Workfare lies, government fraudsters at it again.

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it, the current government is
pretending to do something positive with the unemployed, which just
happens to be something that has been in operation for the last 10 years
under the name of "Work placements" run by A4e et al.
What the hell is the difference between the current useless scheme
managed by JCP New Deal and this new one? apart from the name that is,
and the time spent on the scheme being increased from 6 to 12 months, I
can't see any difference at all. It is the same scheme except for the name.
One obvious fact that seems to have been overlooked is, how are people
supposed to look for paid work if they are tied up working for 12 months
at a time picking up litter. They will be in breach the JSAg by not
looking for work won't they.

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read that it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

It's the old schemes dressed up as something new, every few years the
same scheme is relaunched with fanfare to appease Daily Mail readers and
then all is forgotten about until the next "new initiative"

This is the old Community Programme from the early 1980s dressed up as
something new. Back then you were paid the going rate for the job but it
was abandoned when Restart was introduced bringing in the "Benefit +
£10" schemes. It was abandoned because some unemployed people actually
wanted to do it (it paid a decent amount of money compared to
Supplementary Benefit) so was no longer seen as a "punishment" for being
long term unemployed.

--
Robbie

Niteawk

2010-11-08 20:03:55 UTC

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read that it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

I dont know where you got 4 weeks from, under the current regime, the New
Deal program actually runs for 12 months. At least 6 months of that time
will be served with A4e or some other course provider. Work placements, if
they can find one for you, run for a minimum of 3 months. I can't see them
doing away with the current system in favour of a much more relaxed one.

Post by Robbie
It's the old schemes dressed up as something new, every few years the same
scheme is relaunched with fanfare to appease Daily Mail readers and then
all is forgotten about until the next "new initiative"
This is the old Community Programme from the early 1980s dressed up as
something new. Back then you were paid the going rate for the job but it
was abandoned when Restart was introduced bringing in the "Benefit + £10"
schemes. It was abandoned because some unemployed people actually wanted
to do it (it paid a decent amount of money compared to Supplementary
Benefit) so was no longer seen as a "punishment" for being long term
unemployed.

Of course, that is what politics is all about, creating the illusion that
they are doing something of real value when they are actually wasting even
more tax payers money on giving us more of the same.

Robbie

2010-11-08 20:55:57 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it, the current government is
pretending to do something positive with the unemployed, which just
happens to be something that has been in operation for the last 10
years under the name of "Work placements" run by A4e et al.
What the hell is the difference between the current useless scheme
managed by JCP New Deal and this new one? apart from the name that
is, and the time spent on the scheme being increased from 6 to 12
months, I can't see any difference at all. It is the same scheme
except for the name.
One obvious fact that seems to have been overlooked is, how are
people supposed to look for paid work if they are tied up working for
12 months at a time picking up litter. They will be in breach the
JSAg by not looking for work won't they.

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read that
it applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that
they would be doing the work for 12 months.

I dont know where you got 4 weeks from, under the current regime, the
New Deal program actually runs for 12 months. At least 6 months of that
time will be served with A4e or some other course provider. Work
placements, if they can find one for you, run for a minimum of 3 months.
I can't see them doing away with the current system in favour of a much
more relaxed one.

Post by Robbie
It's the old schemes dressed up as something new, every few years the
same scheme is relaunched with fanfare to appease Daily Mail readers
and then all is forgotten about until the next "new initiative"
This is the old Community Programme from the early 1980s dressed up as
something new. Back then you were paid the going rate for the job but
it was abandoned when Restart was introduced bringing in the "Benefit
+ £10" schemes. It was abandoned because some unemployed people
actually wanted to do it (it paid a decent amount of money compared to
Supplementary Benefit) so was no longer seen as a "punishment" for
being long term unemployed.

Of course, that is what politics is all about, creating the illusion
that they are doing something of real value when they are actually
wasting even more tax payers money on giving us more of the same.

The alternative could be to go back to the "work camps" for the long
term unemployed of the 1930s... 4 weeks of 6am rises, 8pm sleeps and fun
in between. A hard days graft for a days benefit... and if you refused
to do it you were imprisoned for 3 days for every day you refused to work.

Or you could do what replaced that... imprisonment for refusing to
provide for yourself. That was an imprisonable offence too. Six months
maximum for constantly claiming benefit when advised to find a job.
Abolished in 1982. Possibly back in 2010!

--
Robbie

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-09 10:06:59 UTC

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read that it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

Robbie

2010-11-09 12:11:43 UTC

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read that it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

IDS has some (half) decent ideas about what he wants to do. But in order
to make it sound like he is being radical he has to introduce it with
massive fanfare to agitate the media and make it sound like he is doing
something new. Even the proposed Universal Credit is nothing new. It's
basically National Assistance or Supplementary Benefit or even Income
Support under a new name and payable for people in and out of work with
an element of non means testing for the first 6 month or a year of payment.

--
Robbie

Niteawk

2010-11-09 14:01:04 UTC

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read that it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

You could try
http://www.expressandstar.com/uk/uk-news/2010/11/07/manual-labour-plan-for-work-shy-2/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/uk-unemployed-told-do-four-weeks-unpaid-work-or-lose-unemployment-benefits
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101107044444AAYEchi

The 4 weeks bit is fairly recent news, not sure IDS ever has a new
idea, just rehash old ones.

Martin <><

_________________________________________________________
This proves MP's are nothing more than liars when they say "work shy benefit
claimants could be forced to do compulsory full-time manual labour". For the
last 10 years the so called "work shy" have been forced to do manual labour
for up to 3 months at a time through A4e / New Deal courses that run for 12
months. How MP's can get away with this BS, I do not know. IDS is nothing
more than a fraud.

Darkside

2010-11-09 14:20:12 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it,

Can anyone tell me the difference between this scheme, where unemployed
people would do compulsory "community work", and Community Service
Orders to which minor criminals are sentenced by minor courts?

--
Sue ]8(:)

Niteawk

2010-11-09 15:03:01 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it,

There is a big difference, if you don't do what the court says, nothing
happens. If you don't do what the JC says, they will stop your money. IOW it
is better to be a criminal. Thieve whatever you can lay your hands on and
society will reward you. Claim benefits and you are treated worse than any
criminal so you have nothing to lose. Workfare, Work Placement or Community
Service. They are all the same but the first 2 pay less than the 3rd option.
The 3rd option allows you to earn a few quid without affecting benefits and
you do not have to pay tax, it also excuses you from the first 2 options.

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-09 18:54:54 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it,

Niteawk

2010-11-09 20:51:20 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it,

If you don't do what the court says, they can issue a warrant for your
arrest. Seen it happen many times.
Courts can then take the view that you don't want to do community
service and just put you in jail for a few weeks instead.

Martin <><

___________________________________________
So what if they issue a warrant, nobody gives a shit about things like that.
As for going to jail for a few weeks, that would be fantastic. That is the
best way to protest against a looney benefit system because it costs tax
payers 10 x more to keep you in prison.

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-10 08:47:03 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it,

If you don't do what the court says, they can issue a warrant for your
arrest. Seen it happen many times.
Courts can then take the view that you don't want to do community
service and just put you in jail for a few weeks instead.
Martin <><
___________________________________________
So what if they issue a warrant, nobody gives a shit about things like that.
As for going to jail for a few weeks, that would be fantastic. That is the
best way to protest against a looney benefit system because it costs tax
payers 10 x more to keep you in prison.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Niteawk

2010-11-10 18:52:42 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it,

There is a big difference, if you don't do what the court says, nothing
happens. If you don't do what the JC says, they will stop your money.
IOW
it
is better to be a criminal. Thieve whatever you can lay your hands on and
society will reward you. Claim benefits and you are treated worse than any
criminal so you have nothing to lose. Workfare, Work Placement or Community
Service. They are all the same but the first 2 pay less than the 3rd option.
The 3rd option allows you to earn a few quid without affecting benefits and
you do not have to pay tax, it also excuses you from the first 2 options.

If you don't do what the court says, they can issue a warrant for your
arrest. Seen it happen many times.
Courts can then take the view that you don't want to do community
service and just put you in jail for a few weeks instead.
Martin <><
___________________________________________
So what if they issue a warrant, nobody gives a shit about things like that.
As for going to jail for a few weeks, that would be fantastic. That is the
best way to protest against a looney benefit system because it costs tax
payers 10 x more to keep you in prison.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The police give a shit. Often a nice, quick arrest as they know
exactly where you live. You would give a shit if you if you get
arrested because of the warrant.
As for prison, up to you. Doesn't bother the government at all whether
you want to spend time in prison or serve community sentences. Or even
just have big fines. Doesn't bother the government.
Other people however take their personal freedom seriously, willing to
do community service and be free to do other things when not on
placement rather than be locked up and unable to do what they want or
go where they want.

Martin <><

_______________________________________________
How do you know who cares and who doesn't, the government cares because it
is costing them a fortune to keep people in prison. Cameron promised to
deport all foreign criminals instead of jailing them here. The first one he
to get rid of, Abu Hamza, a world renouned terrorist, and he failed
miserably. They could not kick him out because it would leave him stateless.
As for personal freedom, it is not much use to you if you have no money and
nowhere to live, you are better off in prison, especially at this time of
year when it is freezing outside. ;)

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-10 23:00:44 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it,

There is a big difference, if you don't do what the court says, nothing
happens. If you don't do what the JC says, they will stop your money.
IOW
it
is better to be a criminal. Thieve whatever you can lay your hands on and
society will reward you. Claim benefits and you are treated worse than any
criminal so you have nothing to lose. Workfare, Work Placement or Community
Service. They are all the same but the first 2 pay less than the 3rd option.
The 3rd option allows you to earn a few quid without affecting benefits and
you do not have to pay tax, it also excuses you from the first 2 options.

If you don't do what the court says, they can issue a warrant for your
arrest. Seen it happen many times.
Courts can then take the view that you don't want to do community
service and just put you in jail for a few weeks instead.
Martin <><
___________________________________________
So what if they issue a warrant, nobody gives a shit about things like that.
As for going to jail for a few weeks, that would be fantastic. That is the
best way to protest against a looney benefit system because it costs tax
payers 10 x more to keep you in prison.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The police give a shit. Often a nice, quick arrest as they know
exactly where you live. You would give a shit if you if you get
arrested because of the warrant.
As for prison, up to you. Doesn't bother the government at all whether
you want to spend time in prison or serve community sentences. Or even
just have big fines. Doesn't bother the government.
Other people however take their personal freedom seriously, willing to
do community service and be free to do other things when not on
placement rather than be locked up and unable to do what they want or
go where they want.
Martin <><
_______________________________________________
How do you know who cares and who doesn't, the government cares because it
is costing them a fortune to keep people in prison. Cameron promised to
deport all foreign criminals instead of jailing them here. The first one he
to get rid of, Abu Hamza, a world renouned terrorist, and he failed
miserably. They could not kick him out because it would leave him stateless.
As for personal freedom, it is not much use to you if you have no money and
nowhere to live, you are better off in prison, especially at this time of
year when it is freezing outside. ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I work with the homeless, there are a couple who prefer prison to
outside during the winter. Only a couple though.
The rest prefer freedom - though that freedom may be the freedom to
cadge a drink from someone, to beg for money, to be ignored by
everyone, or to buy a bottle of meths.
Or the freedom to decide to move on with their life, to move to a
different skip, to find a warmer place to sleep.

The government don't care about you going to prison or not because in
the big scheme of things it isn't their decision. Its the courts - and
you. The government pay for people in prison, but you'll usually find
that a prison costs £x to run in terms of heating, lighting, staffing,
security measures and training whether there are 350 prisoners or 351
prisoners there. The so called 'cost per person to keep them in
prison' doesn't itself exist. Either a prison has the space to take
someone or it doesn't. The difference in food and clothing an
individual makes is tiny in comparison to a prison cost itself.
And who stopped Hamza from being deported? The government? No.

Martin <><

Hiram

2010-11-11 11:19:07 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme.
For
starters there is nothing new about it,

There is a big difference, if you don't do what the court says, nothing
happens. If you don't do what the JC says, they will stop your money.
IOW
it
is better to be a criminal. Thieve whatever you can lay your hands on and
society will reward you. Claim benefits and you are treated worse than any
criminal so you have nothing to lose. Workfare, Work Placement or Community
Service. They are all the same but the first 2 pay less than the 3rd option.
The 3rd option allows you to earn a few quid without affecting benefits and
you do not have to pay tax, it also excuses you from the first 2 options.

If you don't do what the court says, they can issue a warrant for your
arrest. Seen it happen many times.
Courts can then take the view that you don't want to do community
service and just put you in jail for a few weeks instead.
Martin <><
___________________________________________
So what if they issue a warrant, nobody gives a shit about things like that.
As for going to jail for a few weeks, that would be fantastic. That is the
best way to protest against a looney benefit system because it costs tax
payers 10 x more to keep you in prison.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The police give a shit. Often a nice, quick arrest as they know
exactly where you live. You would give a shit if you if you get
arrested because of the warrant.
As for prison, up to you. Doesn't bother the government at all whether
you want to spend time in prison or serve community sentences. Or even
just have big fines. Doesn't bother the government.
Other people however take their personal freedom seriously, willing to
do community service and be free to do other things when not on
placement rather than be locked up and unable to do what they want or
go where they want.
Martin <><
_______________________________________________
How do you know who cares and who doesn't, the government cares because it
is costing them a fortune to keep people in prison. Cameron promised to
deport all foreign criminals instead of jailing them here. The first one he
to get rid of, Abu Hamza, a world renouned terrorist, and he failed
miserably. They could not kick him out because it would leave him stateless.
As for personal freedom, it is not much use to you if you have no money and
nowhere to live, you are better off in prison, especially at this time of
year when it is freezing outside. ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I work with the homeless, there are a couple who prefer prison to
outside during the winter. Only a couple though.
The rest prefer freedom - though that freedom may be the freedom to
cadge a drink from someone, to beg for money, to be ignored by
everyone, or to buy a bottle of meths.
Or the freedom to decide to move on with their life, to move to a
different skip, to find a warmer place to sleep.
The government don't care about you going to prison or not because in
the big scheme of things it isn't their decision. Its the courts - and
you. The government pay for people in prison, but you'll usually find
that a prison costs £x to run in terms of heating, lighting, staffing,
security measures and training whether there are 350 prisoners or 351
prisoners there. The so called 'cost per person to keep them in
prison' doesn't itself exist. Either a prison has the space to take
someone or it doesn't. The difference in food and clothing an
individual makes is tiny in comparison to a prison cost itself.
And who stopped Hamza from being deported? The government? No.
Martin <><- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Prison costs the tax payer 40k per prisoner per year.

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-11 11:33:32 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme.
For
starters there is nothing new about it,

There is a big difference, if you don't do what the court says, nothing
happens. If you don't do what the JC says, they will stop your money.
IOW
it
is better to be a criminal. Thieve whatever you can lay your hands on and
society will reward you. Claim benefits and you are treated worse than any
criminal so you have nothing to lose. Workfare, Work Placement or Community
Service. They are all the same but the first 2 pay less than the 3rd
option.
The 3rd option allows you to earn a few quid without affecting benefits and
you do not have to pay tax, it also excuses you from the first 2 options.

If you don't do what the court says, they can issue a warrant for your
arrest. Seen it happen many times.
Courts can then take the view that you don't want to do community
service and just put you in jail for a few weeks instead.
Martin <><
___________________________________________
So what if they issue a warrant, nobody gives a shit about things like that.
As for going to jail for a few weeks, that would be fantastic. That is the
best way to protest against a looney benefit system because it costs tax
payers 10 x more to keep you in prison.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The police give a shit. Often a nice, quick arrest as they know
exactly where you live. You would give a shit if you if you get
arrested because of the warrant.
As for prison, up to you. Doesn't bother the government at all whether
you want to spend time in prison or serve community sentences. Or even
just have big fines. Doesn't bother the government.
Other people however take their personal freedom seriously, willing to
do community service and be free to do other things when not on
placement rather than be locked up and unable to do what they want or
go where they want.
Martin <><
_______________________________________________
How do you know who cares and who doesn't, the government cares because it
is costing them a fortune to keep people in prison. Cameron promised to
deport all foreign criminals instead of jailing them here. The first one he
to get rid of, Abu Hamza, a world renouned terrorist, and he failed
miserably. They could not kick him out because it would leave him stateless.
As for personal freedom, it is not much use to you if you have no money and
nowhere to live, you are better off in prison, especially at this time of
year when it is freezing outside. ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I work with the homeless, there are a couple who prefer prison to
outside during the winter. Only a couple though.
The rest prefer freedom - though that freedom may be the freedom to
cadge a drink from someone, to beg for money, to be ignored by
everyone, or to buy a bottle of meths.
Or the freedom to decide to move on with their life, to move to a
different skip, to find a warmer place to sleep.
The government don't care about you going to prison or not because in
the big scheme of things it isn't their decision. Its the courts - and
you. The government pay for people in prison, but you'll usually find
that a prison costs £x to run in terms of heating, lighting, staffing,
security measures and training whether there are 350 prisoners or 351
prisoners there. The so called 'cost per person to keep them in
prison' doesn't itself exist. Either a prison has the space to take
someone or it doesn't. The difference in food and clothing an
individual makes is tiny in comparison to a prison cost itself.
And who stopped Hamza from being deported? The government? No.
Martin <><- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Prison costs the tax payer 40k per prisoner per year.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Niteawk

2010-11-11 15:05:02 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare
scheme.
For
starters there is nothing new about it,

There is a big difference, if you don't do what the court says, nothing
happens. If you don't do what the JC says, they will stop your money.
IOW
it
is better to be a criminal. Thieve whatever you can lay your hands
on
and
society will reward you. Claim benefits and you are treated worse
than
any
criminal so you have nothing to lose. Workfare, Work Placement or Community
Service. They are all the same but the first 2 pay less than the 3rd
option.
The 3rd option allows you to earn a few quid without affecting
benefits
and
you do not have to pay tax, it also excuses you from the first 2 options.

If you don't do what the court says, they can issue a warrant for your
arrest. Seen it happen many times.
Courts can then take the view that you don't want to do community
service and just put you in jail for a few weeks instead.
Martin <><
___________________________________________
So what if they issue a warrant, nobody gives a shit about things
like
that.
As for going to jail for a few weeks, that would be fantastic. That is the
best way to protest against a looney benefit system because it costs tax
payers 10 x more to keep you in prison.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The police give a shit. Often a nice, quick arrest as they know
exactly where you live. You would give a shit if you if you get
arrested because of the warrant.
As for prison, up to you. Doesn't bother the government at all whether
you want to spend time in prison or serve community sentences. Or even
just have big fines. Doesn't bother the government.
Other people however take their personal freedom seriously, willing to
do community service and be free to do other things when not on
placement rather than be locked up and unable to do what they want or
go where they want.
Martin <><
_______________________________________________
How do you know who cares and who doesn't, the government cares because it
is costing them a fortune to keep people in prison. Cameron promised to
deport all foreign criminals instead of jailing them here. The first one he
to get rid of, Abu Hamza, a world renouned terrorist, and he failed
miserably. They could not kick him out because it would leave him stateless.
As for personal freedom, it is not much use to you if you have no money and
nowhere to live, you are better off in prison, especially at this time of
year when it is freezing outside. ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I work with the homeless, there are a couple who prefer prison to
outside during the winter. Only a couple though.
The rest prefer freedom - though that freedom may be the freedom to
cadge a drink from someone, to beg for money, to be ignored by
everyone, or to buy a bottle of meths.
Or the freedom to decide to move on with their life, to move to a
different skip, to find a warmer place to sleep.
The government don't care about you going to prison or not because in
the big scheme of things it isn't their decision. Its the courts - and
you. The government pay for people in prison, but you'll usually find
that a prison costs £x to run in terms of heating, lighting, staffing,
security measures and training whether there are 350 prisoners or 351
prisoners there. The so called 'cost per person to keep them in
prison' doesn't itself exist. Either a prison has the space to take
someone or it doesn't. The difference in food and clothing an
individual makes is tiny in comparison to a prison cost itself.
And who stopped Hamza from being deported? The government? No.
Martin <><- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Prison costs the tax payer 40k per prisoner per year.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

If dividing the total cost of running the prisons. But its a false
number.
The prisons are open - they cost money to run. They have certain
staffing, you don't change staffing figures much over the course of a
year. Adding an additional prisoner into the prison population doesn't
cost £40k per year. I'd be suprised if the weekly cost was much above
£40 a week for food and clothing for each prisoner, as the staffing,
security and running costs excluding food and clothing have to be paid
anyway whether a particular person is a prisoner or not.

If you want to use £40k per prisoner per year then you also need to
use whatever the amount is per benefit claimant per year. Might even
work out higher - dividing the total cost of the DWP and its benefits
between the number of individuals (not claims) who receive benefit.
As I said, it becomes a false number. Doesn't prevent the media from
throwing it around though.

Martin <><

________________________________________
Whatever the relative costs are overall, it is still cheaper to keep people
on the dole than sitting in prison where they will contribute nothing to the
economy, also once people enter the prison system, it makes it almost
impossible for them to get a job on release, you simply can't get a half
decent job with a criminal record so a life of crime becomes the only
realistic option to earn some real money.

Then there is the cost of crime itself to consider, for eg ripping a cash
machine out of the wall of a bank and nearly demolishing it in the process,
or thieving top of the range cars and breaking them up, sometimes people are
killed during robberies. The subsequent police investigations and trials by
jury etc. This costs a bloody damn sight more that it costs to give someone
64 quid a week to live on, that's for sure.

The government can try to save money by kicking people off the dole, but it
will cost them 10 x more dealing with the fall out. Actually to save money
means more bureaucracy, more bureaucracy costs more money so any saving made
is lost in running costs. Of course they will have to vote themselves a
bigger pay rise for coming up with this useless scheme, even if they never
get the chance to use their salaries after claiming expenses for everything,
they will still want a pay rise.

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-11 21:59:50 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare
scheme.
For
starters there is nothing new about it,

Can anyone tell me the difference between this scheme, where
unemployed
people would do compulsory "community work", and Community Service
Orders to which minor criminals are sentenced by minor courts?
--
Sue ]8(:)

There is a big difference, if you don't do what the court says, nothing
happens. If you don't do what the JC says, they will stop your money.
IOW
it
is better to be a criminal. Thieve whatever you can lay your hands
on
and
society will reward you. Claim benefits and you are treated worse
than
any
criminal so you have nothing to lose. Workfare, Work Placement or
Community
Service. They are all the same but the first 2 pay less than the 3rd
option.
The 3rd option allows you to earn a few quid without affecting
benefits
and
you do not have to pay tax, it also excuses you from the first 2
options.

If you don't do what the court says, they can issue a warrant for your
arrest. Seen it happen many times.
Courts can then take the view that you don't want to do community
service and just put you in jail for a few weeks instead.
Martin <><
___________________________________________
So what if they issue a warrant, nobody gives a shit about things
like
that.
As for going to jail for a few weeks, that would be fantastic. That is the
best way to protest against a looney benefit system because it costs tax
payers 10 x more to keep you in prison.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The police give a shit. Often a nice, quick arrest as they know
exactly where you live. You would give a shit if you if you get
arrested because of the warrant.
As for prison, up to you. Doesn't bother the government at all whether
you want to spend time in prison or serve community sentences. Or even
just have big fines. Doesn't bother the government.
Other people however take their personal freedom seriously, willing to
do community service and be free to do other things when not on
placement rather than be locked up and unable to do what they want or
go where they want.
Martin <><
_______________________________________________
How do you know who cares and who doesn't, the government cares because it
is costing them a fortune to keep people in prison. Cameron promised to
deport all foreign criminals instead of jailing them here. The first one he
to get rid of, Abu Hamza, a world renouned terrorist, and he failed
miserably. They could not kick him out because it would leave him stateless.
As for personal freedom, it is not much use to you if you have no money and
nowhere to live, you are better off in prison, especially at this time of
year when it is freezing outside. ;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I work with the homeless, there are a couple who prefer prison to
outside during the winter. Only a couple though.
The rest prefer freedom - though that freedom may be the freedom to
cadge a drink from someone, to beg for money, to be ignored by
everyone, or to buy a bottle of meths.
Or the freedom to decide to move on with their life, to move to a
different skip, to find a warmer place to sleep.
The government don't care about you going to prison or not because in
the big scheme of things it isn't their decision. Its the courts - and
you. The government pay for people in prison, but you'll usually find
that a prison costs ï¿½x to run in terms of heating, lighting, staffing,
security measures and training whether there are 350 prisoners or 351
prisoners there. The so called 'cost per person to keep them in
prison' doesn't itself exist. Either a prison has the space to take
someone or it doesn't. The difference in food and clothing an
individual makes is tiny in comparison to a prison cost itself.
And who stopped Hamza from being deported? The government? No.
Martin <><- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Prison costs the tax payer 40k per prisoner per year.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

If dividing the total cost of running the prisons. But its a false
number.
The prisons are open - they cost money to run. They have certain
staffing, you don't change staffing figures much over the course of a
year. Adding an additional prisoner into the prison population doesn't
cost ï¿½40k per year. I'd be suprised if the weekly cost was much above
ï¿½40 a week for food and clothing for each prisoner, as the staffing,
security and running costs excluding food and clothing have to be paid
anyway whether a particular person is a prisoner or not.
If you want to use ï¿½40k per prisoner per year then you also need to
use whatever the amount is per benefit claimant per year. Might even
work out higher - dividing the total cost of the DWP and its benefits
between the number of individuals (not claims) who receive benefit.
As I said, it becomes a false number. Doesn't prevent the media from
throwing it around though.
Martin <><
________________________________________
Whatever the relative costs are overall, it is still cheaper to keep people
on the dole than sitting in prison where they will contribute nothing to the
economy, also once people enter the prison system, it makes it almost
impossible for them to get a job on release, you simply can't get a half
decent job with a criminal record so a life of crime becomes the only
realistic option to earn some real money.
Then there is the cost of crime itself to consider, for eg ripping a cash
machine out of the wall of a bank and nearly demolishing it in the process,
or thieving top of the range cars and breaking them up, sometimes people are
killed during robberies. The subsequent police investigations and trials by
jury etc. This costs a bloody damn sight more that it costs to give someone
64 quid a week to live on, that's for sure.
The government can try to save money by kicking people off the dole, but it
will cost them 10 x more dealing with the fall out. Actually to save money
means more bureaucracy, more bureaucracy costs more money so any saving made
is lost in running costs. Of course they will have to vote themselves a
bigger pay rise for coming up with this useless scheme, even if they never
get the chance to use their salaries after claiming expenses for everything,
they will still want a pay rise.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Depends on the crime. I've worked with staff who have criminal records
for various things. Two of my relatives had criminal records when they
were a lot younger, still spent many years working before retiring.
True, trials and the legal system costs a lot. Not much the government
can do if people committ crimes - and its up to the courts to decide
what punishment to give. Community service orders have been used for
many years, often effectively. Even those cost money. I daresay all
that does cost more than it costs to pay out £64 (which itself will be
a darn sight more than £64).

Cause and effect doesn't seem to enter into government thinking. Any
government. Not thinking about it has brought down governments in the
past but more commonly just makes particular people look like idiots.
Not sure how you get more beaurcracy when a department has its budget
cut. Though cutting staffing does tend to take a couple of years or
more to show savings simply due to redundancy and reorganisation
costs.
If MPs want to vote themselves a pay rise there is nothing you or I
can do about it, neither one of us are MPs so neither of us can vote
on that decision.
Don't know about you but when it comes to general elections, an MPs
pay isn't an issue that affects who I vote for. Far bigger concerns
for me than that.

Martin <><

Harry Stottle

2010-11-12 09:10:51 UTC

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5d6f1bef-396b-40e6-8293-***@j33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 10, 6:52 pm,

I work with the homeless,

=======================
No wonder there are so many unemployed, you seem to be doing 10 jobs. I'm
surprised you still have time to post on here.

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-12 12:23:56 UTC

Post by Harry Stottle
On Nov 10, 6:52 pm,
I work with the homeless,
=======================
No wonder there are so many unemployed, you seem to be doing 10 jobs. I'm
surprised you still have time to post on here.

I'm employed, self employed, a company director, full time student,
full time carer and a volunteer. And I still have plenty of time to
post on over a dozen newsgroups multiple times a day.
Plenty of time in a day.

Martin <><

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-09 18:51:48 UTC

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read that it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

Post by Robbie
It's the old schemes dressed up as something new, every few years the same
scheme is relaunched with fanfare to appease Daily Mail readers and then
all is forgotten about until the next "new initiative"
This is the old Community Programme from the early 1980s dressed up as
something new. Back then you were paid the going rate for the job but it
was abandoned when Restart was introduced bringing in the "Benefit +
ï¿½10"
schemes. It was abandoned because some unemployed people actually wanted
to do it (it paid a decent amount of money compared to Supplementary
Benefit) so was no longer seen as a "punishment" for being long term
unemployed.

You could tryhttp://www.expressandstar.com/uk/uk-news/2010/11/07/manual-labour-pla...http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/uk-unemployed-told-do-four-week...http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101107044444AAYEchi
The 4 weeks bit is fairly recent news, not sure IDS ever has a new
idea, just rehash old ones.
Martin <><
_________________________________________________________
This proves MP's are nothing more than liars when they say "work shy benefit
claimants could be forced to do compulsory full-time manual labour". For the
last 10 years the so called "work shy" have been forced to do manual labour
for up to 3 months at a time through A4e / New Deal courses that run for 12
months. How MP's can get away with this BS, I do not know. IDS is nothing
more than a fraud.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Have you ever done manual labour on an A4e placement?

Martin <><

Niteawk

2010-11-09 20:51:41 UTC

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read that it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

Post by Robbie
It's the old schemes dressed up as something new, every few years the same
scheme is relaunched with fanfare to appease Daily Mail readers and then
all is forgotten about until the next "new initiative"
This is the old Community Programme from the early 1980s dressed up as
something new. Back then you were paid the going rate for the job but it
was abandoned when Restart was introduced bringing in the "Benefit +
�10"
schemes. It was abandoned because some unemployed people actually wanted
to do it (it paid a decent amount of money compared to Supplementary
Benefit) so was no longer seen as a "punishment" for being long term
unemployed.

You could
tryhttp://www.expressandstar.com/uk/uk-news/2010/11/07/manual-labour-pla...http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/uk-unemployed-told-do-four-week...http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101107044444AAYEchi
The 4 weeks bit is fairly recent news, not sure IDS ever has a new
idea, just rehash old ones.
Martin <><
_________________________________________________________
This proves MP's are nothing more than liars when they say "work shy benefit
claimants could be forced to do compulsory full-time manual labour". For the
last 10 years the so called "work shy" have been forced to do manual labour
for up to 3 months at a time through A4e / New Deal courses that run for 12
months. How MP's can get away with this BS, I do not know. IDS is nothing
more than a fraud.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Have you ever done manual labour on an A4e placement?

Martin <><

_____________________________________________

Yes, I was ordered to attend Workaid for 3 months which is a charity and I
had to clean and pack tools mostly. I also had to load and unload vans etc.

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-10 08:48:47 UTC

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read that it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

Post by Robbie
It's the old schemes dressed up as something new, every few years the same
scheme is relaunched with fanfare to appease Daily Mail readers and then
all is forgotten about until the next "new initiative"
This is the old Community Programme from the early 1980s dressed up as
something new. Back then you were paid the going rate for the job but it
was abandoned when Restart was introduced bringing in the "Benefit +
10"
schemes. It was abandoned because some unemployed people actually wanted
to do it (it paid a decent amount of money compared to Supplementary
Benefit) so was no longer seen as a "punishment" for being long term
unemployed.

You could
tryhttp://www.expressandstar.com/uk/uk-news/2010/11/07/manual-labour-pla...
The 4 weeks bit is fairly recent news, not sure IDS ever has a new
idea, just rehash old ones.
Martin <><
_________________________________________________________
This proves MP's are nothing more than liars when they say "work shy benefit
claimants could be forced to do compulsory full-time manual labour". For the
last 10 years the so called "work shy" have been forced to do manual labour
for up to 3 months at a time through A4e / New Deal courses that run for 12
months. How MP's can get away with this BS, I do not know. IDS is nothing
more than a fraud.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Have you ever done manual labour on an A4e placement?
Martin <><
_____________________________________________
Yes, I was ordered to attend Workaid for 3 months which is a charity and I
had to clean and pack tools mostly. I also had to load and unload vans etc.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So a bit of manual work. There are a lot of things that take more
manual labour.
Some people like manual work. Some like manual labour.

Martin <><

Niteawk

2010-11-10 18:52:36 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it, the current government is
pretending to do something positive with the unemployed, which just
happens to be something that has been in operation for the last 10 years
under the name of "Work placements" run by A4e et al.
What the hell is the difference between the current useless scheme
managed by JCP New Deal and this new one? apart from the name that is,
and the time spent on the scheme being increased from 6 to 12
months,
I
can't see any difference at all. It is the same scheme except for
the
name.
One obvious fact that seems to have been overlooked is, how are people
supposed to look for paid work if they are tied up working for 12 months
at a time picking up litter. They will be in breach the JSAg by not
looking for work won't they.

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read
that
it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

I dont know where you got 4 weeks from, under the current regime, the New
Deal program actually runs for 12 months. At least 6 months of that time
will be served with A4e or some other course provider. Work
placements,
if
they can find one for you, run for a minimum of 3 months. I can't see them
doing away with the current system in favour of a much more relaxed one.

Post by Robbie
It's the old schemes dressed up as something new, every few years the
same
scheme is relaunched with fanfare to appease Daily Mail readers and then
all is forgotten about until the next "new initiative"
This is the old Community Programme from the early 1980s dressed up as
something new. Back then you were paid the going rate for the job
but
it
was abandoned when Restart was introduced bringing in the "Benefit +
10"
schemes. It was abandoned because some unemployed people actually wanted
to do it (it paid a decent amount of money compared to Supplementary
Benefit) so was no longer seen as a "punishment" for being long term
unemployed.

Have you ever done manual labour on an A4e placement?
Martin <><
_____________________________________________
Yes, I was ordered to attend Workaid for 3 months which is a charity and I
had to clean and pack tools mostly. I also had to load and unload vans
etc.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So a bit of manual work. There are a lot of things that take more
manual labour.
Some people like manual work. Some like manual labour.

Martin <><

______________________________________________

The point I am making is people are and have been forced to work for nothing
for many years now, there is nothing new about Workfare. I don't know why
everyone is getting their knickers in a twist about it. If anything it shows
just how clueless people are when it comes to knowing what is going on in
this country. We have had Work Placements for the last 10 years and nobody
batted an eyelid, Iain Duncan Smith decides to change the name to Workfare,
and the who country is up in arms about it.

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-10 23:15:00 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For
starters there is nothing new about it, the current government is
pretending to do something positive with the unemployed, which just
happens to be something that has been in operation for the last 10 years
under the name of "Work placements" run by A4e et al.
What the hell is the difference between the current useless scheme
managed by JCP New Deal and this new one? apart from the name that is,
and the time spent on the scheme being increased from 6 to 12
months,
I
can't see any difference at all. It is the same scheme except for
the
name.
One obvious fact that seems to have been overlooked is, how are people
supposed to look for paid work if they are tied up working for 12 months
at a time picking up litter. They will be in breach the JSAg by not
looking for work won't they.

I thought it was for 4 weeks not 12 months (or 6 months). I read
that
it
applies to people who have been unemployed for 12 months not that they
would be doing the work for 12 months.

I dont know where you got 4 weeks from, under the current regime, the New
Deal program actually runs for 12 months. At least 6 months of that time
will be served with A4e or some other course provider. Work
placements,
if
they can find one for you, run for a minimum of 3 months. I can't see them
doing away with the current system in favour of a much more relaxed one.

Post by Robbie
It's the old schemes dressed up as something new, every few years the
same
scheme is relaunched with fanfare to appease Daily Mail readers and then
all is forgotten about until the next "new initiative"
This is the old Community Programme from the early 1980s dressed up as
something new. Back then you were paid the going rate for the job
but
it
was abandoned when Restart was introduced bringing in the "Benefit +
10"
schemes. It was abandoned because some unemployed people actually wanted
to do it (it paid a decent amount of money compared to Supplementary
Benefit) so was no longer seen as a "punishment" for being long term
unemployed.

Have you ever done manual labour on an A4e placement?
Martin <><
_____________________________________________
Yes, I was ordered to attend Workaid for 3 months which is a charity and I
had to clean and pack tools mostly. I also had to load and unload vans
etc.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So a bit of manual work. There are a lot of things that take more
manual labour.
Some people like manual work. Some like manual labour.
Martin <><
______________________________________________
The point I am making is people are and have been forced to work for nothing
for many years now, there is nothing new about Workfare. I don't know why
everyone is getting their knickers in a twist about it. If anything it shows
just how clueless people are when it comes to knowing what is going on in
this country. We have had Work Placements for the last 10 years and nobody
batted an eyelid, Iain Duncan Smith decides to change the name to Workfare,
and the who country is up in arms about it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Work placements for more than 20 years now that I can recall, even YTS
was a work placement scheme. Though Labour did try a new version of it
called the Future Jobs Fund, with a billion pounds - part of which was
soaked up by councils and large organisations (including at least one
charity) that were awarded the contracts.
Lot more support now than there was 20 years ago, or even 10 years
ago. Including a lot more support for those of us who want to start a
business (looking to start another one next May (yes, odd date I know)
for beginning trading by Christmas). Government can make it easier to
do something - they still can't motivate everyone to do something
though.
My university course finishes in 2012, some of the younger ones in the
class are moaning about the likely job situation. Some of us older
ones are rubbing our hands at the opportunities available - same
market, different viewpoints, different attitudes. Mostly same help
available, different take-up of help (difference in the help is the
slightly more help for the younger students to start a business than
for those of us who are over 30).

Martin <><

mogga

2010-11-12 10:36:46 UTC

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For starters
there is nothing new about it, the current government is pretending to do
something positive with the unemployed, which just happens to be something
that has been in operation for the last 10 years under the name of "Work
placements" run by A4e et al.
What the hell is the difference between the current useless scheme managed
by JCP New Deal and this new one? apart from the name that is, and the time
spent on the scheme being increased from 6 to 12 months, I can't see any
difference at all. It is the same scheme except for the name.
One obvious fact that seems to have been overlooked is, how are people
supposed to look for paid work if they are tied up working for 12 months at
a time picking up litter. They will be in breach the JSAg by not looking for
work won't they.

It's for 30 hours a week. And it might motivate some to look online at
weekends and evenings for jobs. The paper and internet do not have to
be read during the day.

If you are already working and want a new job I suspect you do not
take a weeks holiday to look for work. Yes you'd need time off for
interviews but this isn't the same as looking.

--
http://www.bra-and-pants.com
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

Niteawk

2010-11-12 23:20:14 UTC

Post by mogga

Post by Niteawk
Well well well, what can I say about this new Workfare scheme. For starters
there is nothing new about it, the current government is pretending to do
something positive with the unemployed, which just happens to be something
that has been in operation for the last 10 years under the name of "Work
placements" run by A4e et al.
What the hell is the difference between the current useless scheme managed
by JCP New Deal and this new one? apart from the name that is, and the time
spent on the scheme being increased from 6 to 12 months, I can't see any
difference at all. It is the same scheme except for the name.
One obvious fact that seems to have been overlooked is, how are people
supposed to look for paid work if they are tied up working for 12 months at
a time picking up litter. They will be in breach the JSAg by not looking for
work won't they.

It's for 30 hours a week. And it might motivate some to look online at
weekends and evenings for jobs. The paper and internet do not have to
be read during the day.
If you are already working and want a new job I suspect you do not
take a weeks holiday to look for work. Yes you'd need time off for
interviews but this isn't the same as looking.
--
http://www.bra-and-pants.com
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

So we do not need workfare and A4e work placements schemes at all then.

m***@hotmail.com

2010-11-13 08:57:10 UTC