Sanctions

seven-day-weekend

donnajunkie wrote: »

the issue is that sanctions are far too harsh and often applied unjustly. for example i know someone who was sanctioned for not turning up for an appointment they didnt know about.

Why didn't they know about it? I expect there is more to the story than you know about.

bigboybrother

anonymousx3 wrote: »

That doesn't necessarily need to be due to an illness, just consecutive error: a hiccup per se.

So, a person should be left to starve with no means to keep themselves warm if they don't meet the demands set out by a work programme? A few hiccups is all that's needed for the person to end up being sanctioned and then they could possibly lose the money they need to eat.

What do you mean by 'hiccup'?

There need be no problem with having to worry about sanctions if you do as you are told, arrive when you are told and comply fully with every request that is made of you.

You either want your benefit or not. If you want it - take more responsibility for your own actions.

bigboybrother

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Whilst taking the point that some people are mentally ill, and therefore won't always be able to keep an appointment, who I think should be treated sensitively, why shouldn't people like the ones mentioned in a previous post who can't be A£$ed to get out of bed and sign on be sanctioned?

And those that do have a very valid medical excuse can get a letter from their GP.

bigboybrother

donnajunkie wrote: »

the issue is that sanctions are far too harsh and often applied unjustly. for example i know someone who was sanctioned for not turning up for an appointment they didnt know about.

So they say!!!! That excuse is as old as the hills. I used it 40 years ago - 'I never received a letter?'

anonymousx3

bigboybrother wrote: »

What do you mean by 'hiccup'?

There need be no problem with having to worry about sanctions if you do as you are told, arrive when you are told and comply fully with every request that is made of you.

You either want your benefit or not. If you want it - take more responsibility for your own actions.

A hiccup, i.e. they made a mistake for any given reason (perhaps they were emotionally stressed at that time, depressed one day, etc). A sanction for that is damn harsh. One needs time to adjust and learn to new demands. Without any other means of sustenance, this would put the claimant in a situation of abject poverty.

I don't believe that the problem is with the claimant but rather the provider for lacking patience for the claimant, necessary to enable them to adjust. Even so, sanctions -- the threat of abject poverty -- over small mistakes is just outright cruel.

For most, there isn't a choice of whether to claim that benefit. It's "do as I say or die".

seven-day-weekend

bigboybrother wrote: »

So they say!!!! That excuse is as old as the hills. I used it 40 years ago - 'I never received a letter?'

Or the dog ate it?

seven-day-weekend

anonymousx3 wrote: »

A hiccup, i.e. they made a mistake for any given reason (perhaps they were emotionally stressed at that time, depressed one day, etc). A sanction for that is damn harsh. One needs time to adjust and learn to new demands. Without any other means of sustenance, this would put the claimant in a situation of abject poverty.

I don't believe that the problem is with the claimant but rather the provider for lacking patience for the claimant, necessary to enable them to adjust. Even so, sanctions -- the threat of abject poverty -- over small mistakes is just outright cruel.

For most, there isn't a choice of whether to claim that benefit. It's "do as I say or die".

:eek:
What on earth is there to 'adjust' to? You look for work and you sign on. It's not rocket science! (Unless of course you are an out-of-work Rocket Scientist ).

donnajunkie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why didn't they know about it? I expect there is more to the story than you know about.

they have no reason to lie to me.

donnajunkie

bigboybrother wrote: »

So they say!!!! That excuse is as old as the hills. I used it 40 years ago - 'I never received a letter?'

again, they have no reason to lie to me.

Dunroamin

donnajunkie wrote: »

again, they have no reason to lie to me.

But how can JCP know whether the claimant is telling the truth or not? Or do you think that they should just believe everybody?