After the Work Programme

sensibleadvice

Chester666666 wrote: »

Best adviser? Who? The last few pages have been lacking advice

Yes. The one they called a troll. Perhaps lacking from the POV the advice that doesn't fit minimalist job seeking. Someone will no doubt be along to fix that soon.

AP007

Chester666666 wrote: »

These schemes are there to tell the voters that are right wing that at least something is being done and to punish the unemployed for being unemployed, it's a calculation that that the money wasted is better then losing face

Oh but I am right wing and I know that's a load of !!!! and tell people so. They are amazed at what I have told them.

Not to punish the unemployed at all to make it look like there is help for those not in work but the WP can not give any help to the majority who are on it.

sensibleadvice

Chester666666 wrote: »

Perceive or set people up to be sanctioned? Or ignore phone calls as to why a person missed an appointment

You seriously think advisors set people up for sanction?

Suggest you take a honest look at the attitude and job seeking efforts in the instances where you think that's happened.

After that, if you really think it's true have all the job seeking facts to hand and Lin has posted some excellent links on how to appeal.

csmw

Chester666666 wrote: »

Perceive or set people up to be sanctioned? Or ignore phone calls as to why a person missed an appointment

Like we have the time, do you know how long it takes to write up the referral paperwork?? Advisors would be happy if we never had to reffer for sanctions. But unfortunately it's a part of our job and with a lot of the comments on this forum you can see why the government has made things a lot tougher.

sniggings

Morglin wrote: »

No, but they (as taxpayers) are footing the bills, both for the benefits, and the WP's, so if things aren't actually getting people into some sort of work, then it is of concern to both users of the services and everyone else.

That was the point of them!

Lin

this forum is for advice not opinion, if you want to talk about the rights and wrongs, then there is a discussion forum for that, senseableadvise is only here to try and make themself feel better by putting others down, a bit sad really. and as for them being a tax payer, I'm not so sure of that, he seems to have plenty time to post a load of rubbish on here, he probably is an OAP who thinks they are better than the rest of us.

sniggings

csmw wrote: »

you can see why the government has made things a lot tougher.

no one minds tough but a bit of fairness wouldn't go amiss either.

csmw

sniggings wrote: »

no one minds tough but a bit of fairness wouldn't go amiss either.

Which is why we have independent decision makers that work to the guidelines set out in legislation.

sniggings

csmw wrote: »

Which is why we have independent decision makers that work to the guidelines set out in legislation.

I said fairness not legislation, you yourself have implied it's unfair to not have to provide evidence of the jobs the claimant has been said to not have applied for.

If you can not defend against a claim that is clearly unfair. The legislation allows for that so fairness doesn't come into it.

csmw

sniggings wrote: »

I said fairness not legislation, you yourself have implied it's unfair to not have to provide evidence of the jobs the claimant has been said to not have applied for.

If you can not defend against a claim that is clearly unfair. The legislation allows for that so fairness doesn't come into it.

You are talking about one sanction out of many, I have also clearly stated before the amount of jobs would only be part of the reason not all of it.

sniggings

csmw wrote: »

You are talking about one sanction out of many, I have also clearly stated before the amount of jobs would only be part of the reason not all of it.

the policy is, evidence does not have to be provided for a sanction to take place, not sure why you are talking about this is only the case in one example, it's policy, that is unfair, which is the point I was making.