scrapping of the job seekers agreement as a pledge.

the lying thundercunt


----------



## treelover (Aug 24, 2009)

> Stop finger pointing and think of solutions....what would you do?





as i have said ad nauseam i helped set up a national campaign etc to challenge the welfare reforms, media myths, etc we got fuck all support....


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2009)

treelover said:


> as i have said ad nauseam i helped set up a national campaign etc to challenge the welfare reforms, media myths, etc we got fuck all support....



What were your alternatives?


----------



## treelover (Aug 24, 2009)

er, it was firefighting, pure and simple, though we did send responses to the white paper on the first welfare bill, which was considered very detailed by civil servants, etc.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 24, 2009)

'The benefits bill exceeds the income tax collected'. This true? Is it disingenuous? What about other government revenues?


----------



## weepiper (Aug 24, 2009)

I've just been reading a discussion about this show on another forum I read (a baby/parenting one) and someone there has put their finger right on what was bothering me in an underlying way about it (as opposed to the on the surface rage about that horrific woman and her 'confidence boosting methods'). Here's what she wrote:



> It isn't all about money is it? I didn't see the program so I'm assuming a worse case scenario for my argument - but if you have a single parent of four children, with little or no family support and few qualifications then getting a job EVEN if it makes them financially better off may not improve the family's quality of life. It is hard enough to juggle work and family committments with support. As a single parent it can be hard enough to manage with ONE child working flexible full time hours when the father is very involved. Four children, possibly in different schools, who if ill aren't all going to be ill convieniently on the same days, who may have different interests and therefore different out of school committments. Cooking, shopping, cleaning, school runs, parent's evenings, inset days, friends, one to one time with each child EVERYTHING times 4. Plus a 30 odd hour working week. And then if/when those same children do poorly in school, or get in trouble for being 'feral kids' who will be to blame? Oh, yeah - it will be the parent who cares for them wont it? Because parental involvement is the greatest predictor of acedemic achievement, regardless of income or social group. Because the parent should have been home to look after the kids - not fitting in shopping after a day at work - s/he should have known what the kids were doing, s/he should have been around to take them to after school activities to help them develop into well rounded individuals.



I don't think a single parent is always going to be 'better off in full-time work' even if the money's ok. I only work 2 days a week and I'm bloody knackered by it for the reasons above, and the kids are too because they're in childcare rather than at home, and because we all have to get up an hour earlier than the days I don't work, and everything like tea/homework/bath/bed has to get shunted back an hour or two because we don't all get home until after 6pm. I don't think it would be healthy for any of us to have to do it 5 days a week for financial reasons and I'm glad the tax credit system allows me not to.


----------



## pboi (Aug 24, 2009)

Dont have four kids then, bloody selfish to have 4 and then moan.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 24, 2009)

pboi said:


> Dont have four kids then, bloody selfish to have 4 and then moan.



Not biting that one.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2009)

I think you have made some good points there WP.

If you do it their way and your kids grow up to be deliquents it will then be all your fault anyway. Might as well resist the pressure to conform now and look after the best interests of you and your kids.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 24, 2009)

I agree it's a strong argument while the kids are still at school, but good luck with the Daily Mail to any government that says "Single mums: Have four kids and you don't need to even look for work". And the Daily Mail is where New Labour meets Tory - the floating voter.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 24, 2009)

I think the ages of the children should also factor in any decision.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Why do you have 'classy' in quotation marks; isn't it  a bit sad you think you need to smear people with ridiculous nonsense?


Putting the word "classy" in quotation marks is "smearing" you?
Get a grip you thin-skinned, eggshell personality-owning cunt.
There, that's "smearing" for you!


> Otherwise yes, I do think, with experince rather than training under their belts, these women are more desirable to employers who can offer them more benefits, like flexible hours, better pay rates, pension contributions, and to whom they are currently not desirable.


I've asked it before, but you obviously ignored it, so I'll ask again: Where are these jobs going to come from? The retail sector is currently on a downward trend job-wise, according to the CBI. You waffled about the economy being better next year, but didn't give any reasoning as to why you believe this to be the case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I believe the Smiler had scrapping of the job seekers agreement as a pledge.
> 
> the lying thundercunt



They bottled it, but excused themselves by saying that repealing the Jobseekers' Act wasn't a manifesto commitment, and therefore wasn't a promise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> 'The benefits bill exceeds the income tax collected'. This true? Is it disingenuous? What about other government revenues?



It's disingenuous.
The idea is that people will read "bill exceeds *income tax* receipts" as "bill exceeds *all* tax receipts", but income tax doesn't include corporation, capital gains and a host of other taxes, nor NI.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

weepiper said:


> Not biting that one.


You'd probably catch something.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 24, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Putting the word "classy" in quotation marks is "smearing" you?
> Get a grip you thin-skinned, eggshell personality-owning cunt.
> There, that's "smearing" for you!


Classy.

Yes, pretending to quote someone is smearing them. You can be as aggressive about it as you like but it doesn't change the fact, and I'm fairly sure no one will ever think otherwise.


ViolentPanda said:


> I've asked it before, but you obviously ignored it, so I'll ask again: Where are these jobs going to come from? The retail sector is currently on a downward trend job-wise, according to the CBI. You waffled about the economy being better next year, but didn't give any reasoning as to why you believe this to be the case.


I'm sorry if you took my response as an invitation to debate, I was merely clarifying the fact of your smear. As I have made clear to two others in this thread, I don't debate with abusive internet warriors.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 24, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> I think the ages of the children should also factor in any decision.


The one thing that show failed to talk about was the kids and how the parents in these people's position are supposed to arrange childcare. I'm betting lovely hayley didn't arrange any - after all she doesn't seem the type to hide her light under bushel.


----------



## pboi (Aug 24, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> You'd probably catch something.



snidey snide mc cunt.

dont have 4 kids and moan. simples. ( terms and conditions apply)


----------



## JHE (Aug 24, 2009)

pboi said:


> Dont have four kids then...



OK, but if she has had four children, they can't now be unborn.  The process is not reversible.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 24, 2009)

pboi said:


> snidey snide mc cunt.
> 
> dont have 4 kids and moan. simples. ( terms and conditions apply)


so it's the mother's fault the kids' father walks out on them or that she was raped or something then?


----------



## weepiper (Aug 24, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> so it's the mother's fault the kids' father walks out on them or that she was raped or something then?



of course it is. Didn't you know all single mums are feckless, irresponsible and pop babies out all by themselves without a care for the future?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 24, 2009)

And so the interesting stuff gets lost again.


----------



## pboi (Aug 24, 2009)

the terms and conditions apply was to cover all these situations that clearly deserve state support. Predictable, you are.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 24, 2009)

pboi said:


> the terms and conditions apply was to cover all these situations that clearly deserve state support. Predictable, you are.



ok. So exactly what percentage of the single mums out there with several kids who find it hard to work around them _are_ just feckless layabouts then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Classy.
> 
> Yes, pretending to quote someone is smearing them. You can be as aggressive about it as you like but it doesn't change the fact, and I'm fairly sure no one will ever think otherwise.


I wasn't pretending to quote you, half-wit. I put "classy" in quotation marks because I don't personally believe that M & S (a company *you* named as one that the women on "Benefit Busters" could aspire to work for) is that much of a step up from PoundLand, having had some experience of M & S's ideas of labour relations when I was an area rep for USDAW.
Sharpen up, eh?


> I'm sorry if you took my response as an invitation to debate, I was merely clarifying the fact of your smear. As I have made clear to two others in this thread, I don't debate with abusive internet warriors.


You don't debate full-stop.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

pboi said:


> snidey snide mc cunt.
> 
> dont have 4 kids and moan. simples. ( terms and conditions apply)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

weepiper said:


> of course it is. Didn't you know all single mums are feckless, irresponsible and pop babies out all by themselves without a care for the future?


I've also heard they only actually have babies so that they can get priority for social housing, and then eat their children once they've been given a nice council mansion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> so it's the mother's fault the kids' father walks out on them or that she was raped or something then?



Of course.
Stupid woman should have been able to look onto the future, shouldn't she?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've also heard they only actually have babies so that they can get priority for social housing, and then eat their children once they've been given a nice council mansion.



except for the strongest, who they arm with knives and hoodies and set onto innocent pensioners.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

weepiper said:


> ok. So exactly what percentage of the single mums out there with several kids who find it hard to work around them _are_ just feckless layabouts then?


Well, this is the problem, isn't it?
It's all very well to make nice sweeping statements like "the terms and conditions apply was to cover all these situations that clearly deserve state support", but all it actually says is that someone in power will (perhaps arbitrarily) decide who is deserving and who isn't, according to some criteria that *may* have little basis in well thought-out policy, but rather, has a basis in what politicians believe the media and the public those media reach (especially the "floating voters") want to hear.
That's why "new Labour" opened their period in government with a policy that was set to fuck over single mums. It's all "playing to the gallery".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> except for the strongest, who they arm with knives and hoodies and set onto innocent pensioners.


Sort of like rats, then. Only the strong are allowed to live and breed.

BTW, you shouldn't be talking to me. Apparently I'm middle-class (although the person who has accused me of this lives in a "gated community" ).


----------



## moomoo (Aug 24, 2009)

weepiper said:


> of course it is. Didn't you know all single mums are feckless, irresponsible and pop babies out all by themselves without a care for the future?




We should be ashamed of ourselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

moomoo said:


> We should be ashamed of ourselves.



Problem is, you can't be, because you're all shameless strumpets and Jezebels.


----------



## moomoo (Aug 24, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Problem is, you can't be, because you're all shameless strumpets and Jezebels.



Indeed we are.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 24, 2009)

moomoo said:


> We should be ashamed of ourselves.



Yes and have your money reduced for being such feckless waistrels.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

moomoo said:


> Indeed we are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Yes and have your money reduced for being such feckless waistrels.



If only the strumpets had been feckless, there wouldn't be all these children to worry about!


----------



## pboi (Aug 25, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sort of like rats, then. Only the strong are allowed to live and breed.
> 
> BTW, you shouldn't be talking to me. Apparently I'm middle-class (although the person who has accused me of this lives in a "gated community" ).



are you talkng about me?


----------



## Cloo (Aug 25, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> it's probably time that the unemployment riots started.


 An interesting article here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7074/ discussing why people no longer seem to be capable of being stirred into action by something like mass unemployment... that successive governments have created a state where there is just resigned acceptance of unemployment as a state of being, rather than a 'politically galvanising' issue. Basically because employment has become personal, not political.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 25, 2009)

pboi said:


> Dont have four kids then, bloody selfish to have 4 and then moan.



But we keep being told that birth rates are dangerously low and so on, surely if that's the case, anything which encourages people to have kids ought to be a good thing?  This is what I don't get.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 25, 2009)

The lady who didn't take up the job, was it ever said what she would have been earning at Poundland. It's easy to criticise her for choosing to stay on benefits, but she could well have been on a really low wage. Not just a few quid difference (never mind the extra benefits from being on welfare).


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 25, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> The lady who didn't take up the job, was it ever said what she would have been earning at Poundland. It's easy to criticise her for choosing to stay on benefits, but she could well have been on a really low wage. Not just a few quid difference (never mind the extra benefits from being on welfare).


It's not easy to criticise her; no one did in the programmme and I haven't seen anyone in this thread do it either.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 25, 2009)

Not _here _perhaps.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 25, 2009)

Convincing!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

pboi said:


> are you talkng about me?



Yes Noddy, I'm talking about you, you class warrior _manque_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> But we keep being told that birth rates are dangerously low and so on, surely if that's the case, anything which encourages people to have kids ought to be a good thing?  This is what I don't get.



Really, old chap, don't you realise that it's the wrong sorts breeding? If only we could sterilise these people....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

Cloo said:


> An interesting article here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7074/ discussing why people no longer seem to be capable of being stirred into action by something like mass unemployment... that successive governments have created a state where there is just resigned acceptance of unemployment as a state of being, rather than a 'politically galvanising' issue. Basically because employment has become personal, not political.



And, of course, nothing to do with the fact that anyone claiming JSA can have their benefit either reduced or removed at the whim of the DwP, or that, since back in the 1970s, the DHSS/DSS/DwP have always worked hard to stamp on the unemployed organising politically.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 25, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Really, old chap, don't you realise that it's the wrong sorts breeding? If only we could sterilise these people....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> The lady who didn't take up the job, was it ever said what she would have been earning at Poundland.


No, but apparently it's minimum national hourly rate plus (literally) a few extra pence. They're also said to like 16-1 year-olds, because of the lower hourly rate.


> It's easy to criticise her for choosing to stay on benefits, but she could well have been on a really low wage. Not just a few quid difference (never mind the extra benefits from being on welfare).


It's not "easy" to criticise her. You'd have to be some sort of cunt to criticise her making a sensible and rational decision.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 25, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, but apparently it's minimum national hourly rate plus (literally) a few extra pence. They're also said to like 16-1 year-olds, because of the lower hourly rate.
> 
> It's not "easy" to criticise her. You'd have to be some sort of cunt to criticise her making a sensible and rational decision.


That doesn't stop the masses who do from trying. 

I was thinking more about the hours the job at Poundland offered. Did they say? Was the job full or part time?


----------



## weepiper (Aug 25, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I was thinking more about the hours the job at Poundland offered. Did they say? Was the job full or part time?



The programme was annoyingly thin on unimportant details like this.


----------



## pboi (Aug 25, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes Noddy, I'm talking about you, you class warrior _manque_.



Brockwell is gated in the loosest sense of the word, so dont play that card.




As for me intimating you were middle class, you are mistaken. Clearly you are a commoner, well read, but a small man overcompsnsating for his life all the same


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 25, 2009)

weepiper said:


> The programme was annoying



Fixed


----------



## weepiper (Aug 25, 2009)

pboi said:


> As for me intimating you were middle class, you are mistaken. Clearly you are a commoner, well read, but a small man *overcompsnsating for his life* all the same



what's your excuse then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> That doesn't stop the masses who do from trying.


Of course not.


> I was thinking more about the hours the job at Poundland offered. Did they say? Was the job full or part time?



Full time (35 hrs) IIRC.

Right, I've checked a few ads and other bits and pieces on the net, and it looks like they do "flexible" part-time (although they don't say whether you decide the flexible hours or they do), so it might be very difficult to determine the hours an individual is offered.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

pboi said:


> Brockwell is gated in the loosest sense of the word, so dont play that card.


So it doesn't have security bods sitting at the gates at night any more, then?
I can always crip down from my council slum and check, btw. I'm only a little up the road from you. 


> As for me intimating you were middle class, you are mistaken.


You didn't "intimate", you stated. Here's the quote:
"snidey snide mc cunt." (post #459)
So, you were either:
a) perjoratively calling me a Scotsman (i.e. "Mc"), 
b) insinuating (snidely) that I'm a "master of ceremonies" or
c) stating that I'm a snide middle class cunt.
Not much room for "mistake" or "intimation" there, I believe.


> Clearly you are a commoner...


So are you, unless you're a member of the aristocracy.
If you mean I'm "common", then yes I am. It's nothing to be ashamed of.


> well read, but a small man overcompsnsating for his life all the same


Thanks for the (cod) psychoanalysis, but I don't tend to trust people, even if they have some kind of post-graduate qualification in psychology, who make diagnoses over the internet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Fixed



Well, it was "annoying", but it was also interesting, if only insofar as the mechanisms used by A4E and its' peers were held up to scrutiny (and, it has to be said, derision).


----------



## pboi (Aug 25, 2009)

it was just an insult, none of that deeper jazz. 

Sec guards! Never seen any, only been here a few years tho. We have a gardener? Does that fit your criteria?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

weepiper said:


> The programme was annoyingly thin on unimportant details like this.



I suspect that Poundland pulled the old "commercial confidentiality" _schtick_, and that A4E would have been happy to back them up.


----------



## Sadken (Aug 25, 2009)

Worst Superhero alliance EVER.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

pboi said:


> it was just an insult, none of that deeper jazz.


So, you're now admitting that I *wasn't* mistaken?
Good.


> Sec guards! Never seen any, only been here a few years tho.


So there's no longer anyone manning the gates onto Tulse Hill? 
Weird, given that the "security" aspect was part of the whole sales _spiel_ (even on the hoardings that faced onto Tulse Hill) when the development was chucked up.
Ah well, the brochures mentioned "electronic security" too, so they probably cheapo'd out and put in entry and surveillance rather than the blue-caps they originally had.


> We have a gardener? Does that fit your criteria?


Gardeners are gardeners, they have no bearing on your community (which even has "gate" in it's name. I wonder why? ) and the fact that it is surrounded by railings at front, back and sides.

BTW, if you google "Brockwell Gate", it's really amazing how far this apparent mis-perception that it's a "gated community" has spread, and not just among estate agents (who you could expect to be utterly wrong about most things) either. So many obviously-wrong people referring to it incorrectly!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Worst Superhero alliance EVER.



Little work for them in the US, land of the superhero, either, given the limited welfare provision there.


----------



## pboi (Aug 25, 2009)

you are a *douchebag*, you are correct


----------



## smokedout (Aug 25, 2009)

The inside story from one New Deal Participant:

http://edinburghanarchists.noflag.org.uk/?p=65

The inside story from a former A4e staff member:

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/poverty-pimps-march-on-a4e-close-local-law-centre/

and theres a facebook group


----------



## smokedout (Aug 25, 2009)

also worth checking out:

http://watchinga4e.blogspot.com/

http://newdealscandal.wordpress.com/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

pboi said:


> you are a *douchebag*, you are correct



If only you knew how much amusement you provide me with, you'd begrudge me every last chuckle.


----------



## pboi (Aug 25, 2009)

Thats me spent for lunch, back later! Dont laugh too hard, I dont want the injury on my conscience


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2009)

smokedout said:


> The inside story from a former A4e staff member:
> 
> http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/poverty-pimps-march-on-a4e-close-local-law-centre/




I didn't work for A4E, but was employed by a similar company for close to a year....All of what I have said on this thread plus other points made in this article are spot on IME.

There is a really high turn over of trainers/staff in this industry because it is utterly soul destroying if you are the type to take your job and the needs of the clients seriously.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> I didn't work for A4E, but was employed by a similar company for close to a year....All of what I have said on this thread plus other points made in this article are spot on IME.
> 
> There is a really high turn over of trainers/staff in this industry because it is utterly soul destroying if you are the type to take your job and the needs of the clients seriously.



In your experience, what percentage of staff actually internalise/take on/already have an opinion of their clients that reflects that of Hayley?

I'm interested to know whether these types of company "indoctrinate" their employees with attitudes, and if so, to what extent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2009)

pboi said:


> Thats me spent for lunch, back later! Dont laugh too hard, I dont want the injury on my conscience



I doubt you have one if you haven't even got the balls to admit you were wrong, so no need for you to worry, eh?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> In your experience, what percentage of staff actually internalise/take on/already have an opinion of their clients that reflects that of Hayley?
> 
> *I'm interested to know whether these types of company "indoctrinate" their employees with attitudes, and if so, to what extent.*



Very good question IMO.

It is difficult to say for sure but IME those who had worked at companies like this for the longest, not having experience of teaching/training in schools of colleges etc were the most jaded. I overheard some pretty nasty stuff from some colleagues but then again did experience some really 'hard to help' clients. Some know what they are doing and have done up to 8 courses before and just ride it out to keep their benefits.

Also, once you get to know the people who refer clients from the job centre it is common that we were given the heads up about certain things and/or just told stuff about the clients situation/background/attitude at the JC etc.

It's a difficult environment, especially if the training company isn't referring people on if 'issues' are identified. For example, the one I worked at had zero awareness or provision for clients with learning difficulties or dyslexia...what do you do then when the tutors themselves are not skilled to deal with these conditions? Teaching ESOL/literacy, numeracy and employment skills can be impossible in that environment.

Equally, what do you do when you discover your clients have drug or alcohol problems but they beg you not to tell the job centre or sign them off as unsuitable for training?

The majority of clients are let down by these companies because they are NOT equipped in terms of provision or resources to deliever the service they have won tenders for. Equally the DWP is letting these people down because they sign people off on these courses to massage their unemployment figures. They are meeting targets and many people get caught up in and let down in that process.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 25, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> In your experience, what percentage of staff actually internalise/take on/already have an opinion of their clients that reflects that of Hayley?
> 
> I'm interested to know whether these types of company "indoctrinate" their employees with attitudes, and if so, to what extent.



it was me in that piece lined to, i worked for them for 3 months in 2000

i wouldnt say that they indoctrinated their employees with this attitude, it was basically half the workforce gave a shit about the clients/didn't give a shit about a4e and were doing the best they can or didnt give a shit full stop

those people left or were sacked quite quickly

the other half were like her in the programme, really into it in an alan partridge way and they were the ones who remained and ended up in management

their attitude to claimants ranged from condescending to utter contempt - but as long as they sung a4e's praises and didn't rock the boat then they would do well


----------



## smokedout (Aug 25, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> Equally, what do you do when you discover your clients have drug or alcohol problems but they beg you not to tell the job centre or sign them off as unsuitable for training?
> 
> The majority of clients are let down by these companies because they are NOT equipped in terms of provision or resources to deliever the service they have won tenders for. Equally the DWP is letting these people down because they sign people off on these courses to massage their unemployment figures. They are meeting targets and many people get caught up in and let down in that process.



on the group i was with at camden - at least two had serious drug problems, two people were unable to speak basic english, a couple had severe literacy issues and one guy was such an urgent mental health risk that i ended up making an urgent referral as a suicide risk to camden community mental health team

all of these people should have been referred out under new deal guidelines, but a4e wouldnt allow it because they were getting money to train them


----------



## New Deal Scanda (Aug 25, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I'm not a single mum but . .
> 
> I had an ace time at the job centre yesterday.
> 
> ...


Does it come up as "DWP ADVICE CONFIRMS" by any chance?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2009)

smokedout said:


> on the group i was with at camden - at least two had serious drug problems, two people were unable to speak basic english, a couple had severe literacy issues and one guy was such an urgent mental health risk that i ended up making an urgent referral as a suicide risk to camden community mental health team
> 
> *all of these people should have been referred out under new deal guidelines, but a4e wouldnt allow it because they were getting money to train them*



Which pretty much sums it up really...buisness is business.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 26, 2009)

Is this on tomorrow again then?


----------



## New Deal Scanda (Aug 26, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> Is this on tomorrow again then?


Yes, with A4e again but long term unemployed this time.

You will notice *long term unemployed* used interchangeably.

The Jobcentre sees anyone unemployed for over *6 months* as "long term unemployed". 

This programme features one guy who hasn't had a job for *10 years* etc. so please watch the programme with an open mind and realise not everyone there hasn't had a job for that long. It is easy to exceed the 6 months being unemployed... but 10 years... you can really tell some people aren't even trying.


----------



## Onslow (Aug 26, 2009)

I walked into the room halfway through this, stoned out my box and was adamant that it was a Mockumentary type programme! Ive since been persuaded that it's not. I was pretty wasted, but that facillitator women reminded me of Brent in some ways. I think once I'd convinced myself it was a Mockumentary, I viewed everything i saw during the programme in that way. I found it hillarous


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> Very good question IMO.
> 
> It is difficult to say for sure but IME those who had worked at companies like this for the longest, not having experience of teaching/training in schools of colleges etc were the most jaded.


I can see how that could happen. Working in a "down" environment invariably takes its' toll.


> I overheard some pretty nasty stuff from some colleagues but then again did experience some really 'hard to help' clients. Some know what they are doing and have done up to 8 courses before and just ride it out to keep their benefits.


Fuck.
Any idea how much your company was paid per course or per "unit"?


> Also, once you get to know the people who refer clients from the job centre it is common that we were given the heads up about certain things and/or just told stuff about the clients situation/background/attitude at the JC etc.
> 
> It's a difficult environment, especially if the training company isn't referring people on if 'issues' are identified. For example, the one I worked at had zero awareness or provision for clients with learning difficulties or dyslexia...what do you do then when the tutors themselves are not skilled to deal with these conditions? Teaching ESOL/literacy, numeracy and employment skills can be impossible in that environment.


So not only are the courses potentially ineffective for their "core constituency" of clients, but they fail a large part of the clientele who fall outside of that core constituency?
Aren't the job centre twunts supposed to establish the needs of the individuals before referring them on?


> Equally, what do you do when you discover your clients have drug or alcohol problems but they beg you not to tell the job centre or sign them off as unsuitable for training?


I'd lie, so that the client didn't get fucked over.


> The majority of clients are let down by these companies because they are NOT equipped in terms of provision or resources to deliever the service they have won tenders for. Equally the DWP is letting these people down because they sign people off on these courses to massage their unemployment figures. They are meeting targets and many people get caught up in and let down in that process.


Yet another glorious victory for the "target-driven" political culture.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

smokedout said:


> it was me in that piece lined to, i worked for them for 3 months in 2000
> 
> i wouldnt say that they indoctrinated their employees with this attitude, it was basically half the workforce gave a shit about the clients/didn't give a shit about a4e and were doing the best they can or didnt give a shit full stop
> 
> ...


So basically they ended up with staff who were to all intents and purposes indoctrinated to the company line by weeding out any deviators such as yourself?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 26, 2009)

New Deal Scanda said:


> Yes, with A4e again but long term unemployed this time.
> 
> You will notice *long term unemployed* used interchangeably.




Oh yeah, I am interested to see how they handle this one. I was working with the LTU when I did the job..I have a feeling though, watching is going to wind me up no end.


----------



## JHE (Aug 26, 2009)

New Deal Scanda said:


> This programme features one guy who hasn't had a job for *10 years* etc. so please watch the programme with an open mind and realise not everyone there hasn't had a job for that long. It is easy to exceed the 6 months being unemployed... but 10 years... you can really tell some people aren't even trying.



If I had been unemployed for the last 10 years, I bet I would long since have given up.  And could you really blame me for having given up?

I have worked quite a lot with unemployed people and can think of a couple of people I've known who have been unemployed for 10 years.  The extraordinary thing is that they haven't given up.

Obviously, someone who has been unemployed for so long does need help:  he/she needs to be given a chance!

Whether A4E can help or induce anyone more suitable to help is another matter.  I'm more than a little sceptical.

Anyway, I'll watch the programme tomorrow.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 26, 2009)

New Deal Scanda said:


> This programme features one guy who hasn't had a job for *10 years* etc. so please watch the programme with an open mind and realise not everyone there hasn't had a job for that long. It is easy to exceed the 6 months being unemployed... but 10 years... you can really tell some people aren't even trying.




I am fully aware of the above point having done the job myself.

Also, I would imagine that 10 years unemployment would result in or be a result of other issues that are not being addressed on these courses.

My time in this particular job furthered my own interest in becoming a TRAINED counsellor. I am hoping to take those skills back in to education as I believe they will be useful. I believe this because of my experiences of being a teacher/lecturer/tutor in FE and training agencies like A4E.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 26, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> So basically they ended up with staff who were to all intents and purposes indoctrinated to the company line by weeding out any deviators such as yourself?



basically yes, even if people didnt get sacked the way they treated clients was so out of order that anyone with a shred of human decency wouldnt last five minutes and that includes people who'd previously worked for the dole


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 26, 2009)

smokedout said:


> also worth checking out:
> 
> http://watchinga4e.blogspot.com/
> 
> http://newdealscandal.wordpress.com/


Links from the first to clips from tomorrow's episode.


----------



## Edie (Aug 27, 2009)

Onslow said:


> I walked into the room halfway through this, stoned out my box and was adamant that it was a Mockumentary type programme! Ive since been persuaded that it's not. I was pretty wasted, but that facillitator women reminded me of Brent in some ways. I think once I'd convinced myself it was a Mockumentary, I viewed everything i saw during the programme in that way. I found it hillarous


Fuck sake, I wasn't even stoned and yet I found it so funny I laughed almost all the way through. I just couldn't believe that trainer woman was for real, it was like something out of Little Britain. 

My other half was sitting there fuming that people with £30 cable packages sign on, and muttering about food vouchers


----------



## STFC (Aug 27, 2009)

Mark really reminds me of my brother, it's uncanny. I felt so happy for him that he got the landscape gardening job.


----------



## pboi (Aug 27, 2009)

I cant stand Emma.

its really sad this week


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 27, 2009)

I just started watching the first episode on the website. Fucking hell. Pauline's pens!


----------



## STFC (Aug 27, 2009)

STFC said:


> Mark really reminds me of my brother, it's uncanny. I felt so happy for him that he got the landscape gardening job.



For fuck's sake. Now they've let him go.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 27, 2009)

my heart goes out to that guy.

Can't get a handle on this episode. Too much racism.

I don't understand this...or this world.


----------



## pboi (Aug 27, 2009)

*I don't understand this...or this world.*

I said this last week, totally agree.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 27, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> my heart goes out to that guy.
> 
> Can't get a handle on this episode. Too much racism.



not really, a couple of throwaway remarks by people who were having a shit time, theyre probably not racist, just really pissed off and firing in all directions


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 27, 2009)

smokedout said:


> not really, a couple of throwaway remarks by people who were having a shit time, theyre probably not racist, just really pissed off and firing in all directions


well maybe; I just don't get why they had to choose people to film, out of all the candidates, who expressed racial issues.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 27, 2009)

Hi, I'm Eric, I'm a cunt.


----------



## JHE (Aug 28, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Can't get a handle on this episode. Too much racism.



What a fuckin' bizarre comment!

There was so much to comment on in this week's episode: the two unemployed people focused on, both people v easy to sympathise with, the A4E employees interviewed, also (mostly) v sympathetic characters, from my POV, the wretched Emma Harrison, who was really put on the spot about current employment patterns and tactics... ...but hey, this is U75... so let's shout: _'Ray Cyst!'_

Awesome Wells, you are a daft creature, but you have found just the right  message board for you.  I hope you enjoy it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 28, 2009)

Why is it bizarre?

What is gained by giving air time to someone speaking utter bullshit with almost no context about immigration which only muddies the subject matter. There was no purpose to filming that guy on his way out the building for being a twat. All that does is give further credence to the negative views about the unemployed. Then that guy with his pit bull (that one day is going to bite the fuck out of that little girl) whose missus was equally ignorant. The subject of the film was not immigration so why muddy the waters; there were plenty of other people they could have spoken to.


----------



## Spion (Aug 28, 2009)

It's a little bizarre to me too. Many people hold racist views. It's no surprise that they express them, especially when a shitty world gets them down. How can you airbrush out what is a significant part of peoples' worldviews?


----------



## STFC (Aug 28, 2009)

It's slightly naive to think that the programme makers would not show somebody expressing controversial views on camera. The focus of the programme is unemployment. Some people obviously see some connection between their unemployment and 'immigration'.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 28, 2009)

I felt sick watching that; it was obvious that guy was going to come a cropper, getting a job so early on. 

Still, at least he can look forward to making sellotape bridges with the local racists again. 

I think it's appalling that decent people out of work have to be lumped in with people that ignorant; all so they can get shouted at for realising the futility of it by the likes of Eric. I don't know how much of an ethic minority (minorities) Hull has, but there were no other faces in the a4e dungeon other than caucasion it seemed to me (including the staff). I have no idea what relevance that has, but the whole programme made me very sick.

I'm well aware people have these views; but what I'm saying is that the show wasn't about immigration and it's effects on unemployment. It was about a4e. No context was given to that guy who got chucked out. We just heard him rant a bit and of course sound ignorant. No comment to follow up or anything. I didn't even understand half of what he was saying to be frank. Along with the girlfriend who made the ignorant aside, neither of these views were challenged by even the a4e staff. So why show it, how do these comments add to the film and its subject matter?


----------



## Spion (Aug 28, 2009)

You need to get out more


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 28, 2009)

why?


----------



## Spion (Aug 28, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> why?


Because racism is pretty common. I'm just not surprised to hear that kind of shit


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 28, 2009)

Yes I suppose it is. But again I just question the relevance of including that discussion in this film. That topic alone is a film in its own right and showing some random nutter ranting about writing BNP on his folder is only going to fuel the opinions people already have about 'dole scum', nothing else.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 28, 2009)

I expect the (brief) bit with the BNP bloke getting thrown out was just because they were there with cameras when it was happening, and thought it was a good bit of drama to throw in. You never saw him again, and the only other part was that one guy's girlfriend making one passing remark about "immigrants", which was dumb but I don't think meant anything further. The guy himself (Dean?) never said anything either.


----------



## Spion (Aug 28, 2009)

that's all I saw too. I can't understand why Awesome thinks it's such a biggie. It's all part of the picture after all


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 28, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> well maybe; I just don't get why they had to choose people to film, out of all the candidates, who expressed racial issues.




probably to add yet again to the stereotype of "unemployed people are not very nice"


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 28, 2009)

What was filmed was basically an Americanised version of the 80's job club. Treating people like 4 year olds who have the very least in society is disgraceful. If that had been me i woulda yelled at the camera "i am not fucking 4 !!!" if they asked me to make things out of sellotape, and i am surprised that no one yet has asked the tutors or the smug twat in a mansion if THEY would work for an agency for 3 weeks on minimum wage and then spend another 3-4 weeks getting the dole reinstated after they discard you.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 28, 2009)

Anyone know a good site for accurate figures on benefit fraud along with some context as to whether they really are low or high or whatever.


----------



## New Deal Scanda (Aug 29, 2009)

Well...

http://newdealscandal.wordpress.com...-dwp-fraud-dwp-underspend-claimants-struggle/

£1.2 billion underspend

£900 million lost to fraud
£900 million lost to customer error (wtf? can't they claim it back?)
£900 million lost to staff error

These are estimates by the NAO. It shows they have underspend more than that is stolen by fraud. That an equal amount stolen via fraud was given away by staff.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of this money was abused by DWP...


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 29, 2009)

New Deal Scanda said:


> Well...
> 
> http://newdealscandal.wordpress.com...-dwp-fraud-dwp-underspend-claimants-struggle/
> 
> ...



Given that the right wing papers hate public sector workers/ civil servants almost as much as scrounging dolies, I'm surprised there hasn't been more made of waste due to staff error/ fraud.


----------



## Bassism (Aug 29, 2009)

Just be yourself and dont waffle heh


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 29, 2009)

New Deal Scanda said:


> Well...
> 
> http://newdealscandal.wordpress.com...-dwp-fraud-dwp-underspend-claimants-struggle/
> 
> ...


I can't seem to parse the word underspend; would that be the amount not claimed?

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 29, 2009)

Basswhore said:


> Just be yourself and dont waffle heh


why fight when we can all be building bridges...made of sellotape!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2009)

New Deal Scanda said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if some of this money was abused by DWP...



Probably not, as the underspend never actually "leaves" the Treasury accounts. The Treasury just roll up all the benefit underspends into the general budget for the next year.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I can't seem to parse the word underspend; would that be the amount not claimed?
> 
> Thanks for the link.



"under-spend" is the total amount that isn't claimed (usually calculated per "benefit" and as an aggregate total of all benefits) in each financial year.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Given that the right wing papers hate public sector workers/ civil servants almost as much as scrounging dolies, I'm surprised there hasn't been more made of waste due to staff error/ fraud.



Well, then the DWP might have to admit how poorly-paid and motivated some of its' staff are.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 29, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> "under-spend" is the total amount that isn't claimed (usually calculated per "benefit" and as an aggregate total of all benefits) in each financial year.


thanks. I wasn't sure.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 29, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, then the DWP might have to admit how poorly-paid and motivated some of its' staff are.


they lack motivation? I know a place where they can get motivated!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> they lack motivation? I know a place where they can get motivated!





Send 'em to A4E, Hayley will sort them out!!


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 29, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, then the DWP might have to admit how poorly-paid and motivated some of its' staff are.



Surely all public sector workers have it easy and are just waiting for their "gold plated pensions".


----------



## New Deal Scanda (Aug 29, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Probably not, as the underspend never actually "leaves" the Treasury accounts. The Treasury just roll up all the benefit underspends into the general budget for the next year.


lol, I was refering to the amount lost to "staff error".


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 29, 2009)

New Deal Scanda said:


> lol, I was refering to the amount lost to "staff error".


I was asking about the figure you listed as an underspend. The figure for staff error you list separately


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 29, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I expect the (brief) bit with the BNP bloke getting thrown out was just because they were there with cameras when it was happening, and thought it was a good bit of drama to throw in. You never saw him again, and the only other part was that one guy's girlfriend making one passing remark about "immigrants", which was dumb but I don't think meant anything further. The guy himself (Dean?) never said anything either.



As with some other posters i think you and Awesome should get out more. In certain parts of London and England these views are common. 

I also assume the guy wanted to have the footage in the documentary as he would have signed a release form.  Just because I dont agree with doesnt imo mean that his views  shouldnt be aired. He does represent a certain number of the working class. 

In other parts of the country its still mainly white. I come from South West England and at that time it was basically all white.

The other bit you bring up is when the Girlfriend of one of those was blaming immigration.There is a difference between supporting BNP and being critical of immigration. Employers have used the expansion of the EU to have a cheap labour force. So in some areas of the country immigration is keeping wage levels down. Her comments were not "dumb" . Thats just treating ordinary working people as being stupid. She has a point of view shared by many. That employers want immgration to have a cheap flexible labour force. We live in a market society so its in the interest of business to have a large pool of labour to draw on.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 29, 2009)

I watched the second programme of "Benefit Busters" and now think this is turning into a good series. Instead of the usual lets laugh at the ignorant chavs stlye they focused on a few people. They were allowed to have there say. Just shows that ordinary people arent stupid.They now when they are being misled.

 I also like the interview with Emma. She obviously agreed to this series as she thought it would show her and her business in a good light. The opposite is the case. She looked like she was suppressing her anger when the interviewer kept on pointing out her "customers" were being pushed into insecure jobs. (including zero hours contracts.)

I also was surprised ,unlike last week, the people working for her were at some points saying the course was bollocks. There was one guy who was afraid that if he didnt meet his "targets" (getting a certain number of people off dole) then he might lose his jobs. Just shows what this country has become-everyone lkng over there shoulder fearful .


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 29, 2009)

Perhaps Emma Harrison thought that Channel 4 were on her side, having participated in the Secret Millionaire (a fact she's not kept secret it seems). Calculating!

Apparently this episode isn't on 40D. Wonder why!


----------



## ukbix (Aug 29, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Perhaps Emma Harrison thought that Channel 4 were on her side, having participated in the Secret Millionaire (a fact she's not kept secret it seems). Calculating!
> 
> Apparently this episode isn't on 40D. Wonder why!



Funny thing is it was on 40d yesterday,now its been removed, as has the ad for the repeat on normal tv.

Bit late to try to hide it though, its probably already all over the internet by now (even if its just at the newsgroup stage)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Surely all public sector workers have it easy and are just waiting for their "gold plated pensions".



Only in the deluded and terminally-bewildered minds of right-wing meeja-types, unfortunately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2009)

New Deal Scanda said:


> lol, I was refering to the amount lost to "staff error".



"Staff error" has always been a significant cost for departments that pay out benefits, unfortunately, especially as "staff error" *can* encompass everything from utter stupidity to willful fraud.
Still, it's not as "popular" to mention "staff error" as it is to mention "claimant fraud", and never will be.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 30, 2009)

incidentally you can go to:

http://community.mya4e.com/2009/08/benefit-busters-sigh-of-relief/

where they appear to be allowing negative comments for a change and someone called henry is  responding on behalf of a4e

whilst you're there dont forget to go through the other articles and give them 1 star each


----------



## RubyBlue (Aug 30, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only in the deluded and terminally-bewildered minds of right-wing meeja-types, unfortunately.



There are great advantages of working in the public sector - when not having to attend meetings I can dress as I please, work the hours that suit me, work from home - downside - low pay and heavy workloads because of the folk that have left through redundancies.  At the moment, for me, the positives outweigh the negatives.  Oh, I work in a team of 20 - they are a real great bunch to work with and my current manager is the best you could ask for 

eta:  apologies - off-topic but i get easily annoyed at the lazy stereotypical image the media portrays of public sector workers and it seems some folk just lap it up instead of striving to make their own work conditions better.  eta again, I don't know many folk in the public sector that will be able to afford to retire before pension age - yes the pension are better then the private sector (don't forget we have always been lower paid then the equivalent jobs in the private sector because of this) - in general - but for admin / junior / middle management there will be no life of luxury at retirement - not by a long shot.


----------



## Upchuck (Aug 30, 2009)

I am sick of folk in the public sector whining about low pay and saying that's why they get a better pension.   Anyone would think they'd been _drafted_ into the public sector and have no choice but to work there.  There are other jobs out there ya know.  I also deplore the slack dress code that exists in the public sector.  I really don't understand it.  Mind you, the majority of my career has been spent in the private sector and it can be very different.


----------



## RubyBlue (Aug 30, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> I am sick of folk in the public sector whining about low pay and saying that's why they get a better pension.   Anyone would think they'd been _drafted_ into the public sector and have no choice but to work there.  There are other jobs out there ya know.  I also deplore the slack dress code that exists in the public sector.  I really don't understand it.  Mind you, the majority of my career has been spent in the private sector and it can be very different.



 LOL I just knew you would come along to stick your silly opinions - I was timing it - I was giving it an hour 

Your bitterness isn't anything to do with the fact that your temp job in the public sector didn't want you any longer is it and they fired you?

By the way - who's whining?  I listed positives about working in the public sector.  I love my job.


----------



## Upchuck (Aug 30, 2009)

RubyBlue said:


> LOL I just knew you would come along to stick your silly opinions - I was timing it - I was giving it an hour
> 
> *Your bitterness isn't anything to do with the fact that your temp job in the public sector didn't want you any longer is it?*



*sigh* Sadly you have no idea how I am living nowadays.  This nastiness is not only inaccuarte, but very unbecoming 

I stand by my public sector comments.  When I contracted there it was a real shock to see how out of touch some people were.


----------



## RubyBlue (Aug 30, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> *sigh* Sadly you have no idea how I am living nowadays.  This nastiness is not only inaccuarte, but very unbecoming
> 
> I stand by my public sector comments.  When I contracted there it was a real shock to see how out of touch some people were.



To be fair Upchuck you can't use your experience working for a small agency (which has also lost all the authority they once had) to slag the whole of the public service - that's slightly silly.


----------



## Upchuck (Aug 30, 2009)

RubyBlue said:


> To be fair Upchuck you can't use your experience working for a small agency (which has also lost all the authority they once had) to slag the whole of the public service - that's slightly silly.



You are not the person I used to know.

You know nothing about my life, only what I tell you.  And I tell you what suits me.


----------



## RubyBlue (Aug 30, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> You are not the person I used to know.
> 
> You know nothing about my life, only what I tell you.  And I tell you what suits me.



Really?  And it wasn't me who provided you with a reference for that job?  Anyway - this is getting silly, personal and boring.


----------



## Upchuck (Aug 30, 2009)

RubyBlue said:


> Really?  And it wasn't me who provided you with a reference for that job?  Anyway - this is getting silly, personal and boring.



You're my hero.  You really are.


----------



## RubyBlue (Aug 30, 2009)

I didn't watch the programme I thought it would be depressing and would wind me up - I wish I did now.  Is it available on catch up or online?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 30, 2009)

I wonder if Mark would have gotten that job at all if it had been one where they wouldn't have fired him after a month.


----------



## ukbix (Aug 30, 2009)

smokedout said:


> incidentally you can go to:
> 
> http://community.mya4e.com/2009/08/benefit-busters-sigh-of-relief/
> 
> ...



Cheers, found another post on the site

http://www.a4eblog.co.uk/Articles/000320.aspx


apparently someone on benefits that could work, but chooses not to as she would have to earn "25 pounds" an HOUR, and reckons the jobcentre told her not to get a job, but to claim incapacity instead.

Its that sort of thing that makes life harder for genuine claimaints, so I reported the blog post to the benefit fraud team. They can look into the claims the jobcentre told her to not work, and if she is claiming when able to work but chosing not to.

If its all innocent,  nothing to worry about, but looks like a clear admission of fraud to me - on a4e's site.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 30, 2009)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2009)

RubyBlue said:


> LOL I just knew you would come along to stick your silly opinions - I was timing it - I was giving it an hour
> 
> Your bitterness isn't anything to do with the fact that your temp job in the public sector didn't want you any longer is it and they fired you?
> 
> By the way - who's whining?  I listed positives about working in the public sector.  I love my job.



I don't even recognise the part of the public sector (Home Office) that I worked in from Upchuck's stereotyping. Most of the places I visited on departmental business were much the same as where I worked: neatly-dressed people (usually suits for men, skirt, blouse and jacket for the women) who enjoyed their jobs. The pay wasn't and isn't brilliant, but it's adequate if you enjoy public service.

I suspect Upchuck worked for some local authority, and now tars the entire "public sector" with the same brush.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 30, 2009)

Gramsci said:


> As with some other posters i think you and Awesome should get out more. In certain parts of London and England these views are common.
> 
> I also assume the guy wanted to have the footage in the documentary as he would have signed a release form.  Just because I dont agree with doesnt imo mean that his views  shouldnt be aired. He does represent a certain number of the working class.
> 
> ...


Thanks, but that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2009)

ukbix said:


> Cheers, found another post on the site
> 
> http://www.a4eblog.co.uk/Articles/000320.aspx
> 
> ...


I don't see Incapacity benefit/ESA mentioned anywhere on that link.


----------



## RubyBlue (Aug 30, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect Upchuck worked for some local authority, and now tars the entire "public sector" with the same brush.



Upchuck worked for a small off-shoot non ministerial agency that will be closed in a couple of years - like I said in a post earlier - it's a little silly to equate that with the public sector as a whole.


----------



## Upchuck (Aug 30, 2009)

RubyBlue said:


> Upchuck worked for a small off-shoot non ministerial agency that will be closed in a couple of years - like I said in a post earlier - it's a little silly to equate that with the public sector as a whole.



I do wish you would stop making reference here to me like some kind of 'expert'.  It's very patronising.  You've no idea what I've been doing for the past 12 months baby.


----------



## RubyBlue (Aug 30, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> I do wish you would stop making reference here to me like some kind of 'expert'.  It's very patronising.  You've no idea what I've been doing for the past 12 months baby.



Yes I do because you keep PMing me and telling me - as well as asking me if I would check your CV for you and do a re-write  (a week ago?) I obviously ignored that PM as I do most of them


----------



## Upchuck (Aug 30, 2009)

RubyBlue said:


> Yes I do because you keep PMing me and telling me - as well as asking me if I would check your CV for you and do a re-write  I obviously ignored that PM as I do most of them



You're very full of yourself aren't you


----------



## weepiper (Aug 30, 2009)

you guys totally win Most Tiresome Beef 2009.


----------



## RubyBlue (Aug 30, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> You're very full of yourself aren't you



Well you obviously rate me why else would you PM me and ask me to write up your CV


----------



## Upchuck (Aug 30, 2009)

weepiper said:


> you guys totally win Most Tiresome Beef 2009.



It's the gift that keeps on giving


----------



## Upchuck (Aug 30, 2009)

RubyBlue said:


> Well you obviously rate me why else would you PM me and ask me to write up your CV



Yes, it's cos you're excellent and very wise


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2009)

weepiper said:


> you guys totally win Most Tiresome Beef 2009.



It's like a couple of old farts who've been married for 50 years taking ineffective swipes at each other!


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 31, 2009)

Still hasn't re-appeared on 4od.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 31, 2009)

That'll teach you to record next time.


----------



## ymu (Aug 31, 2009)

Chip Barm said:


> Still hasn't re-appeared on 4od.


It was there. It's been pulled. See other thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2009)

smokedout said:


> incidentally you can go to:
> 
> http://community.mya4e.com/2009/08/benefit-busters-sigh-of-relief/
> 
> ...



Very interesting. Could be that they are allowing negative comments as they have "Henry" to answer them. Could be they were advised to do this by the PR section. "Henry" sounds like he is ventrilouist dummy for Emma herself. 

The main gist of a4e justification is that whilst they are not perfect you should look at the results not the "process"-in this case bitch Hayleys amateur pyschology and bullying. Also that a4e is not working within a perfect system. 

Bizarre line of argument. Surely as a4e got the contract from the Government to "help" single parents etc back to work they proposed to the government there own system? As they won the contract I dont see how they can now say the "system" they operate in is to blame. 

Secondly they argue that its the end result not the "process" we should focus on. Total bollox. If the end result is to get single parents off the dole you could just make them take jobs in Poundland without an expensive 13 week course. As bitch Hayley said at some point knowingly turning down a job could mean your benefits are in danger.


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 31, 2009)

I gathered it had been pulled from reading comments on 4od.

Looks like I'll need to torrent it


----------



## ukbix (Sep 1, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't see Incapacity benefit/ESA mentioned anywhere on that link.



your right, I cant see it either now, must be going crazy..

But its still the same, whatever the benefit, job seekers, incap, if you can work but chose not to simply because you only would take a 25 pound a hour job, thats not on....


----------



## JHE (Sep 1, 2009)

ukbix said:


> if you can work but chose not to simply because you only would take a 25 pound a hour job, thats not on....



Yeah and that happens a lot.  Unemployed people look for £25/hr work and if they can't get it, they just say, _'Fuck it!  I'll just carry on living a life of luxury on the Job Seekers' Pittance.'_

You silly sod!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 1, 2009)

From what I've read I think the Shaw Trust are the 'benefit busters' this week, for the final episode. They fund the people I'm about to go and see in my local area (voluntarily, not part of some stupid DWP initiative), so this should be interesting. 

However I'm not sure how that tallies with the clips of staff telling people 'there's nowt wrong wit' you lad, pull yeself together' or making someone with an apparent bad back bend forward (always guaranteed to get a good larf, especially if the advisor isn't medically expert). The Trust are a charity, unlike a43 - at least that's my understanding. I wasn't aware they were involved at this level.

But then I read this from the C4 blurb:



> In Oldham, the charity Shaw Trust has won the contract to implement this policy. Sherrie Jepson, *a former car saleswoman *has the job of selling the idea of employment to people who were previously considered too sick to work.



Oh dear.

Still this explains why there is still a third show, as it doesn't feature a4e.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2009)

Ive been told there is an ongoing debate in the "voluntary sector" about involvement in Government contracts. Should charities stay independant as possible from Government so they can support and lobby? Or should the "Third Sector" as i think it is now known as work for the government?


----------



## treelover (Sep 1, 2009)

The Shaw Trust is despised by many disability campaigners(just google): one of its bosses is Mansel Aylward former DWP Chief medical Officer and who was reponsible for the brutal All Works Test for IB, he is very influential in Govt circles and as Emiritus Professor of the Unum Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, funded by the big US multinational, has had major involvement in the whole of the Welfare Reform Programme

btw, there is so much around the complex and possibly corrupt nexus of those involved in welfare, new deal, a brave journo could really make their name, so the question must be, why haven' they?


----------



## sorearm (Sep 1, 2009)

Chip Barm said:


> I gathered it had been pulled from reading comments on 4od.
> 
> Looks like I'll need to torrent it



episodes 1 + 2 are on uknova.

If anyone wants it I can torrent it myself and work out some way of sending the episode (email/flash drive in the post like mission impossible etc etc)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2009)

ukbix said:


> your right, I cant see it either now, must be going crazy..
> 
> But its still the same, whatever the benefit, job seekers, incap, if you can work but chose not to simply because you only would take a 25 pound a hour job, thats not on....



Of course it isn't, but we need to interrogate why it's the case that someone is "better off" on benefits than off of them, and address *those* factors, rather than throwing money at muppets like A4E for their smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 1, 2009)

sorearm said:


> episodes 1 + 2 are on uknova.
> 
> If anyone wants it I can torrent it myself and work out some way of sending the episode (email/flash drive in the post like mission impossible etc etc)



I'd like a copy please.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 1, 2009)

treelover said:


> The Shaw Trust is despised by many disability campaigners(just google): one of its bosses is Mansel Aylward former DWP Chief medical Officer and who was reponsible for the brutal All Worlks Test for IB, he is very influential in Govt circles and as Emiritus Professor of the Unum Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, funded by the big US multinational, has had major involvement in the whole of the Welfare Reform Programme
> 
> btw, there is so much around the complex and possibly corrupt nexus of those involved in welfare, new deal, a brave journo could really make their name, so the question must be, why haven' they?


Cool, I've signed up with _The Devil!_

In the context of those comments, this sounds...interesting!


----------



## trevhagl (Sep 1, 2009)

Gramsci said:


> Ive been told there is an ongoing debate in the "voluntary sector" about involvement in Government contracts. Should charities stay independant as possible from Government so they can support and lobby? Or should the "Third Sector" as i think it is now known as work for the government?



someone at our place has been forced to attend by the dole. He doesn't WANT to be there. So basically we're training him for a couple of months for nothing. He'll be off as soon as the time is up. Which says all you need to know about these schemes.


----------



## sorearm (Sep 1, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> I'd like a copy please.



episodes 1 + 2 are 360MB each, should fit on a CD.

If peple want a copy they'll have to PM and I can burn copies + post them out.

Fuck those arseholes trying to censor 4OD


----------



## Upchuck (Sep 1, 2009)

Well I just watched episode 2 and personally I think it was pulled because A4e probably asked for it to be pulled from 4OD as they come off looking really bad.  That owner, the woman with the castle, comes off as a smug, careless, money grabing piece of work.  The staff that work for the organisation, some appear really compromised about what they are doing to people: offering agency jobs and shit jobs where the power is all on the employers side and the bonues etc they must get (the employers) from taking on A4e clients must be a factor.  I felt sorry for Mark cos he would have made a good landscaper or council man.  He gets laid of and it seemed to tototally floor him and it screwed up his benefits.  

I wonder if A4e saw the episode before it went out because I certainly think the way they treat some of the people is poor.  And the locations are Hull and Sheffield ffs.  hardly thriving economic powerhouses.  

I was on the unemployed's side.  Will see what happens next week with the 'disabled'.


----------



## Upchuck (Sep 1, 2009)

I just emailed Emma Harrison and asked her if she considered offering Mark a job on the sprawling grounds of her estate


----------



## JHE (Sep 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> someone at our place has been forced to attend by the dole. He doesn't WANT to be there. So basically we're training him for a couple of months for nothing. He'll be off as soon as the time is up. Which says all you need to know about these schemes.



What is the training that you and your colleagues are providing?  I mean, is it something potentially worthwhile, something that actually teaches, or is "training" just a euphemism for (e.g.) letting him make your tea for a pittance so miserable that it's below the Nat Min Wage.



Upchuck said:


> I just emailed Emma Harrison and asked her if she considered offering Mark a job on the sprawling grounds of her estate



No, no!  Don't give her ideas!  She'll have the poor sod living in a tent on her estate for months on end, while she gives interviews claiming she's improved his life.  She'll boast of giving him a bonus at Christmas so he can catch a coach home to see his partner for a day or two.  Gawd bless us all, said Tiny Tim.


----------



## Upchuck (Sep 2, 2009)

JHE said:


> No, no!  Don't give her ideas!  She'll have the poor sod living in a tent on her estate for months on end, while she gives interviews claiming she's improved his life.  She'll boast of giving him a bonus at Christmas so he can catch a coach home to see his partner for a day or two.  Gawd bless us all, said Tiny Tim.



You're probably right here


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2009)

> Well I just watched episode 2 and personally I think it was pulled because A4e probably asked for it to be pulled from 4OD as they come off looking really bad. That owner, the woman with the castle, comes off as a smug, careless, money grabing piece of work. The staff that work for the organisation, some appear really compromised about what they are doing to people: offering agency jobs and shit jobs where the power is all on the employers side and the bonues etc they must get (the employers) from taking on A4e clients must be a factor. I felt sorry for Mark cos he would have made a good landscaper or council man. He gets laid of and it seemed to tototally floor him and it screwed up his benefits.




But this isn't new, the New Deal/training, etc has been a scandal, a chronicle not yet exposed, why is that?, why have people tolerated such shite...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2009)

JHE said:


> No, no!  Don't give her ideas!  She'll have the poor sod living in a tent on her estate for months on end, while she gives interviews claiming she's improved his life.  She'll boast of giving him a bonus at Christmas so he can catch a coach home to see his partner for a day or two.  Gawd bless us all, said Tiny Tim.



She'd probably get him to changes his name to Mellors, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2009)

treelover said:


> But this isn't new, the New Deal/training, etc has been a scandal, a chronicle not yet exposed, why is that?, why have people tolerated such shite...


Because most people don't want to know about this sort of shite, and ignore it until their noses get rubbed in it.


----------



## ukbix (Sep 2, 2009)

channel 4 have pulled the clips for episode 2 now...

http://newdealscandal.wordpress.com...de-2-channel-4-pulls-episode-2-preview-clips/


----------



## smokedout (Sep 2, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because most people don't want to know about this sort of shite, and ignore it until their noses get rubbed in it.



by which time they're usually so beaten down they don't put up a fight


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 2, 2009)

Doesn't seem to have been posted in this thread but the program is now on a public torrent, search on isohunt.


----------



## sorearm (Sep 2, 2009)

Chip Barm said:


> Doesn't seem to have been posted in this thread but the program is now on a public torrent, search on isohunt.



nice one, well spotted chip!

been kinda busy at home, I've d/l episodes 1+2 (bit superfluous as now they're on isohunt - looks like they are the same releases I've got from uknova).

anyway, I'm just in the process of uploading the episodes to youtube...


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2009)

excellent, my man...


----------



## rioted (Sep 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> But this isn't new, the New Deal/training, etc has been a scandal, a chronicle not yet exposed, why is that?, why have people tolerated such shite...


It's not just New Deal. It' been going on for years. The time before last I signed on 15+ years ago I got sent on one of these "training" malarkeys. I was more qualified/competent than the trainers and had to sit through hours of tedious exercises straight out of the text book. "Led" by people with absolutely no idea. Where do they get them from?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 3, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> I just emailed Emma Harrison and asked her if she considered offering Mark a job on the sprawling grounds of her estate


----------



## sorearm (Sep 3, 2009)

No joy from youtube, cunts are pretty hot at taking vids down

I recommend everyone d/l it for themselves at isohunt or PM me and I'll bung the 2 episodes on a CD and mail it out to them...


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 3, 2009)

'ere we go again!


----------



## pboi (Sep 3, 2009)

any word on why they are being nobs about it?

A4E got their pants in a twist?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 3, 2009)

Why is episode 1 and 3 available but not episdoe 2? What the hell did I miss?


----------



## JHE (Sep 3, 2009)

Tonight's episode was slightly less interesting than the other two, IMO, but my goodness I learnt something about the policy of getting people off 'the sick'!

I knew, of course, that there is talk of looking at what people can do rather than what they can't do.  OK, I thought, but what does this amount to in practice?

On tonight's programme was a young man of 20, whose back was severely injured three years ago and has been on 'the sick' ever since.  At first, I must admit, I wondered if he wasn't putting it on a bit, but once he had shown on camera that there is obvious abnormality in his lower back when he bends over and takes loads of painkillers to get through the day, I became a bit ashamed to have doubted him.

His adviser at the Shaw Trust thought he lad should go to college to brush up his literacy and numeracy skills and get qualifications that would help him get admin jobs, since he obviously can't do much in the way of manual labour.  I don't disagree with the adviser on that, but it seems that the young man's prospects of getting any job in Oldham are miserably bad.

The DWP's judgement, at least as it was reported in the programme, was that the man did not have a disability.  Can that really be what the DWP said?  It's obvious bollocks.  He has a disability, though, I agree, one that allows him to do certain sorts of work - light duties, I think it would once have been called.  (Perhaps the judgement was just that he shouldn't be getting any benefit reserved for people who cannot work at all.  I don't know.)


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 3, 2009)

to be on employment and support allowance (or incapacity benefit as was), you don't need to be assessed as disabled but instead be assessed as having a limited capacity for work. as you note, it would appear clear that this applied to him and yet he failed the test. but that isn't unusual by any means. decision making is notoriously poor. which is a large contributory factor in why people get so fixated on proving what it is they can't do, because if they don't, they get hoyed off benefits with notoriously short shrift.

the programme was quite poor all round on factual reporting in relation to what it purported to represent and it didn't really explore any other systemic inadequacies in looking at why people on benefits may be reluctant to take low security, low waged, low status jobs imo. it seemed to be very much about individual failings which is part of a picture in a purely objective sense but fails to recognise personal circumstances as well as local/regional issues and the changing nature of the labour market more widely.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 3, 2009)

What a pleasant woman that advisor was. Not at all a pinch faced mare with a smacked arse for a face. What a hard nosed cow.


----------



## Hylife (Sep 3, 2009)

Tonights programme did leave me feelling quite alarmed that these so called 'advisers' are a 'one stop shop' for dishing out all sorts of advice they clearly ai'nt  qualified for .  In particular the woman with an obvious alcohol issue and traumatised from some serious and long standing shit from her past.   Although i have to say i was slightly  relieved that she did'nt get the 'ex car saleswoman' adviser  FFS! 

I agree with the previous poster in that it simply missed so many crucial aspects of seeing the bigger picture such as employer attitudes, working enviroments etc.

As for the young guy with the back issue declared fit for work when clearly not ! There is an appeals process for such ridiculous shit decalarations made by the 'decision maker' at the DWP.  No mention of this tho........


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 3, 2009)

JHE said:


> His adviser at the Shaw Trust thought he lad should go to college to brush up his literacy and numeracy skills and get qualifications that would help him get admin jobs, since he obviously can't do much in the way of manual labour.  I don't disagree with the adviser on that, but it seems that the young man's prospects of getting any job in Oldham are miserably bad.


The adviser gave him good advice IMO given his circumstances. With no experience or qualifications in the work context he is now forced to go into due to his back problem he will need to re-train. His reaction to this was quite negative and he will need to be more flexible as learning new skills is realistically his only option now, regardless of the miserable job situation in Oldham.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 3, 2009)

Hylife said:


> *Tonights programme did leave me feelling quite alarmed that these so called 'advisers' are a 'one stop shop' for dishing out all sorts of advice they clearly ai'nt  qualified for .*


What exactly did you hear that made you think that?




> In particular the woman with an obvious alcohol issue and traumatised from some serious and long standing shit from her past.   Although i have to say i was slightly  relieved that she did'nt get the 'ex car saleswoman' adviser  FFS!


This client's adviser didn't over step her mark IMO from what we saw. In fact some of what she said regarding the length of time it would take to get her job ready (12 months), that voluntary work would help her gain new skills and reintergrate her into the wrold of work and that she needed more intense one-to-one help/counselling seemed spot on to me.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 3, 2009)

Rutita1;9650518]What exactly did you hear that made you think that?[/QUOTE]the bit where she started asking the alkie woman about her motivations and so on? certainly overstepped the mark in both of our opinions said:


> This client's adviser didn't over step her mark IMO from what we saw. In fact some of what she said regarding the length of time it would take to get her job ready (12 months), that voluntary work would help her gain new skills and reintergrate her into the wrold of work and that she needed more intense one-to-one help/counselling seemed spot on to me.


but this i don't necessarily disagree with, nudging someone towards a more stable pattern isn't a bad thing as such. it's the compulsion, the financial incentive for the advisors (but even more so, the companies and their rich bosses), and the benefit threats/losses/disruptions/etc if it goes wrong for reasons that you can't control, often due to official error.


----------



## Hylife (Sep 3, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> What exactly did you hear that made you think that?
> 
> 
> Quite a few things , one example the fact that the 'ex car saleswoman' adviser was'nt treating people as individuals and was more concerned with hitting targets
> ...



Yes i agree this adviser did'nt step over her mark, but it was uncomfortable viewing  but i did make the point that it could have been the other adviser ...........who may have told her she was being too negative! lol


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 3, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the bit where she started asking the alkie woman about her motivations and so on? certainly overstepped the mark in both of our opinions, these people are employment advisors not counsellors and they have definitely been a bit free and easy i think.


About her motivations? I am not sure if I missed that or not? Explain to me please. 



> but this i don't necessarily disagree with, nudging someone towards a more stable pattern isn't a bad thing as such. *it's the compulsion, the financial incentive for the advisors (but even more so, the companies and their rich bosses), and the benefit threats/losses/disruptions/etc if it goes wrong for reasons that you can't control, often due to official error.*



Oh I agree with you there 100%. I was really only commenting on the fact that with the 20 year old lad that adviser was being *realistic and honest* about what his options were. Kieron said he really wanted to get back to work, even if it was in an office. The reality is that to do that he will have to study and gain new skills.

He is now in a position where how much he wants to work will be measured against how much he hates studying.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 3, 2009)

Rutita1;9650555]About her motivations? I am not sure if I missed that or not? Explain to me please. :)[/QUOTE]twice now we've seen them start harassing people with alcohol problems and opening up issues which they then [I]appear[/I] to ignore and push on with the job-seeking activity. both me and missus felt that they way they behaved was professionally inappropriate considering who they are working with tbh.[QUOTE=Rutita1 said:


> Oh I agree with you there 100%. I was really only commenting on the fact that with the 20 year old lad that adviser was being *realistic and honest* about what his options were. Kieron said he really wanted to get back to work, even if it was in an office. The reality is that to do that he will have to study and gain new skills.


but that's what i mean about ignoring local issues - he/they said at the start that all his mates are on jsa, there aren't any jobs so he knows it isn't really realistic, no matter what he does. that doesn't mean we should withold training but it does mean that you need to consider much more about economic policy, education policy, employment policy, etc etc etc. it's not just him that's the problem i suppose.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 3, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> twice now we've seen them start harassing people with alcohol problems and opening up issues which they then _appear_ to ignore and push on with the job-seeking activity. both me and missus felt that they way they behaved was professionally inappropriate considering who they are working with tbh.


 Oh I get you now and yes I did see it. I agree to a certain extent also.

However from experience of doing a similar job I have experience of the questions we were asking clients would often lead to them disclosing information that we were unable/untrained to focus on/deal with. 

The idea of the intial interview is to get a outline of the client. I was aware from the clip of the interview we saw the client said she used to be an alcoholic but then said that she was still drinking. The adviser was not in a position to challenge this or question her about it. She would though now be aware that the client has a history of alcoholism and was still drinking.

For me this possibly informed her decision that the client would need up to 12 months to prepare for work?

These companies are under pressure to perform having won contracts from the DWP. For me, the DWP are where the buck should stop because they are the ones forcing people who are not job ready, with obvious other issues, onto schemes like this.



> *but that's what i mean about ignoring local issues - he/they said at the start that all his mates are on jsa, there aren't any jobs so he knows it isn't really realistic, no matter what he does.* that doesn't mean we should withold training but it does mean that you need to consider much more about economic policy, education policy, employment policy, etc etc etc. it's not just him that's the problem i suppose.



Of course I agree that local issues should not be ignored. However we were not introduced to his friends who were on JSA and have no way of knowing what skills/education they have.

I don't view the 'problem' as solely his, I do though think that in his position he needs to get to a point where his dislike/fear of studying is overcome so that he can explore his options to the fullest.


----------



## ukbix (Sep 4, 2009)

The narrator falsely stated that its only esa that people get tested on, and that on IB it was the claimaints GP that decided if they got the benefit. Thats not the case, IB'ers are tested by ATOS also, and its not your GP that decides entitlement.

The show could have covered a lot more, like showing how bad the atos report was, and why they declared him fit for work, then they could show the lads specialists and gp's reports to contrast them.

Its interesting that once a decision is made that a person is suitable for some sort of work (but no type of work is specified by the report) it is then up to non medically qualified advisors, without access to medical notes and medical history to decide what work and what training they can do or require etc.

I forsee law suits if wrong advice is given out, and peoples health deteriorates due to bad advice.


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 4, 2009)

JHE said:


> I knew, of course, that there is talk of looking at what people can do rather than what they can't do.  OK, I thought, but what does this amount to in practice?



Medical examiners pose questions such as;

"How did you get to this [enforced] interview"

*"By car"*

"How long did it take?"

*"About half an hour."*

"Where did you park? How long did it take you to walk here?"

*"Victoria Station, about ten minutes walk"*

Examiner notes;

Client is capable of travelling by car or public transport for half an hour and walking for ten minutes to and from work twice a day.

He also sat on a chair and got up again after entering my office.

I recommend that his DLA be ceased.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Sep 4, 2009)

Jackobi said:


> Medical examiners pose questions such as;
> 
> "How did you get to this [enforced] interview"
> 
> ...



You got it spot on !


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

Jackobi said:


> Medical examiners pose questions such as;
> 
> "How did you get to this [enforced] interview"
> 
> ...



Yeap, you are probably right apart from the reccomendation part. I am not sure the examiners are the ones making the decisions/reccomendations though.


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 4, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> I am not sure the examiners are the ones making the decisions/reccomendations though.



I would guess they give an opinion on whether or not a client is mentally or physically capable of working, which is what adjudicators would base their decision on.

But, yeah, probably not using the syntax that I did in that sentence using direct reference to benefit cessation.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

Hylife said:


> Tonights programme did leave me feelling quite alarmed that these so called 'advisers' are a 'one stop shop' for dishing out all sorts of advice they clearly ai'nt  qualified for .  In particular the woman with an obvious alcohol issue and traumatised from some serious and long standing shit from her past.   Although i have to say i was slightly  relieved that she did'nt get the 'ex car saleswoman' adviser  FFS!
> 
> I agree with the previous poster in that it simply missed so many crucial aspects of seeing the bigger picture such as employer attitudes, working enviroments etc.
> 
> As for the young guy with the back issue declared fit for work when clearly not ! There is an appeals process for such ridiculous shit decalarations made by the 'decision maker' at the DWP.  No mention of this tho........


Conspicuous by its absence: any mention of the outcome for that woman. She was clearly a broken woman totally unready for work. The government shouldn't even be mentioning work to her and should be doing everything to get her the proper care and support she visibly and desperately needs. It's appalling she was even sent to the Shaw Distrust in the first place. Even they could tell she wasn't ready but offered her nothing more than some work in a charity shop. How is that going to help?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> The adviser gave him good advice IMO given his circumstances. With no experience or qualifications in the work context he is now forced to go into due to his back problem he will need to re-train. His reaction to this was quite negative and he will need to be more flexible as learning new skills is realistically his only option now, regardless of the miserable job situation in Oldham.


Doubtless basic skills would help him, but suerly you can understand how he feels and that was all he was expressing. He may well have decided to go to learn. All that was shown was him getting frustrated at being told by the same organisation who got him to apply that he wasn't going to get that job in a month of sundays. He'd also been freely admitting that he wasn't the studious sort.


----------



## Psychonaut (Sep 4, 2009)

IIRC the narration said at the end that his weekly benefit would drop to £49 or thereabouts (previously £100-ish had been mentioned as his benefits prior to the descision) 

Isnt JSA closer to £75


----------



## scifisam (Sep 4, 2009)

Psychonaut said:


> IIRC the narration said at the end that his weekly benefit would drop to £49 or thereabouts (previously £100-ish had been mentioned as his benefits prior to the descision)
> 
> Isnt JSA closer to £75


 
[URL="http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/Customers/WorkingAgeBenefits/Jobseekerallowance/index.html"]Nope: [/URL]  

Age 16 - 25: £50.95
Age 25 or over: £64.30

And it would have been lower when that programme was filmed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Doubtless basic skills would help him, but suerly you can understand how he feels and that was all he was expressing.


 I can understand how he feels, as a young person I was on the dole, with no qualifications and a hatred for school. I had to train, it was long and hard. Not least because I really couldn't be arsed and it took a while for me to start to enjoy study/myself again. I needed to grow up a bit and take some responsibility for me.

As a teacher I have worked with people like myself and Kieron. I understand the frustration and the bloodymindedness of not really wanting to do something when you would prefer to do something else. It takes a while to accept that we can't always do what we want to.

Basic skills courses are just the start, once studying again he may be in a better position to identify and take on a course that will get him where he wants to go.




> He may well have decided to go to learn. All that was shown was him getting frustrated at being told by the same organisation who got him to apply that he wasn't going to get that job in a month of sundays. He'd also been freely admitting that he wasn't the studious sort.



I understand his frustration of course...it was an adviser though that told him not to apply for that job and to go on a course. Kieron did come across as a bit tunnel visioned though, like he had resigned himself to 'nothing'. Talking the talk and walking the talk are two very different things in his situation. 

I also think there is learning to be had by practising filling in applications forms, not least as it helps you identify what skills/experience you are lacking. Also, understanding the format, use of formal english, summarising and abbreviated writing styles associated with AFs.

I know he said he didn't like school. Many people expect adult learning to be the same as childhood education. As an adult it is much more focused and self directive, sometimes folks just need to give it a chance.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

I thought the female advisor was excellent. Fucking hard job but she was clearly very good at it.

As for the young guy. Well. I must admit, he seemed fit for work to me. His only disability would appear to be a chronic lack of self-esteem.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> I can understand how he feels, as a young person I was on the dole, with no qualifications and a hatred for school. I had to train, it was long and hard. Not least because I really couldn't be arsed and it took a while for me to start to enjoy study/myself again. I needed to grow up a bit and take some responsibility for me.
> 
> As a teacher I have worked with people like myself and Kieron. I understand the frustration and the bloodymindedness of not really wanting to do something when you would prefer to do something else. It takes a while to accept that we can't always do what we want to.
> 
> ...


These people weren't helping him at all; offering nothing (suggesting night school - especially as a government funded 'help' organisation - doesn't cut it IMO) and not taking into consideration how work might exacerbate his problem.

I also get the impression, though I may be well off the mark, that some of the advisors, from watching the initial team meeting, were a bit put out by the target based approach of their boss. Not Sherrie though, who seemed to love it (though you wouldn't think she loved anything looking at her painted stone face).


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> I thought the female advisor was excellent. Fucking hard job but she was clearly very good at it.
> 
> As for the young guy. Well. I must admit, he seemed fit for work to me. His only disability would appear to be a chronic lack of self-esteem.



That and the patently obvious and serious back injury. But I must defer to your obvious medical expertise.

yeah, really good. You could tell that by the pissed off faces of the people who told her they'd already applied for the sales job she seemed intent on pimping. 

Because of course people out work with confidence issues (most likely in many cases if not all) are going to make outstanding applicants for a sales job in a recession.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> These people weren't helping him at all; offering nothing (suggesting night school - especially as a government funded 'help' organisation - doesn't cut it IMO) and not taking into consideration how work might exacerbate his problem.


 Hmmm...Maybe I am being too optimistic knowing that what we saw was an editted version of events.

Also, did you notice that Kieron became quite shouty and swore in the clip we saw?



> I also get the impression, though I may be well off the mark, that some of the advisors, from watching the initial team meeting, were a bit put out by the target based approach of their boss. Not Sherrie though, who seemed to love it (though you wouldn't think she loved anything looking at her painted stone face).



This target approach was the nail in the coffin/reason why I left the training company I worked for.

I too notice the advisers glazed over when the mangeress was pep-talking about targets. When you do the job you realise very uickly it isn't about targets and money, it's about people. I couldn't find a happy medium in the job and found the contradictions far too big. I know I can be much more helpful in another environment.


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2009)

> This client's adviser didn't over step her mark IMO from what we saw. In fact some of what she said regarding the length of time it would take to get her job ready (12 months), that voluntary work would help her gain new skills and reintergrate her into the wrold of work and that she needed more intense one-to-one help/counselling seemed spot on to me.



Getting the unit 'job ready' eh rutita, seems like your time in these agencies has made you less sensitive to the language and indeed the people featured, like the young man who you argue will need more flexible skills, do you know what its like to experince real pain, work is the least of your concerns.Ironic really as when it comes to other 'oppressions' you are considerably more understanding

I'd like to ask you, do you support compulsion, sanctions on benefits?, do you think one individual (the adviser) should have such power over a vulnerable person as in other spheres it is teams of experienced S/workers/clinicians with strong safeguards who have such power.

there is something of the Stalinist in these training(re-education camps?) and certainly a smell of the workhouse, thanks goodness people are forming unemployed unions, etc which hopefully will challenge these awful regimes.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> Getting the unit 'job ready' eh rutita, seems like your time in these agencies has made you less sensitive to the language and indeed the people featured, like the young man who you argue will need more flexible skills, do you know what its like to experince real pain, work is the least of your concerns.Ironic really as when it comes to other 'oppressions' you are considerably more understanding




You clearly have not read my posts on this thread properly, especially those where I detail my derision for this approach to getting people back to work and the reasons why I left the job. 

If you are upset by my use of the term 'job ready' you need to get a grip. I used it in context and with more than a years experience of what it REALLY means in this context.


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2009)

maybe so, and yes, I accept your later posts were more nuanced, but do you accept that something like claimants unions are neccessary and will provide a counter balance to the almost supreme power these agencies have over peoples lives and the concern that when the new welfare reforms kick in  private companies will have complete sovereignty over the claimant.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> Hmmm...Maybe I am being too optimistic knowing that what we saw was an editted version of events.
> 
> Also, did you notice that Kieron became quite shouty and swore in the clip we saw?
> 
> ...


I saw him express quite reasonably and not really with any degree of ferocity his frustrations at the problems he could see. Problems anyone with eyes could see. He didn't strike me as some pig ignorant chav with an attitude, so you can forgive a little bit of emotion I would think. He's a human kid, not a robot.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> maybe so, and yes, I accept your later posts were more nuanced, .



I take it that you didn't read those posts then. I talked about my experiences since I joined the thread which was then discussing the first episode. So in fact my early, middling and later posts have been clear of my position.



> but do you accept that something like claimants unions are neccessary and will provide a counter balance to the almost supreme power these agencies have over peoples lives and the concern that when the new welfare reforms kick in  private companies will have complete sovereignty over the claimant


 Sounds interesting yes.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I saw him express quite reasonably and not really with any degree of ferocity his frustrations at the problems he could see. Problems anyone with eyes could see. *He didn't strike me as some pig ignorant chav with an attitude, *so you can forgive a little bit of emotion I would think. He's a human kid, not a robot.



Jesus christ man, calm down...Who is suggesting he did behave in that way?

I certainly don't refer to anyone in that way and think you using this in our discussion now is ridiculous. I am enjoying the discussion so far but will bail out if it's gonna get silly.

He is 20 years old and for right or wrong needs to gain some independence and skills which he can use to support himself in the future. I have been there, in both roles. I empathise with how he feels but am also realistic that he was pretty stuck in his mindset.

The adviser didn't handle the situation very well either FWIW, although I didn't like clients swearing at me, most days I would have taken a moment to listen to him and then explain better than the adviser did that's for sure. I used to wake up in the middle of the night thinking about how I could help some clients...their needs and the desire to truly help them can become quite consuming.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> That and the patently obvious and serious back injury. But I must defer to your obvious medical expertise.



You actually believed his story about the fall in Turkey? How he couldn't see a UK doctor to verify his story because the Turkish doctors were the only ones who could look after him? HA! HAHAH!


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2009)

Wanker, again I will ask, do you know what acute searing pain is like, 

btw, where are all the other liberal urban types who flock to a thread if they see injustice, then again, welfare just ain't sexy is it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> Wanker, again I will ask, do you know what acute searing pain is like,
> 
> btw, where are all the other liberal urban types who flock to a thread if they see injustice, then again, welfare just ain't sexy is it?



This thread is 27 pages long already it isn't exactly being ignored. Have you read it all?


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2009)

of course, i meant there is not the same sort of anger one sees exhibited here about other 'oppressions' etc, thats all..


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> Wanker, again I will ask, do you know what acute searing pain is like,
> 
> btw, where are all the other liberal urban types who flock to a thread if they see injustice, then again, welfare just ain't sexy is it?



Of course if he was genuinely disabled then he should be on the sick. 

Why wouldn't he let an independent UK doctor examine him tho? Surely that must raise an eyebrow with you? Or are you so blinkered that anyone professing to have an injury is immediately worthy of twice the weekly benefit that any other unemployed person gets?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> Of course if he was genuinely disabled then he should be on the sick.
> 
> Why wouldn't he let an independent UK doctor examine him tho? Surely that must raise an eyebrow with you? Or are you so blinkered that anyone professing to have an injury is immediately worthy of twice the weekly benefit that any other unemployed person gets?



Better not to diagnose people through the telly, though?


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> Better not to diagnose people through the telly, though?



It doesn't make you slightly suspicious that he wouldn't let a UK doctor examine him because 'the doctor in Turkey said I'd have to go back there if I needed treatment, a UK doctor's not capable of doing it' (or words to that effect).

Bullshitter!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> It doesn't make you slightly suspicious that he wouldn't let a UK doctor examine him because 'the doctor in Turkey said I'd have to go back there if I needed treatment, a UK doctor's not capable of doing it' (or words to that effect).
> 
> Bullshitter!



I am sure he said that a UK doctor has told him they wouldn't touch it. Also that they would have put him in a brace and not put metal rods in his back. ..I could check on 4od of course.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> I am sure he said that a UK doctor has told him they wouldn't touch it. Also that they would have put him in a brace and not put metal rods in his back. ..I could check on 4od of course.



Nope. He said the doctor in Turkey told him a UK doctor shouldn't touch it because nobody here would know how to treat it.. Slightly dodgy, to say the least.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> Nope. He said the doctor in Turkey told him a UK doctor shouldn't touch it because nobody here would know how to treat it.. Slightly dodgy, to say the least.


 Yeah I heard that bit but she then asked him if he had been seen by a doctor here etc and he said something about them saying they would have only used a brace etc...I think.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> Jesus christ man, calm down...Who is suggesting he did behave in that way?
> 
> I certainly don't refer to anyone in that way and think you using this in our discussion now is ridiculous. I am enjoying the discussion so far but will bail out if it's gonna get silly.
> 
> ...


your reaction = wtf. I didn't say you had said anything and I really don't understand why you've highlighted part of my post in massive bold lettering. I'm sitting here quite calmly. Perhaps it's you that needs to calm down reacting like that.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah I heard that bit but she then asked him if he had been seen by a doctor here etc and he said something about them saying they would have only used a brace etc...I think.



Does that ring true for you? He should at least be examined by a local doctor if he expects to claim sickness benefit. IMO.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> You actually believed his story about the fall in Turkey? How he couldn't see a UK doctor to verify his story because the Turkish doctors were the only ones who could look after him? HA! HAHAH!


Um.

Okay.

Do they not have balconies and hotels in Turkey then? Is falling somehow physically not possible abroad?

Blimey.

Perhaps you have some evidence that he made the whole thing up then?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> Does that ring true for you? He should at least be examined by a local doctor if he expects to claim sickness benefit. IMO.


How do you think he managed to make the claim in the first place without seeing a UK doctor? How else does he get his hands on prescription medication Columbo?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> your reaction = wtf. I didn't say you had said anything and I really don't understand why you've highlighted part of my post in massive bold lettering. I'm sitting here quite calmly. Perhaps it's you that needs to calm down reacting like that.



The smilies/bold used above were for effect. I am sitting here calmly too but do not appreciate you using the terminology you did as it incinuated I see him like tha and was unsympathetic to his situation to say the least.



> *He didn't strike me as some pig ignorant chav with an attitude, so you can forgive a little bit of emotion I would think*. He's a human kid, not a robot.



This shows that you over reacted to what I had posted and in doing so have achieved nothing more than derail the discussion IMO.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> How do you think he managed to make the claim in the first place without seeing a UK doctor? How else does he get his hands on prescription medication Columbo?



I'm going on what the admittedly flaky programme covered. When he was asked to see a doctor to verify his injury he came out with the stuff about him having to go to Turkey to see a doc. No idea how he got his meds.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> Does that ring true for you? He should at least be examined by a local doctor if he expects to claim sickness benefit. IMO.



He would have had to to get the benefit in the first place.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> He would have had to to get the benefit in the first place.



Fair enough, he may well have been injured when that exam happened. That was 2 years previously though. People heal - why not get an updated doc's opinion to support his case if he really thought he was incapable of working?


----------



## Asriel (Sep 4, 2009)

Didn't he happen to say that the UK doctor was also Turkish and therefore agreed with his counterpart in Turkey.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

Asriel said:


> Didn't he happen to say that the UK doctor was also Turkish and therefore agreed with his counterpart in Turkey.



Yup. I think so... anyway. He struck me as a nice lad, super low self-esteem tho but plenty of potential as he seemed intelligent. He probably needed a good kick up the arse. Sometimes we all need that. 

Still, the editing on this series has been shocking so who knows.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> btw, where are all the other liberal urban types who flock to a thread if they see injustice, then again, welfare just ain't sexy is it?


I was genuinely furious watching the programme.  I thought the way that Kieren was treated was outrageous, although entirely to be expected in our paranoid benefits system.

I just haven't really had anything to add to this thread.


----------



## girasol (Sep 4, 2009)

Saddest thing about that was the 20 year old lad, spending his life in bed, fighting the benefits system, when he could be getting himself an education/qualifications.

Why the hell didn't anybody think of that?  Why does he have to work straight away, why not educate him so he can get a decent job?  Why was his father saying 'he shouldn't work'?  Why didn't he encourage his son a bit more?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> I'm going on what the admittedly flaky programme covered. When he was asked to see a doctor to verify his injury he came out with the stuff about him having to go to Turkey to see a doc. No idea how he got his meds.


He wasn't asked to go and see a doctor. Do try and pay attention Jeeves.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> Fair enough, he may well have been injured when that exam happened. That was 2 years previously though. People heal - why not get an updated doc's opinion to support his case if he really thought he was incapable of working?


you really are a twat. Stop posting shit and piss off.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> He wasn't asked to go and see a doctor. Do try and pay attention Jeeves.



Your attempts to patronise me are very amusing Awesome 

Sorry - he was asked why he didn't go to see a doctor to verify his claims. His reason was that the doctor he saw two years previously in Turkey (as well as the Turkish doc he saw in Oldham) advised him a UK doctor wasn't capable of such expert treatment...

So yeh - he'd have to fly to Istanbul for an examination. If you're willing to believe that, then excellent, can I borrow some money?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> Saddest thing about that was the 20 year old lad, spending his life in bed, fighting the benefits system, when he could be getting himself an education/qualifications.


 Good points! Although Kieron did fly off the handle a bit at the thought of returning to study. Regardless, the advice he was given could have been handled more sensitively/appropriately than it was.



> Why the hell didn't anybody think of that?  Why does he have to work straight away, why not educate him so he can get a decent job?  *Why was his father saying 'he shouldn't work'?  Why didn't he encourage his son a bit more?*



I picked up on that also, I think Kieron was getting conflicting messages from his family actually and that in some ways they were enabling his stagnation.


----------



## ukbix (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> Fair enough, he may well have been injured when that exam happened. That was 2 years previously though. People heal - why not get an updated doc's opinion to support his case if he really thought he was incapable of working?



He would have had to have been examined  at the start of his esa claim by a uk doctor in order to get a sick note - you require a sick note for an esa claim.

Upto date medical evidence has to be provided for the claim to proceed, then later you are sent for the ATOS medical (and I use that term loosely) assessment, where a report is made by secret software (that the dwp makes money from) and then a decision maker is instructed to decide upon the evidence your entitledment to benefit, although the decision maker will give more weight to the ATOS report, than any other evidence from a  GP, or specialists.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

ukbix said:


> He would have had to have been examined  at the start of his esa claim by a uk doctor in order to get a sick note - you require a sick note for an esa claim.
> 
> Upto date medical evidence has to be provided for the claim to proceed, then later you are sent for the ATOS medical (and I use that term loosely) assessment, where a report is made by secret software (that the dwp makes money from) and then a decision maker is instructed to decide upon the evidence your entitledment to benefit, although the decision maker will give more weight to the ATOS report, than any other evidence from a  GP, or specialists.



Would it have helped his review if he had gone to a GP or back specialist to get an up to date medical opinion? He didn't appear to want to do that, altho yes, that could be selective editing.


----------



## ukbix (Sep 4, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> Good points! Although Kieron did fly off the handle a bit at the thought of returning to study. Regardless, the advice he was given could have been handled more sensitively/appropriately than it was.
> 
> 
> 
> I picked up on that also, I think Kieron was getting conflicting messages from his family actually and that in some ways they were enabling his stagnation.



Perhaps, he was having difficulty trusting authority and the opinions of those people who were supposed to be their to help.

After all, he was likely still thinking that the people who were supposed to do a fair medical examination, and the benefits people who were supposed to have his interest at heart and examine all the evidence would have done decent job, and his benefits would have continued. Instead he is probably thinking he was shafted by atos and the dwp, and they ignored his previous evidence.

Why would he believe these advisors were any more ethical or honest than the ATOS or DWP?


----------



## ukbix (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> Would it have helped his review if he had gone to a GP or back specialist to get an up to date medical opinion? He didn't appear to want to do that, altho yes, that could be selective editing.



That would have been selective editing, as he would not have got to the atos stage without doing so.

It was selective editing that also meant any of  his specialist reports from turkey, and his gp;s notes were not shown.

Also selective editing ensured that the ATOS report was not shown, and contrasted to other medical evidence.

[edit to add]

It is always a good move to get as much medical evidence as possible, but decision makers give more weight to the ludicrous atos report than anything else, and 
have frequently been known to take ATOS quick assessments over in depth specialist up to date evidence.  They are told to give more weight to atos.


----------



## gabi (Sep 4, 2009)

ukbix said:


> That would have been selective editing, as he would not have got to the atos stage without doing so.
> 
> It was selective editing that also meant any of  his specialist reports from turkey, and his gp;s notes were not shown.
> 
> Also selective editing ensured that the ATOS report was not shown, and contrasted to other medical evidence.



Fair enough - he was filmed on the record however saying he wouldn't let anyone other than a Turkish GP examine him. Which was odd. 

The government for whatever stupid reason is reviewing every single sick case at the moment and if I was him and was genuinely injured I would just go to a local doc and get a written confirmation. This for whatever reason wasn't an option for the kid. It may be distrust of the local authorities as you say though.


----------



## ukbix (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> Fair enough - he was filmed on the record however saying he wouldn't let anyone other than a Turkish GP examine him. Which was odd.
> 
> The government for whatever stupid reason is reviewing every single sick case at the moment and if I was him and was genuinely injured I would just go to a local doc and get a written confirmation. This for whatever reason wasn't an option for the kid. It may be distrust of the local authorities as you say though.



He was filmed on record  saying the turkish docs had told him to not let anyone over here touch it, ie treat it - as the turkish operated, which the NHS would not do as they treat injuries like his in a different manner. In order to  get  further treatment he would have to be treated by the people who treat it in the turkish manner.

There is nothing stopping a  uk doctor examining him though, as will have already happened - for two reasons at least 1 - it has to have happed in order for him  to start the ESA claim, and 2 - strong prescription painkillers would require him to be examined before they were prescribed.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 4, 2009)

It's a cliche, but I thought his biggeest problem was  his small town, one-dimensional view of himself and his place in the world. He genuinely couldn't see beyond a few streets and a prescribed life. I mean he's not going to be Stephen Hawkin but . . .


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's a cliche, but I thought his biggeest problem was  his small town, one-dimensional view of himself and his place in the world. He genuinely couldn't see beyond a few streets and a prescribed life.



Another important point.


----------



## ukbix (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> The government for whatever stupid reason is reviewing every single sick case at the moment and if I was him and was genuinely injured I would just go to a local doc and get a written confirmation. This for whatever reason wasn't an option for the kid. It may be distrust of the local authorities as you say though.



Once he is turned down by ATOS/DWP they will instruct his GP not to issue any further sick notes.

As I mentioned, he will have (although not shown) had his diagnosis confirmed by a gp recently, otherwise he would not be able to claim esa.

The government is reviewing all the cases later, as all IB cases migrate to ESA although that has not started to happen yet.

Everyone on IB gets reviewed on a regular basis anyways, but sometime in the next few years they will  start  to migrate everyone to ESA requiring a re-assessment under a new test, which was designed  from the outset to fail more people (to meet the target of 1 million of incapacity).

The dwp do not give much weight to a persons  doctors opinion, or their specialists opinion etc, or a surgeons, or a physciatrist opinion,  or a CPN's opinion, they much prefer the evidence from nurse or gp employed by atos who  has never met the person before, who asks prewritten questions from a computer screen, and conducts a short medical of anywhere from 5 minutes  to 1.5 hours (max) and has no specialist training or equipment etc.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 4, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's a cliche, but I thought his biggeest problem was  his small town, one-dimensional view of himself and his place in the world. He genuinely couldn't see beyond a few streets and a prescribed life. I mean he's not going to be Stephen Hawkin but . . .



Maybe we could introduce one month's voluntary service in the third world as part of the benefits system. Would certainly give people a different view of the world.


----------



## rollinder (Sep 4, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> Maybe we could introduce one month's voluntary service in the third world as part of the benefits system. Would certainly give people a different view of the world.


 
^ and magically cure all those self pitying depressives who need to pull themselves together and all the cripples who are obviously not trying hard enough 

(I'm not sure that some body like me who regually has panic attacks/freaks out in unexpected sitations, loses the ability to talk and gets stuc obsessivly stuck on one thing etc. would be much use to the third world to be honest)


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's a cliche, but I thought his biggeest problem was  his small town, one-dimensional view of himself and his place in the world. He genuinely couldn't see beyond a few streets and a prescribed life. I mean he's not going to be Stephen Hawkin but . . .


Who were you expecting? Peter Ustinov or something?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> Maybe we could introduce one month's voluntary service in the third world as part of the benefits system. Would certainly give people a different view of the world.


I think such people should be made to doff their caps to important people, such as bankers and ministers. That's proper national service I think. Either that or dying for our overseas resource interests (such as the impending war against Scotland in 2030).


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> Fair enough - he was filmed on the record however saying he wouldn't let anyone other than a Turkish GP examine him. Which was odd.



"They told me not to let nobody in this country touch it. If ya..if anything ever goes on it, come back to Turkey and we'll try and sort it out for you."

"My specialist knows he can't touch it. He is..was actually Turkish Mr.Sofa(?) and he knew he couldn't touch it."

"Over here they said they'd o' just put a brace on me. Well, when I was in Turkey they said if they'd of...didn't operate then, I'd only walk for five years and then my back'd give way on it's own, so..an' that was another reason that I will not...." [interrupted]

He never stated that he would not let anyone other than a Turkish GP examine him, but the Turkish GP had stated if any further work was necessary he should perform the operation.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 4, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Who were you expecting? Peter Ustinov or something?


Sorry?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 4, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Sorry?


You seem to be operating under the impression that this 20yo kid from Oldham living with a fucked up back should be some worldly wise raconteur. He's not.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 4, 2009)

Hmm. Lets leave it there then.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 4, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> You seem to be operating under the impression that this 20yo kid from Oldham living with a fucked up back should be some worldly wise raconteur.


Not to mention dead.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 4, 2009)

gabi said:


> The government for whatever stupid reason is reviewing every single sick case at the moment and if I was him and was genuinely injured I would just go to a local doc and get a written confirmation. This for whatever reason wasn't an option for the kid. It may be distrust of the local authorities as you say though.



he was on dihydrocodeine everyday, thats a pretty serious scrip and only given to people in chronic pain, it would also be regularly reviewed


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 4, 2009)

ukbix said:


> who asks prewritten questions from a computer screen, and conducts a short medical of anywhere from 5 minutes  to 1.5 hours (max) and has no specialist training or equipment etc.



Who also suggested answers to the interviewee (as we saw the atos interviewer do with the lad with the broken back).


----------



## ukbix (Sep 4, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Who also suggested answers to the interviewee (as we saw the atos interviewer do with the lad with the broken back).



Indeed, they do, as their guidance tells them to use the pre-defined answers supplied by LIMA (the software she was using) - they are meant to be able to over-ride the standard answers and enter free text, but they are discouraged from doing so, and should they do so they have to spend additional time fully justifying why they did so. Its not common, that I am aware of, for them to use anything more than the standard answers in the majority of cases.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 4, 2009)

Not read the whole thread but some of the more recent comments about Kieron pissed me off so hey.

I too thought his Dad was giving mixed messages, one breath saying he wanted him to do something, next minute saying he could't work. I got the picture that Dad is frustrated and not able to motivate him and Kieron probably thinks his Dad moans a lot and if he could move out he would. (I did that when my Dad got on my case but the choice isn't there thesedays). Kieron's story was incredibly sad IMO, he *could* do something but he doesn't appear to have anyone around him to motivate him. I can't see him  forming that kind of relationship with an agency that's being forced upon him. The suggestions that his claim was a blag don't warrant a response IMO, they're consistent with both the demonisation of young people and the shit benefits claimants have to put up with all the time. The fact he could see through the sort of shit these agencies come up with says to me he has more sense than the sort of people who would make those kind of assertions.

As for the depressed woman, I was pissed off at the program makers. I didn't need to know about her abuse to know she was a wreck. I'd like to think there was some professional help for her rather than those amateurs from Shaw Trust.


----------



## Urbanblues (Sep 4, 2009)

smokedout said:


> he was on dihydrocodeine everyday, thats a pretty serious scrip and only given to people in chronic pain, it would also be regularly reviewed



I'm on dihydrocodeine; and yes, it is a heavyweight amongst pain killers, just below the super-heavyweight division of morphine. I've now been on DF 118’s for quite a few years; yet, I’m only reviewed on an annual basis.

I do hope that lad from programme isn’t taking the dosage I watched him take on a daily basis, even if these are prescribed. Because I’ve been taking strong pain killers for over 20-years I’m very careful about how frequently I use DF 118s. 

For years I’ve only taken DHC when the pain becomes pretty intolerable. I’ve found I can live with moderate to high levels of pain; sure, it knackers me, but at least my stomach and other vital organs are not being attacked by the deleterious effects taking powerful meds long term.

Problem now is this. My GP’s aware of how I manage my pain; and, in general she’s in agreement; that is, if I can do without pumping pills every day, so be it. However, if I was on benefits, unable to work due to disability, I could be forced to take the meds every day in order that I function well enough to go to work.

They can also force people into having surgical procedures or operations if a doctor tells them that such and such an operation could improve someone’s condition. Apparently, there is an operation I could have on my spine to ‘improve’ my condition. By all accounts the procedure is very hit and miss; my rheumatologist wasn’t too positive of it being a success when we spoke about it a few years ago. 

Two people I know who’ve had the operation are now permanent wheelchair users; at least I can operate over short distances outside my wheelchair.

I do hope the poor sod from the programme last night appeals against the DWP findings. It’s a fucking outrage that they can allow anyone but a qualified doctor to carry out those examinations. Doctors and the BMA should be beating a path to the doors of the DWP while howling their indignation at these practices.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 4, 2009)

The thing I want to know is that if you do go and get yourself work does it automatically knock you off the DLA for good and if you lose that job for whatever reason will you have to go back onto basic JSA instead of the sick?

Seems like the whole carrot approach of helping those with disabilities into work is little more than a trap to bolt the door behind them.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 4, 2009)

You can get DLA while working I think.


----------



## Urbanblues (Sep 4, 2009)

Chip Barm said:


> You can get DLA while working I think.



DLA is a non-means tested benefit. Therefore, you can receive DLA while working. Although, there is an impression that DLA is there to help people on IB into work; the reality can sometimes be different. 

For instance; a friend of mine was on the HRM and HRC components of DLA. She was persuaded by a DEA to take on a job; she was also assured that her DLA was safe. Being an honest kind she wrote to the DLA office reporting ‘a change in circumstances’.

Within several weeks she’d been downwardly reassessed for the Care component of DLA. As a result she lost her LA Care Package, as she no longer qualified as she wasn’t on HRC; and, within a few weeks she packed in the job as she was unable to physically get herself ready for work.

It’s the old story. They promise you the earth; then, when you commit yourself...SPLAT! The safety net is removed.


----------



## ukbix (Sep 4, 2009)

Urbanblues said:


> I'm on dihydrocodeine; and yes, it is a heavyweight amongst pain killers, just below the super-heavyweight division of morphine. I've now been on DF 118’s for quite a few years; yet, I’m only reviewed on an annual basis.
> 
> I do hope that lad from programme isn’t taking the dosage I watched him take on a daily basis, even if these are prescribed. Because I’ve been taking strong pain killers for over 20-years I’m very careful about how frequently I use DF 118s.
> 
> ...



I wonder how long it will be before a medically unqualified person at the job centre will be granted the power to say to someone in a situation like yours, if you dont have that operation - your benefits will be sanctioned.

It may sound hitlerish, but they are already planning to do similar to addicts, its in the welfare reforms, they can state a treatment or regime or medical procedure they want the addict to undergo, and if they dont, bye bye benefits.

(and if they think you may be a addict they will have the power to request a urine sample at the jobcentre) - once this is all in place, its a matter of simply adding amendments to the bill to extend it to more varied circumstances......


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 4, 2009)

ukbix said:


> ...and if they think you may be a addict they will have the power to request a urine sample at the jobcentre



That is outrageous.


----------



## ukbix (Sep 4, 2009)

have a read of 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90625-gc0004.htm

part of the parliament debate about the welfare reforms...


----------



## smokedout (Sep 4, 2009)

revol68 said:


> The thing I want to know is that if you do go and get yourself work does it automatically knock you off the DLA for good and if you lose that job for whatever reason will you have to go back onto basic JSA instead of the sick?



it wouldnt knock you off dla, but it would knock you off incapacity benefit, which is means tested

when i worked somewhere we had to be carefull about accepting people on ib, because it could be argued that if someone was fit enough to attend one of the couple of training sessions we offered a week then that could be used as evidence that they were fit to work


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 5, 2009)

Urbanblues said:


> I'm on dihydrocodeine; and yes, it is a heavyweight amongst pain killers, just below the super-heavyweight division of morphine. I've now been on DF 118’s for quite a few years; yet, I’m only reviewed on an annual basis.
> 
> I do hope that lad from programme isn’t taking the dosage I watched him take on a daily basis, even if these are prescribed. Because I’ve been taking strong pain killers for over 20-years I’m very careful about how frequently I use DF 118s.
> 
> ...


So why aren't doctors more vocal (if they aren't) about unqualified persons riding roughshod over their expertise? I would be steaming if that was how i was professionally regarded.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 5, 2009)

JHE said:


> Tonight's episode was slightly less interesting than the other two, IMO, but my goodness I learnt something about the policy of getting people off 'the sick'!
> 
> I knew, of course, that there is talk of looking at what people can do rather than what they can't do.  OK, I thought, but what does this amount to in practice?
> 
> ...




What, were we watching the same programme?

The fact that he was able to play football ok, and twice was seen on camera to bend down at home without any problem at all, and yet in the interview couldnt bend at all withiout crying out for his mother to help him. Sure gave me the impression he was coming it!


----------



## 1927 (Sep 5, 2009)

gabi said:


> You actually believed his story about the fall in Turkey? How he couldn't see a UK doctor to verify his story because the Turkish doctors were the only ones who could look after him? HA! HAHAH!



I'd forgotten that bit.

So the UK authorities are supposed to take his word that no doctoir in thne UK can touch his back! I couldnt believe what I was hearing and noone challenged him on it, from what we saw.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 5, 2009)

1927 said:


> What, were we watching the same programme?
> 
> The fact that he was able to play football ok, and twice was seen on camera to bend down at home without any problem at all, and yet in the interview couldnt bend at all withiout crying out for his mother to help him. Sure gave me the impression he was coming it!



Obviously not, since not only was not playing football at all and when he did attempt to bend down he did experience pain. Perhaps he didn't express his pain to your liking. Should he have been wired up to some form of pain monitor so we could have measured him? 

I've read an awful lot of rubbish like this on forums since this show aired, and I'm frankly really disgusted at the attitude too many people seem to have. Do you think you are able to medically diagnose and quantify someone's condition just by watching them, or is it more likely you are simply prejudiced?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 5, 2009)

1927 said:


> I'd forgotten that bit.
> 
> So the UK authorities are supposed to take his word that no doctoir in thne UK can touch his back! I couldnt believe what I was hearing and noone challenged him on it, from what we saw.


I would think the UK authorities (presumably you mean the DWP) would take note of the people it employs to deal with health problems. We call them doctors, join us!

What kind of slippery slope do you want to skate down if you think that not even qualified GPs (to say the least) can be trusted? This is not just ridiculous, it's scandalous.


----------



## ukbix (Sep 6, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I would think the UK authorities (presumably you mean the DWP) would take note of the people it employs to deal with health problems. We call them doctors, join us!
> 
> What kind of slippery slope do you want to skate down if you think that not even qualified GPs (to say the least) can be trusted? This is not just ridiculous, it's scandalous.



In the case of incapacity benefift, the dwp give more weight to an ATOS assessment (which in the case of a mental health assessment is often done by a nurse, not a doctor) than they do to reports from a family GP, specialist or CPN etc.

Oddly for DLA, its meant to be the opposite (for mental health cases) with the atos assessment not regarded as the best form of evidence.

The DWP put little weight on GP evidence, unless its a GP employed by atos.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 6, 2009)

These assessments don't seem to be done by nurses _or _doctors. I wonder what the credentials of that woman interviewing him in the film were?

Is there no room for interviewees to reject/complain at the interview stage about a potential interviewer's lack of applicable credentials? Or would that just tick the scrounger box?


----------



## Upchuck (Sep 6, 2009)

I watched this programme and I was wondering what Kieron was going to do for the rest of his life if he remained on the sick.  Would he ever work?  What would he do?  I agree he had a bad back but could work in some capacity, and it would be good for him.  He was just negative and lost.  The alkie girl was in no way suitable for work.  A more broken person I have not seen for some time.  I think the state owes someone like her and should take care of her.  She was one who should not have been referred to The Shaw Trust.

On the whole I thought the workers were ok.  The ex-car saleswoman was busineslike and fair I thought.  She was also very patient as I would have lost it with a few of those clients.  The target based approach was wrong in an industry like that, as I felt the staff took the job seriously and really did want to help people, but the target system cheapened and pressurised the whole thing.

It was the least interesting of the 3, but it raised some interesting issues.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 6, 2009)

Urbanblues said:


> I'm on dihydrocodeine; and yes, it is a heavyweight amongst pain killers, just below the super-heavyweight division of morphine. I've now been on DF 118’s for quite a few years; yet, I’m only reviewed on an annual basis.
> 
> I do hope that lad from programme isn’t taking the dosage I watched him take on a daily basis, even if these are prescribed. Because I’ve been taking strong pain killers for over 20-years I’m very careful about how frequently I use DF 118s.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately unqualified people managing to turn down sick people's claims isn't a new thing. 

I hope they don't get to the point of being able to force someone to go in for risky surgery, though. Surely at some point they need to listen to the advice of specialists and doctors!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 6, 2009)

business like and fair eh?

She was a pinch faced harridan with zero interest in seeing the people who were visibly fed up with being there as anything more than targets for her bonus.

People who think the world is a sales forecourt should NOT be working in industries such as this.


----------



## Upchuck (Sep 6, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> business like and fair eh?
> 
> She was a pinch faced harridan with zero interest in seeing the people who were visibly fed up with being there as anything more than targets for her bonus.
> 
> People who think the world is a sales forecourt should NOT be working in industries such as this.



I think that's an unfair assessment of that woman.  She was doing a job that I could only last in for a couple of days, was also realistic and empathetic despite her hard facedness.  I don't think she was excessively target driven, she was buisinesslike and trying to be positive in a workplace that would get the better of most of us.  Like the people she was helping, she was merely a pawn in a bigger game.  All in all I thought she was ok.


----------



## Psychonaut (Sep 6, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Is there no room for interviewees to reject/complain at the interview stage about a potential interviewer's lack of applicable credentials? Or would that just tick the scrounger box?



from what i gather the assessment is supposed to be about the interviewer asking (often loaded and misleading) questions & filling in a form, rather than making their own judgements.

Ill be tempted to ask 'are you a nurse/doctor? well then this isnt a medical examination. lets wait until the doctor gets here' & cross my arms. Maybe not, but ill try & make some sort of protest, however meek - im assuming if you just roll over submissively and not vigilantly second-guess the line of questioning ill be fucked anyway.


----------

