MSE News: Government considers tougher benefit sanctions

Le73Uq86Uv

Booooooooooooo


Lets all Booooo them.

www.leftfootforward.org

rickbonar.

So the government are proposing that benefit claimants are sanctioned to live on £28.15 per week.

Sounds like a recipe for rampant crime to me.

More drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes, muggers.

All sounds fun... I suppose at least we'll have the right to shoot them!

Remember the expenses crisis when a lot government ministers complained that "we just simply can't manage to live on £65,000 a year" and that we "obviously didn't go into politics to make money".

Boris Johnson: "£250,000 is a pittance"

Mr Johnson ... I don't think your worth the £28.15 a week chum!

All the guff and propaganda with the olympics and paraolympics in particular too. What an utter waste of money.

Iain Duncan Smith:
"Never underestimate the quiet man.."

rogerblack

challfour wrote: »

I don't believe that every ESA claimant beit in the support group or work group is unable to do any type of work. Yes they may have passed certain descriptors but that isn't the same as working.

In my opinion those in the work group (who are clearly the least ill) should be made to comply with any direction that will see them back at work or actively looking for work as are those who claim JSA.
<snip>

About time they started to get tough

The problem is that MPs are making decisions and policy based on understandings like the above.
Taking for example 'who are clearly the least ill'.

Someone in the work related group could for example:
Wheel themselves slowly in a wheelchair 70m a few times a day.
Be unable to sit up for more than 30 mins at a time.
Be unable to lift a 1l container of liquid
Unable to use a pen/pencil/keyboard.
Has difficulty conveying simple messages 'Fire' to strangers.
Passes out once a month.
Can't learn how to set an alarm clock.
Frequently require supervision to avoid normal dangers.
Be unable to get to a known place without help.
Is occasionally violent.

_ALL_ of these can be true (I've missed quite a few more) and the person can be in the work-related group.

Versus someone in the support group who gets in because they can't put something in a shirt pocket with either arm.

The problem can't really be broken down into 'be more tough on group X' - because the classification is so broken.

It explicitly does _NOT_ look at employability, or the likely effect on the individual of work-related ability.

In principle, people can appeal bad decisions.
However, take someone with even a small set of the above problems listed.

They are struggling with day-day life.
Simply washing, preparing food, dealing with the unavoidable realities of life may be taking up all their time - even if they understand the often very unclear letters from the DWP, are they likely to properly understand that they've been put in the wrong group?

Or how to effectively appeal?
This is made especially fun due advice centres closing due to cuts, and legal aid funding removal from benefits cases.

Cpt.Scarlet

challfour wrote: »

I do know what I am talking about! I receive ESA myself and am in the support group.

Being in any group does not mean you can't work - it means that you have acquired at least 15 points in a descriptor test - it's not the same as saying you can't work!

Of course you can work whilst on ESA - have you never heard of the Permitted Work rules?

I know I could do 16 hours a week regularly providing that it is a job that fits in with my problems like office work etc.

When will people stop quoting the fact that if they have passed certain descriptors means that they are unable to do any type of work. It's rubbish!!

So... Do you do Permitted Work then? are you moving yourself towards full-time employment? after all everyone can do some work can't they.

constantworrier

So before they took away £28.15 as the sanction from the £99.15. Now they're thinking to take away £71.00 which leaves you with exactly the same amount of £28.15. What a strange coincidence that the amounts are exactly the same and who can live on £28.15 a week ? I thought there was a minimum amount that people were able to live on, which was fifty quid.

Face1992

rickbonar. wrote: »

So the government are proposing that benefit claimants are sanctioned to live on £28.15 per week.

Sounds like a recipe for rampant crime to me.

More drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes, muggers.

All sounds fun... I suppose at least we'll have the right to shoot them!

Remember the expenses crisis when a lot government ministers complained that "we just simply can't manage to live on £65,000 a year" and that we "obviously didn't go into politics to make money".



Mr Johnson ... I don't think your worth the £28.15 a week chum!

All the guff and propaganda with the olympics and paraolympics in particular too. What an utter waste of money.

Are you serious, are you saying that disabled people will be out doing prostiution, being drug dealers and being muggers?

dandelionclock30

I've worked with people who for one reason or another had their claim stopped and havent been able to get any money.
The result was they often shoplifted right left and centre or stole what they could from who they could.
Disability is no barr to crime which is accessable to all if people wish. Plenty of disabled people even now with the benefits at the current level are going through the courts.

Face1992

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

I've worked with people who for one reason or another had their claim stopped and havent been able to get any money.
The result was they often shoplifted right left and centre or stole what they could from who they could.
Disability is no barr to crime which is accessable to all if people wish. Plenty of disabled people even now with the benefits at the current level are going through the courts.

As prostitutes, drug dealers and pimps?:eek:

MissMoneypenny

banner188 wrote: »

In principle, nothing.
A number of problems though.

It costs a great deal to adminster, an extra cost that we don't have now.
People will sell them to people with money and make a loss and this transfers wealth from poorer to wealthier people.

It looks like Save the Children have also noticed that some parents aren't spending the childs welfare payments on their child.

"some missing out on regular hot meals or new shoes."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19478083

All that welfare money given to the parents for their child and then the child doesn't even get enough of their money, to eat a hot meal. :mad:

We are not lifting these children out of poverty, when we give childrens welfare payments to these type of parents. All we are doing is encouraging more children to be born into poverty; as children are seen as a cash cow and a way to get out of working.

clemmatis

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It looks like Save the Children have also noticed that some parents aren't spending the childs welfare payments on their child.

"some missing out on regular hot meals or new shoes."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19478083

All that welfare money given to the parents for their child and then the child doesn't even get enough of their money, to eat a hot meal. :mad:

We are not lifting these children out of poverty, when we give childrens welfare payments to these type of parents. All we are doing is encouraging more children to be born into poverty; as children are seen as a cash cow and a way to get out of working.

That isn't what the news item says, is it? (No, it isn't.) It says


"More than half the parents in poverty surveyed (61%) said they had cut back on what they ate and more than a quarter (26%) had skipped meals in the past year."

What they, the parents, ate. They, the parents, had skipped meals.

43% of the poorest children "'strongly agreed' that their parents were cutting back on things for themselves such as clothes or food"

the parents -- were cutting back on things, such as clothes and food, for themselves.

"Just under a fifth (19%) of the parents said their children sometimes had to go without new shoes when they needed them."

"Some 19% of children in poverty said they had missed out on school trips and 14% said they did not have a warm coat to wear in the winter."

Now, Miss Moneypenny, you tell me where/how this story says parents are not spending welfare payments on their children.