Sanctions

anonymousx3

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

: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 ).

You are indeed correct. This same logic also applies to those poor people working in Foxconn factories in China, those children in sweatshop labor, etc, etc. All they have to do is get up and go to work for most of their week to receive the pittance that's necessary to enable their survival. They can choose not too, certainly, but that could place them in abject poverty which could very likely kill them.

Dunroamin

anonymousx3 wrote: »

You are indeed correct. This same logic also applies to those poor people working in Foxconn factories in China, those children in sweatshop labor, etc, etc. All they have to do is get up and go to work for most of their week to receive the pittance that's necessary to enable their survival. They can choose not too, certainly, but that could place them in abject poverty which could very likely kill them.

True - but irrelevent.

skintmacflint

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".

Not sure what you mean about people needing time to adjust and learn new demands. Is turning up or being on time for an appointment at the Job Centre a new demand?

Morlock

Dunroamin wrote: »

True - but irrelevent.

Not irrelevant if the Tory plan works. No welfare provision, no minimum wage, no employment rights, work or starve. This government will be happy when we can compete with China.

bigboybrother

Morlock wrote: »

Not irrelevant if the Tory plan works. No welfare provision, no minimum wage, no employment rights, work or starve. This government will be happy when we can compete with China.

Utter rubbish and totally irrelevant!

I have yet to see in the Tory manifesto where this is the intention.

The trouble is in this country is that we have become too used to getting money from the State with very little effort. Times are tough now, and the days of ever increasing handouts has come to an end. Is that so wrong?

guilds

:rotfl:

bigboybrother wrote: »

Utter rubbish and totally irrelevant!

I have yet to see in the Tory manifesto where this is the intention.

The trouble is in this country is that we have become too used to getting money from the State with very little effort. Times are tough now, and the days of ever increasing handouts has come to an end. Is that so wrong?

Oh dear bigbb Andy, Helen, remember that when you want to play your imaginary drumkit on your imaginary no1 hit, sanctioning you need sectioning:rotfl:

donnajunkie

Dunroamin wrote: »

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

my point was you can be unjustly sanctioned. people who support sanctions seem to think they are faultless and that they are always justified. if you are going to sanction people for not turning up for things then you need to ensure you have a system that guarantees they know about it.

superwoman4

guilds wrote: »

:rotfl:
Oh dear bigbb Andy, Helen, remember that when you want to play your imaginary drumkit on your imaginary no1 hit, sanctioning you need sectioning:rotfl:

I remember he posted as "grummps" as well, can't remember why he was banned then!
He probably remembers Jackanory from the 60's, a story telling programme on the BBC... he could use that as his next user name :rotfl:

There's probably some truth in this post :

grummps wrote: »

The finl result was that the assessor on the ESA85 wrote that I was aggressive, awkward, bombastic, argumentative and that I purposely made it difficult for him to carry out the assessment.

bigboybrother

guilds wrote: »

:rotfl:
Oh dear bigbb Andy, Helen, remember that when you want to play your imaginary drumkit on your imaginary no1 hit, sanctioning you need sectioning:rotfl:

Are you OK?

I've reported this post as it is insulting.

anonymousx3

Dunroamin wrote: »

True - but irrelevent.

That is not irrelevant. It is an example of how government's attempt to stretch its population of a poor as far as possible before the poor demand more from the government themselves. Government's want as much as they can and to get away with that as best as they can also. With these fools fighting each other over whether one must work to survive, the government would soon have a bunch of workhouses (e.g. Foxconn factories) setup here for them to live in. I was merely suggesting what it may become if government has its way with the poor.