/ Benefits sanctions report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Rog Wilko on 30 Nov 2016
Interesting article in today's Guardian about a report from the Audit Commission. Their conclusion is that benefit sanctions don't work and in addition cost more to implement than they save. So it's true - they're all about punishing people for being in dire straits and struggling to make a living. Just wondering if the same report is highlighted in The Mail, Sun, Express or Telegraph. No, thought not.
Hugh J - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Expect Big Ger, Indy, Jim C, Jim 1009 et al to be along presently!
Shani - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

> Expect Big Ger, Indy, Jim C, Jim 1009 et al to be along presently!

Is summo washing his hair?
Timmd on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Rog Wilko:
As a liberal hand wringing lefty, I'm not sure if the costs involved mean that they 'are' all about punishing people (in intention), but it does seem like the costs involved mean it's definitely worth stopping imposing them. It'd stop some needless hardship from happening to people too.
Post edited at 17:39
marsbar - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Rog Wilko:

This week I heard that a young woman had her benefits sanctioned. She couldn't make an appointment at the jobcentre because she was in the hospital with her premature baby. Lucky for her a local food bank helped her out. In the past the jobcentre would have been able to make the common sense decision that this was a good reason to miss an appointment, now the staff there can't over ride the system. Instead it will go to appeal, she will probably win the appeal and it will cost far more in administration and in the cost of supporting her to appeal. Meanwhile she would have no food if it wasn't for charity. Beyond ridiculous.
Timmd on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> Meanwhile she would have no food if it wasn't for charity. Beyond ridiculous.

Yes it is.

Shani - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Timmd:

In contrast, throwing these same resources in to tackling aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion would probably be quite fruitful!
captain paranoia - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Most of the 'benefit limiting' systems introduced recently are far more about political ideology than about pragmatic measures to reduce cost.

Helped along if the 'service' can be outsourced to a 'friendly' supplier.
Rog Wilko on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Rog Wilko:

I guess I'm just easily manipulated but my feelings about this issue were influenced by seeing I, Daniel Blake. The film could be described as propaganda but still contains a lot of truths, i believe, as it corresponds with other stories I've read.
Timmd on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Rog Wilko:
> I guess I'm just easily manipulated but my feelings about this issue were influenced by seeing I, Daniel Blake. The film could be described as propaganda but still contains a lot of truths, i believe, as it corresponds with other stories I've read.

I'm in whole hearted agreement about the truths reflected in I Daniel Blake. Maybe I'm giving the people behind the sanctions idea too much credit.
Post edited at 19:10
BnB - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

> Expect Big Ger, Indy, Jim C, Jim 1009 et al to be along presently!

I might be misinterpreting your post, but this feels to me like the third time in a few days that the forum has reflected the worst of the school playground. I'm no paragon but can we try to be a little less tribal before someone shoves a stake up a pig's arse and the fat kid breaks his glasses.
Big Ger - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

> Expect Big Ger, Indy, Jim C, Jim 1009 et al to be along presently!

Now then,

Q: when have I ever supported, indicate I support, or given any indication that I think these sanctions are in any way a good thing?
A: I haven't, because I do not.
Q: Why not?
A: Because they have limited effectiveness, little evidence to support them, and are wrongly targeted.

My sister, who is on disability benefits, was hit by the bedroom tax, I now susbsidise her income.

The trouble with some, many even, of the left wingers here is that they are so wrapped up in the righteousness of their left wing religiously held beliefs, they fail to see that others may have more open viewpoints.
Shani - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> The trouble with some, many even, of the left wingers here is that they are so wrapped up in the righteousness of their left wing religiously held beliefs, they fail to see that others may have more open viewpoints.

We should get rid of those out dated ideological labels and follow evidence. That's the real challenge (and given your statement above, one i think you'll struggle with).
MG - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> Q: when have I ever supported, indicate I support, or given any indication that I think these sanctions are in any way a good thing?

Many indications in many posts over long a period. If you don't, that is out of your posting character
Post edited at 20:59
Big Ger - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

None of which you can be bothered to look up*.

Typical of your blindness.



* Don't bother, they only exist in your fantasy world.
Big Ger - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Shani:

> We should get rid of those out dated ideological labels and follow evidence.

Ok, there is my evidence, my words and feelings and statement.

Where is your contradiction of this?

> We should get rid of those out dated ideological labels and follow evidence.

Oh, mote and beam, mote and beam!!

Shani - on 17:25 Wed
In reply to Hugh J:

> Expect Big Ger, Indy, Jim C, Jim 1009 et al to be along presently!

Is summo washing his hair?



Shani - on 15:19 Wed
<Logs on to UKC. Once again sees Summo & Big Ger at the bottom of a very deep hole. Smiles. Logs off again.>






MG - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> None of which you can be bothered to look up*.

No, I've looked up many. They give the clear indication your have disdain for those less fortunate than you (eg secretaries on the other thread) hence it is surprising you don't support benefit sanctions.
Hugh J - on 30 Nov 2016
Big Ger - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to MG:

> No, I've looked up many. They give the clear indication your have disdain for those less fortunate than you (eg secretaries on the other thread) hence it is surprising you don't support benefit sanctions.

LOL!! you were just about to quote those things you'd looked up, or my "disdain" for the secretaries weren't you?

You're a very sad person.

Hugh J - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Sorry Big Ger, have I invaded your safe space?
birdie num num - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> This week I heard that a young woman had her benefits sanctioned. She couldn't make an appointment at the jobc…blah blah. Beyond ridiculous.

It's heartening to see that the frustrations of civil service boring box ticking jobs worth pedantic government formalities spans all the administrations. The grass is never greener.
marsbar - on 18:59 Sat
In reply to Rog Wilko:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blind-man-benefits-axed-after-9380033

Benefits stopped after man who is blind can't read letter. I thought it was the daily mash when I saw it, but sadly it's true. Ffs.
Bootrock on 18:58 Sun
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> So it's true - they're all about punishing people for being in dire straits and struggling to make a living.

Get a grip. I was homeless and I didn't claim benefits, food banks or any of that pish, I dragged myself out of it because none owes me anything, I didn't want a handout. I didnt expect other people to drag me out. The biggest expenditure in the UK is bloody welfare. Welfare fairies sucking the cash out of the hard working people. The actual people making a living ad paying taxes to fund these jokers free ride.

Its past the time to get it sorted. It needs streamlined and regulated. You can give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, you give him a rod to catch his own fish and he breaks it, throws it away, and proclaims its everyone else's responsibility to buy him fish.


Lusk - on 19:08 Sun
In reply to Bootrock:

> The biggest expenditure in the UK is bloody welfare.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

Well, we could get rid of Pensions, Incapacity, disability & injury benefits straight off.
If everyone got paid a decent wage, Housing and Family benefits, income support & tax credits could go as well.
That only leaves Unemployment and Personal social services and other benefits, may as well get rid of those while we're at it.

Job done!
Bootrock on 19:25 Sun
In reply to Lusk:


> Well, we could get rid of Pensions, Incapacity, disability & injury benefits straight off.

> If everyone got paid a decent wage, Housing and Family benefits, income support & tax credits could go as well.

> That only leaves Unemployment and Personal social services and other benefits, may as well get rid of those while we're at it.

> Job done!


Pensions area already getting slashed and changed and manipulated anyway. How about correct regulation of it so we stop getting welfare fairies ripping the piss.
I don't get a decent wage, well below average. Infant I don't think I have ever been above the so called "Average Wage".
If we spent less on welfare, thats more cash to spend on Public Services and infrastructure.

Family benefits? Like the chavvy tramps popping out babies to different dads and getting free money and a council house. Expecting us that pay tax to pay for their inability to keep their legs closed.

Well is unemployment high, because being in the EU with freedom of movement its forcing cheap labour and low wages?





Bulls Crack - on 19:28 Sun
In reply to Bootrock:

So, whilst the man is off fishing what do you recommend the single mum with 3 kids does?
Bootrock on 19:33 Sun
In reply to Bulls Crack:
> So, whilst the man is off fishing what do you recommend the single mum with 3 kids does?

Close her legs and Stop being a hoe, she don't need the latest iPhone or Tracksui. And lets face it, the bloke isn't away fishing, he's away on Jeremy Kyle with some other skank he has impregnated, and the 3 kids have 3 different dads, that should be enough CSA payments to cover her nights out, Kebabs and tattoos while her parents get lumped with looking after the unruly, rude, obnoxious little shits, because the have no structure, no role model, or discipline.


Quite frankly, if you can't afford kids, then why should I be the one to pay for them? And if your going to get given a quick 10 minute knee shaker round the back of the local pub, you gotta be prepared of the consequences of your actions.
Post edited at 19:35
MonkeyPuzzle - on 19:45 Sun
In reply to Bootrock:

Your opinion is a parody of itself.
abr1966 - on 19:55 Sun
In reply to Bootrock:

When I came out of the forces I claimed benefits for a short time....was I a 'Welfare Fairy' then?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Timmd on 19:58 Sun
In reply to Bootrock:
> Close her legs and Stop being a hoe, she don't need the latest iPhone or Tracksui. And lets face it, the bloke isn't away fishing, he's away on Jeremy Kyle with some other skank he has impregnated, and the 3 kids have 3 different dads, that should be enough CSA payments to cover her nights out, Kebabs and tattoos while her parents get lumped with looking after the unruly, rude, obnoxious little shits, because the have no structure, no role model, or discipline.

> Quite frankly, if you can't afford kids, then why should I be the one to pay for them? And if your going to get given a quick 10 minute knee shaker round the back of the local pub, you gotta be prepared of the consequences of your actions.

Are you for real in posting this?

Edit: I'm sure nobody on this earth has ever had a partner die, or had a relationship break down (or had to leave an abusive partner), nope, not ever, not at all...


Post edited at 20:10
Timmd on 20:00 Sun
In reply to abr1966:
> When I came out of the forces I claimed benefits for a short time....was I a 'Welfare Fairy' then?

I must be a welfare fairy by being on benefits and looking for work at the mo, after being on benefits while I've dealt with panic attacks and the like.

Good job I've enough self esteem to not take posts about people on benefits to heart. ;-)
Post edited at 20:02
Bootrock on 20:49 Sun
In reply to abr1966:
I ended up homeless. I didn't claim any. So yea mate you are.... ;)
Post edited at 20:54
Bootrock on 20:52 Sun
In reply to Timmd:

I was taking the piss a bit. Still stand by the point that the welfare needs revamped, rewritten and regulated. A girl I know through a friend of mine openly brags about playing the system to get a tit job, she wasn't impressed when I expressed my disgust at it.

Theres genuine people who could use the help, and theres a lot of people using the system for a quick buck, or get given welfare when they really don't need it.

EddInaBox on 22:03 Sun
In reply to Bootrock:

> ... How about correct regulation of it so we stop getting welfare fairies ripping the piss.

Sounds good because it's simple, the trouble is it's a bit light on the actual detail regarding how to implement your proposal, it's a complicated problem that does not have a simple solution. Whilst there are undoubtedly people claiming benefits that they don't deserve or need, but are technically entitled to, there is an overlap between them and the people who do need and deserve the support. It is not possible to come up with practicable rules that differentiate between the two, the options are: tolerate a level of support that means most people get the benefits they need but some people take unfair advantage; make rules to stop people taking unfair advantage but accept that some people who need and deserve help will be destitute; do away with the rules but assess every claimant individually and leave it to the assessor's judgement as to whether the claim is valid (which would cost a huge amount to implement and lead to inconsistency, unfairness and we would still have cases where some undeserving cases manage to fool their assessor and some deserving cases are denied support).

> Family benefits? Like the chavvy tramps popping out babies to different dads and getting free money and a council house. Expecting us that pay tax to pay for their inability to keep their legs closed.

Sounds good because it's simple, but you're conveniently forgetting the children in this scenario. Are you prepared to write off the children and make them homeless and destitute in order to punish the parents?

> > So, whilst the man is off fishing what do you recommend the single mum with 3 kids does?

> Close her legs and Stop being a hoe... and the 3 kids have 3 different dads, that should be enough CSA payments to cover her nights out, Kebabs and tattoos while her parents get lumped with looking after the unruly, rude, obnoxious little shits, because the have no structure, no role model, or discipline.

Sounds like you already have written them off.
RomTheBear on 06:56 Mon
In reply to Bootrock:

> I was taking the piss a bit. Still stand by the point that the welfare needs revamped, rewritten and regulated. A girl I know through a friend of mine openly brags about playing the system to get a tit job, she wasn't impressed when I expressed my disgust at it.

What a coincidence that sounds exactly like the usual tabloid story we've heard dozens of times.
Zero point for originality in your little made up story.

Big Ger - on 07:10 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

Said UKC's answer to Hans Christian Anderson!
newishclimber on 08:18 Mon
In reply to Lusk:

It's complicated. P



> Well, we could get rid of Pensions, Incapacity, disability & injury benefits straight off.

> If everyone got paid a decent wage, Housing and Family benefits, income support & tax credits could go as well.

> That only leaves Unemployment and Personal social services and other benefits, may as well get rid of those while we're at it.

> Job done!
I know the quoted both might be tongue in cheek but...
People do take advantage but there are others who never intended to be single mums with different fathers each time who work really hard, work loads of hours and need help that comes from benefits.
newishclimber on 08:24 Mon
But yIn reply to Bootrock:

> Close her legs and Stop being a hoe, she don't need the latest iPhone or Tracksui. And lets face it, the bloke isn't away fishing, he's away on Jeremy Kyle with some other skank he has impregnated, and the 3 kids have 3 different dads, that should be enough CSA payments to cover her nights out, Kebabs and tattoos while her parents get lumped with looking after the unruly, rude, obnoxious little shits, because the have no structure, no role model, or discipline.

> Quite frankly, if you can't afford kids, then why should I be the one to pay for them? And if your going to get given a quick 10 minute knee shaker round the back of the local pub, you gotta be prepared of the consequences of your actions.

But you don't know if that was the case. What about rape cases or abusers? What if the woman is psychologically not healthy or aware and thinks this is the pattern she follows to be safe?

Also there's insinuation I your comment that these women are idiots or not clever but some single mothers are incredibly clever and bright enough to know that if two people create a life as a mistake, both should be responsible. The welfare system in it's current state knows full well that a man can just walk away leaving the woman in financial difficulties even if she works.
Bootrock on 10:42 Mon
In reply to newishclimber:


> But you don't know if that was the case. What about rape cases or abusers? What if the woman is psychologically not healthy or aware and thinks this is the pattern she follows to be safe?

my comment was a bit of a piss take.

> Also there's insinuation I your comment that these women are idiots or not clever but some single mothers are incredibly clever and bright enough to know that if two people create a life as a mistake, both should be responsible. The welfare system in it's current state knows full well that a man can just walk away leaving the woman in financial difficulties even if she works.

no they cant. CSA hunts blokes down and rips money away from them. and even when presentednwith evidence that the CSA money gets used.to buy new shoes, the man still has to pay. of anything the system is geared completely in favournof the woman.

a mate of mine had to fight tootg and nail to keeo his son from his junkie mum, who didnt want him or show interest and the son himself stated he wanted to stay with his dad. a lengthy court battle where the mother didnt even bother turning up half the time, causing more time wasted.

another mate had his wife walk out on him with an affair and take the kids, he barely sees them, and the CSA money was spent on putting a new kitchen in the ex wifes new house.

another mate got a girl pregnant, he wanted to keep it and offered money, owned up to his responsibilities, she didnt and got an abortion without telling him or asking him. he was devestated.

the system is completely geared in favour of the woman.



Bootrock on 10:44 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> What a coincidence that sounds exactly like the usual tabloid story we've heard dozens of times.

> Zero point for originality in your little made up story.


i am not talking about that little slag that was in the papers. although she would have been betternoff asking for a nose job.on thr NHS.

Beleive me or not, i couldnt care less, the look on her face when i had a row at her is all i needed.

EddInaBox on 11:20 Mon
In reply to Bootrock:

> ...another mate had his wife walk out on him with an affair and take the kids, he barely sees them, and the CSA money was spent on putting a new kitchen in the ex wifes new house.

You've completely swayed me with your anecdotal evidence. You're right, why would a woman need a kitchen when she can just give the kids £5 each and send them off to Maccy Ds?
RomTheBear on 11:28 Mon
In reply to Bootrock:
> Beleive me or not,

I don't. That you would openly insult a women on her looks, that, I believe though.
Post edited at 11:32
Rob Exile Ward on 11:33 Mon
In reply to Bootrock:

Sounds like you need a different set of 'mates'.
newishclimber on 14:18 Mon
In reply to Bootrock:

Those are situations that do happen, sure, but it's certainly not true for everyone. Working backwards, if I was going for anecdotal evidence I'd point out my male friend who won custody of his children because the mother was unfit.

The system isn't totally geared in favour of women but rather in favour of equality. Usually the woman raises the child because she has the physical ability to satisfy its needs. The Department for Health, for example, and NHS, say that breastfeeding is very important for a child's development and well-being (loads of literature on this). A woman can't do this if she has to go out to work so where does the money come from? It should come from the father.

I agree with the unfairness about your friend who wanted to keep the baby - that was very unfair of his ex.

As for your friend's ex who 'got a new kitchen with CSA money' - how on earth do you know this is true??!! How do you not know that maybe she needed the kitchen to provide proper food for her children? How do you know that it was the CSA money and not money from another source that paid for the kitchen?

If the 'system' wasn't in existence, men would be able to walk away from their responsibilities (some men, not all I grant you) and leave women high and dry. The father of my child and I have a private arrangement where we don't involve the CSA and he pays me yet I know he's paying me far less than he should according to his wage and our daughter's needs. Is that fair? No, but luckily I work so can manage... but the ethics are an entirely different matter.
Timmd on 14:26 Mon
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Sounds like you need a different set of 'mates'.

That's not very fair.

I know two females who've had abusive boyfriends many years ago.

His male friends having problems with females doesn't mean a lot...
Post edited at 14:27
C Witter on 18:47 Mon
In reply to Rog Wilko:

Unfortunately, benefits sanctions are not simply about punishing people; they're also part of an electoral strategy. The sad truth is, sadism appeals to some people...
Hugh J - on 18:53 Mon
In reply to C Witter:

> Unfortunately, benefits sanctions are not simply about punishing people; they're also part of an electoral strategy. The sad truth is, sadism appeals to some people...

And a drop in the ocean compared to how much the friends of the Tories avoid in paying tax.

I know someone who is a tax lawyer and there on 500K a year! Just how much is he saving for his clients?
C Witter on 21:34 Mon
In reply to Hugh J:

It's not just that; this so-called "welfare" used to be called "social security"; you pay for it every day you work, so it's not a hand out. Note that most people claiming "benefits" (not counting pensions) are working people.

But, even working-class people today hate working-class people. Just listen to Bootrock. Why? A concerted effort on all fronts (from flawed 1 dimensional history lessons at school to the news to the latest TV drama), to portray the working class as a waste of space. More than half of whom, of course, are women... think about the image of the single mothers that circulates in the popular imaginary... and again witness Bootrock's patent misogyny.

That's how insidious this long-running political strategy is - brought into being by the Tories and continued by New Labour.
baron - on 21:38 Mon
In reply to C Witter:
Flawed history lessons at school?
Not where I teach!

aln - on 22:12 Mon
In reply to Big Ger:

>You're a very sad person.

You're a horrible person. Why do you insist on spreading your nastiness all over this forum? And you're a psychologist? Whatever that is.

Big Ger - on 22:33 Mon
In reply to aln:

As I say, I only insult those who insult me first.

And there's me thinking you weren't talking to me darling, kiss and make up?
aln - on 22:39 Mon
In reply to Big Ger:

What do you get out of being so unpleasant?
Party Boy on 23:11 Mon
In reply to aln:

> What do you get out of being so unpleasant?

I'm guessing he gets through a lot of tissues getting excited about pathetic trolling! Being number 1 poster effectively means you need to get a life...
aln - on 23:15 Mon
In reply to Party Boy:

That's a possibility. He's a sad nasty person, pity his patients...
aln - on 23:52 Mon
In reply to Big Ger:

> As I say, I only insult those who insult me first.

There's an alternative...
Big Ger - on 01:07 Tue
In reply to Party Boy:

Seeing as I have never ever addressed a post to you, your vitriol marks you down as a troll of the worse kind.
Big Ger - on 01:08 Tue
In reply to aln:

> There's an alternative...

If the alternative is that you don't follow me about whining about my replies to other people, then grab it with both hands darling.
C Witter on 10:04 Tue
In reply to baron:

Glad to hear it, Baron!

But, it's amazing to think how many school children get through their so-called history lessons without having discussed enclosure, the development of the proletariat, colonialism, international socialism, the complicity of the British aristocracy with fascism, the role of working-class struggle in creating post-war social institutions (e.g. NHS), the genocides committed by imperial powers trying to hold onto their empires... ...the attempt by the Tories to crush working-class power in the 1970s; its role in our contemporary social, political and economic crises... etc.
ads.ukclimbing.com

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.