You've Never Had It So Good....

Generali

fennymum wrote: »

Is that all it is? What about the percentage of people 'on bonuses' whose income also continues to escalate? (you know who I mean...).

If you are really so untroubled by your prospects, then why do you feel the need to justify your wealth on a forum like this?

TruckerT

Bit obvious it's a sock puppet account if you use the same signature!:rotfl:

Loughton_Monkey

tomterm8 wrote: »

I'm deeply sceptical about this. I've seen enough jobseekers agreements to know that if you followed them to the letter it would toke years to get a job. When unemployed I normally did 30 jobsearch things in a morning.

As a rule sanctions are given to people who are vulnerable targets. People who want to play the system can.

A 'mole' in the 'People's Republic of Tower Hamlets' Benefits Centre tells me that the staff are primarily chosen for having 'language skills' to speak with the prediminantly muslim 'clientelle'.

More to the point, my understanding is that they are instructed to do everything in their power [including downright lies] to massage the application forms to ensure as full a benefits entitlement as possible.

I wonder if - throughout the country - the branch managers (or whatever they are called) of each job centre/benefits centre see themselves as trying to (a) minimise payments out, (b) maximise entitlements for their constituency, or (c) control payments to what is "technically" correct according to the spirit and letter of the rules?

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Bit obvious it's a sock puppet account if you use the same signature!:rotfl:

Pretty obvious it's not intended to be a sock puppet account if someone uses the same signature, one would have thought?

Oh...

...Arriviste.

tomterm8

I don't have the contacts toback up my prejudice, but it has always seemed to me that jobcenter workers need to sanction a certain number of people to keep their job. But if too many people get a job they are in trouble too.

TruckerT

Generali wrote: »

Bit obvious it's a sock puppet account if you use the same signature!:rotfl:

It's complicated - that's why I am always quick to accept responsibility for any of my posts which appear under a different name.

TruckerT

gazter

TruckerT wrote: »

Accepted by whom? It is hard to imagine anything more subjective than a Government Definition.



Hamish expects the housing market to return to normality very soon. When do you think that the homeless figures will return to normal?

TruckerT...

The government definition is the legal one used by local authorities to define their obligations. Is has been consistently the same for thirty four years.

gazter

tomterm8 wrote: »

My local job center has one of the lowest claimant counts in the south east at around 660 people. Yet the local churches who open their halls to the homeless are always full now and turning people away. This despite the fact we have a homeless hostel that always used to be half empty.

Maybe your statistics are right.

But it is v hard to count the homeless because most don't want to be found.

Question : Hello mr charity, mr job centre, mr benefits office, mr CAB, mr Law Centre. I'm homeless what should I do?
Answer from every single one:
First thing you do is go to your local council who will determine if you fit the definition of homeless, and if so they become legally obliged to house you.

TruckerT

gazter wrote: »

The government definition is the legal one used by local authorities to define their obligations. Is has been consistently the same for thirty four years.

Co-incidentally, I was speaking only two days ago to a 34-year-old single homeless male who is anxiously awaiting his 35th birthday so that the local authority will be obliged to 'take him on'.

Are you saying that the government definition has not changed for 34 years, or that the local authorities' obligations have not changed over the same period of time?

When did the 35-year-old threshold become a reality?

TruckerT

Generali

gazter wrote: »

Question : Hello mr charity, mr job centre, mr benefits office, mr CAB, mr Law Centre. I'm homeless what should I do?
Answer from every single one:
First thing you do is go to your local council who will determine if you fit the definition of homeless, and if so they become legally obliged to house you.

What do you think happens in Guatemala if you're homeless? I would imagine getting a place to live in isn't one of those things.

Frugalsod

TruckerT wrote: »

Co-incidentally, I was speaking only two days ago to a 34-year-old single homeless male who is anxiously awaiting his 35th birthday so that the local authority will be obliged to 'take him on'.

Are you saying that the government definition has not changed for 34 years, or that the local authorities' obligations have not changed over the same period of time?

When did the 35-year-old threshold become a reality?

TruckerT

It changed when this government got into power. It was 21 or 25 before.