After the Work Programme

csmw

szam_ wrote: »

I should clarify that I my last post quoting you wasn't meant as a dig, regarding the 'read as a generalisation', I try to be as impartial as possible, but like to dictate my views by logic. I realise that things will be read the wrong way, hence why I said, sometimes you need to spell things out to get your point across as it was meant to be taken or else people will take it how they want to take it.

I'm not sure how my posts would be considered as fuel for people to have a further go at you, I feel my posts are balanced and I try to see things from both sides.

I know that you were having a dig and I was very grateful for your input, I guess my posts come more from my emotions.

I don't feel your post added fuel, I just think they now feel they have the higher ground because what you said was correct so they can now pick at every little thing and use 'context and impression' as a justification for why they are being so dam right nasty.

donnajunkie

csmw wrote: »

I know that you were having a dig and I was very grateful for your input, I guess my posts come more from my emotions.

I don't feel your post added fuel, I just think they now feel they have the higher ground because what you said was correct so they can now pick at every little thing and use 'context and impression' as a justification for why they are being so dam right nasty.

i am not being nasty at all.

szam_

donnajunkie wrote: »

you see no reasons at all to feel bad. do you understand the impact of a sanction? they may have kids at home. even if they have done wrong i cant see how someone couldnt still feel bad about doing it.
did i really say all jcp staff are nasty? please direct me to where i said that and if i did i will put things right.

So what you're saying is that if someone does nothing at all for two weeks, makes minimal to no effort and this is clearly evident, that they still deserve their JSA?

No, if I was an adviser, I would not feel bad about that, whatever the impact might be. If they do not wish to seek work or do not intend to get a job, then they should not be signing on for what they would consider 'free money'.

As I said, I would imagine most advisers would feel justified if they referred someone for a sanction, yes, there will be some bad apples, do I think cmsw is the type to sanction people for petty reasons, or no reason at all? Honestly, no I don't, which is why I don't believe she deserves to be treated like the JCP punchbag in this thread. You can nitpick everything she says, but things are interpreted different ways as context is hard to impossible to read sometimes on the internet. She has tried helping people from what I can see here, in her own time, and still does despite people sticking it to her continually, more credit to her, in my opinion.

In response to the post;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64067174&postcount=1696

First sentence, there is zero context and to me reads like you are talking about every adviser.

donnajunkie

szam_ wrote: »

In response to the post;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64067174&postcount=1696

First sentence, there is zero context and to me reads like you are talking about every adviser.

that does not say they are all nasty. however i concede it could have been worded better. what it meant was in some cases you could get someone who has you in all the time and looking for ways to sanction you. at the same time you may get someone who doesnt do those things and hardly has you in. so what i was saying ultimately is it can vary between the 2 extremes.

donnajunkie

szam_ wrote: »

So what you're saying is that if someone does nothing at all for two weeks, makes minimal to no effort and this is clearly evident, that they still deserve their JSA?

No, if I was an adviser, I would not feel bad about that, whatever the impact might be. If they do not wish to seek work or do not intend to get a job, then they should not be signing on for what they would consider 'free money'.

well that cold attitude is sadly too common. i am sure some still feel bad knowing what suffering lies ahead.

donnajunkie

szam_ wrote: »

You can nitpick everything she says,

i dont nitpick everything they say. i didnt get involved in the exchange of insults they had with 1 or 2 posters. by the way i think there were faults on both sides on that issue.

szam_

donnajunkie wrote: »

well that cold attitude is sadly too common. i am sure some still feel bad knowing what suffering lies ahead.

Why is it? JSA - Job Seekers Allowance. If you're not seeking a job, why should you receive it? It's not about being cold, it's exactly in the name of the benefit in question.

I can understand why you would feel bad about it, but from a personal standpoint, I could not in good conscience give someone money for nothing, especially the way the general public go on about benefits being soft.

I'm not trying to argue with you by the way. Arguing gets people nowhere, if anything I enjoy a debate, I just feel she's being treated unfairly.

szam_

donnajunkie wrote: »

i dont nitpick everything they say. i didnt get involved in the exchange of insults they had with 1 or 2 posters. by the way i think there were faults on both sides on that issue.

Please, don't take things like I'm directing it all at you, I'm talking in general in most instances, unless directly replying to points, but I try to make that as clear as possible, apologies if this isn't clear.

donnajunkie

szam_ wrote: »

Why is it? JSA - Job Seekers Allowance. If you're not seeking a job, why should you receive it? It's not about being cold, it's exactly in the name of the benefit in question.

I can understand why you would feel bad about it, but from a personal standpoint, I could not in good conscience give someone money for nothing, especially the way the general public go on about benefits being soft.

you talk like potentially causing someone to starve and become homeless like its nothing. yes people shouldnt be allowed to take the micky but the punishments should be fair.
the current attitude towards benefits being supposedly soft is down to propoganda. what we have is the victim being blamed. someone loses their job they arent sympathised with anymore. they are called a scrounger and given a hard time.

donnajunkie

szam_ wrote: »

Please, don't take things like I'm directing it all at you, I'm talking in general in most instances, unless directly replying to points, but I try to make that as clear as possible, apologies if this isn't clear.

ok, fair enough but you can see why i thought it was directed at me.