"Human Rights" strikes again.

Degenerate

If she'd been offered a paid job at Poundland and refused it, I'd be totally in favour of stopping her benefits. I don't think anyone who is dependent on benefits has the right to reject an employment opportunity just because they think the work is beneath them.

On the other hand, I'm at a loss to see the benefit of working for two weeks as the lowest retail dogsbody for free.

I think the key question with any scheme like this is whether it contributes in a meaningful way to the participant's future employability. Sweeping the floor and stacking shelves at Poundland quite obviously does not. After the five minutes it took to tell her which end of the broom to hold and which shelves to stack, all they were getting was free labour. This is not a job which requires significant training or experience.

Holding this up as an example of wacky "Human Rights" cases is totally missing the point. This scheme is clearly ill-concieved and counterproductive in its present form. Good on her for having the guts to fight her corner and expose it for what it is.

ankspon

She was already volunteering in a position relevant to her qualifications,why then should she be stopped from doing that and do a totally irrelevant position or face losing her benefits,it is a disgrace.

robpw2

she is not suing them , she is seeking judicial review , there is a huge difference

Graham_Devon

Volunteering is a greyish area.

If you volunteer while on JSA, the rules are pretty straightforward...

Volunteering shouldn’t affect your right to benefits, as long as the only money you receive is to cover your volunteering expenses. For example, expenses to cover travel from home to the volunteering location.

There are no limits on the amount of time you can volunteer for, nor any restrictions on the types of organisation you can volunteer for. The only requirement is that you continue to meet the conditions of the benefit or tax credit you are receiving.

What is classed as volunteering isn't going to help this girls "case".

In terms of benefits and tax credits, you will be considered as being a volunteer if you:

• do not receive any money for the work you do (this does not include expenses)
• are not legally obliged to volunteer
• do something for a not-for-profit organisation
• do something for someone who is not a family member

If you receive any money apart from money to cover your expenses this will usually be treated as income and taken into account when assessing your benefit. This includes payment in kind and ‘pocket money’. If you are not sure about anything you are given above your expenses contact your benefits adviser.

If you choose not be paid for any work you do this is not the same as volunteering. The wage you would normally receive could be counted as ‘notional earnings’. If you receive an income-related benefit, such as Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing or Council Tax benefit, it could affect the benefits you receive.

We don't know whether she's an active volunteer....or whether she's choosing to work there for no pay.

Either way, we can't just pick and choose what we wish to do and then expect taxpayer funded contributions. So she's in the wrong here.

If she's honestly volunteering, then theres really no issue. She does her two week stint, then goes back to what she was doing in the museum. Simple really. She just does not want to do the 2 week stint...there really is nothing more to it, hence looking at her human rights to try and get out of it.

It does NOT sound like she is looking for work in a general sense. Rather hoping something leads to a job, which it may well do. On the other hand, it may not.

Degenerate

robpw2 wrote: »

she is not suing them , she is seeking judicial review , there is a huge difference

Very good point. In typical Daily Fail style, they failed to make this distinction in their headline.

So basically, she's not seeking a payout. she's just asking the courts to set the Government straight.

Graham_Devon

Degenerate wrote: »

On the other hand, I'm at a loss to see the benefit of working for two weeks as the lowest retail dogsbody for free.

It may not be meaningful to her chosen career.

But is IS meaningful in the sense that we want to get the point across to people that benefits are not a choice, and not a ay of life.

If people start thinking they are going to have to actively do something to carry on claiming, it's more likely that they may think "oh well, may aswell better myself then and start looking for something proper if I'm going to have to go through this to no benefit to myself".

We can't pick and choose who has to abide by the rules, and who doesn't based on what they do with their own time....however beneficial that may be. Afterall, they can go back to doing it straight after their inconvinience.

This girl has simply returned to the museum doing exactly what she was. So it seems she simply didn't like the inconvinience.

robpw2

Degenerate wrote: »

Very good point. In typical Daily Fail style, they failed to make this distinction in their headline.

So basically, she's not seeking a payout. she's just asking the courts to set the Government straight.

essentially yes , it does go on further down to say which descision she is seeking a judicial review of ,
it wouldnt make a very good story if people didnt think she was a money grabbing scrounger though would it

Graham_Devon

Degenerate wrote: »

Very good point. In typical Daily Fail style, they failed to make this distinction in their headline.

So basically, she's not seeking a payout. she's just asking the courts to set the Government straight.

And do you think if they are succesful, and the courts deem her human rights WERE broken...there will be no payout?

Pull the other one.

drc

I don't have a problem with her working for free for a couple of weeks but I don't think she should be working for big companies as free labour. Working for a charity or in an old peoples home would probably be more helpful to society than helping the profits of Poundland or Tesco.

robpw2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And do you think if they are succesful, and the courts deem her human rights WERE broken...there will be no payout?

Pull the other one.

by seeking a judicial reveiw the only thing the courts can do is to put her in the position she would have been if this descision had not been made which would be back on job seekers without sanction .

she would have to sue them for compensation based on breach of human rights at the same time now it doesnt say that she is doing that