FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The mob are the people
The mob are the people
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. " I wouldn't class them as ordinary people ! | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. I wouldn't class them as ordinary people !" Then you have already judged them! | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. I wouldn't class them as ordinary people ! Then you have already judged them!" Oh yes I have | |||
| |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. " A great philosopher once said that humanity was 3 meals away from sliding into chaos. Just one day of food deprivation was all it would take for society to fall apart. On the evidence of last Friday I'd probably agree | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. I wouldn't class them as ordinary people ! Then you have already judged them! Oh yes I have" it a disgrace the way people behave just to get something they don't need just because on that day its cheaper than any other day its even worse for Americans because it renders thanks giving a joke you cant be grateful for what you have then go fighting for things you have not got | |||
| |||
| |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. I wouldn't class them as ordinary people ! Then you have already judged them! Oh yes I have it a disgrace the way people behave just to get something they don't need just because on that day its cheaper than any other day its even worse for Americans because it renders thanks giving a joke you cant be grateful for what you have then go fighting for things you have not got " It isn't even necessarily cheaper than any other day. It's just that people have been told, and conditioned to believe it's cheaper and their only chance to get such a deal. Good deals are available frequently throughout the year if one can wait a bit and look for them. Many shops buy in tat to sell at these events anyway or mark prices up beforehand so they can appear to be making big reductions. A lot of it is the smoke and mirrors of sales psychology. | |||
"But trampling someone to get a television is a whole lot different to trampling someone because you're starving. "  | |||
"But trampling someone to get a television is a whole lot different to trampling someone because you're starving. " Yes trampling on people is just caused by pure greed.  | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. I wouldn't class them as ordinary people ! Then you have already judged them! Oh yes I have it a disgrace the way people behave just to get something they don't need just because on that day its cheaper than any other day its even worse for Americans because it renders thanks giving a joke you cant be grateful for what you have then go fighting for things you have not got " Millions of Americans do not know the meaning of Thanksgiving it's just a National holiday to them now | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. I wouldn't class them as ordinary people ! Then you have already judged them! Oh yes I have it a disgrace the way people behave just to get something they don't need just because on that day its cheaper than any other day its even worse for Americans because it renders thanks giving a joke you cant be grateful for what you have then go fighting for things you have not got Millions of Americans do not know the meaning of Thanksgiving it's just a National holiday to them now " A bit like Christmas and the "Christian" population of this country then. | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. I wouldn't class them as ordinary people ! Then you have already judged them! Oh yes I have it a disgrace the way people behave just to get something they don't need just because on that day its cheaper than any other day its even worse for Americans because it renders thanks giving a joke you cant be grateful for what you have then go fighting for things you have not got Millions of Americans do not know the meaning of Thanksgiving it's just a National holiday to them now " yea i know that its just the same for Christmas here | |||
"But trampling someone to get a television is a whole lot different to trampling someone because you're starving. "Many of those TV's were not selling as they were out of date stock or of inferior quality to Sony or Panasonic or whatever. So the stores stuck a up to 50% off tag on them. Joe Public didn't even look at the make or spec of what he was buying. Saw a £250 TV and thought he was getting a £500 TV at knock down prices So after he has trampled over some old couple, beaten one or two babies and slapped a young pregnant mum to get his half price telly. He gets home to find its last years stock model that wasn't selling and it cost £250 anyway | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Much more dignified staying at home and trying to get in at the last second with a bid on ebay "Difference with EBay is you might actually bid for a brand new TV of better spec and quality for cheaper | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. I wouldn't class them as ordinary people ! Then you have already judged them! Oh yes I have it a disgrace the way people behave just to get something they don't need just because on that day its cheaper than any other day its even worse for Americans because it renders thanks giving a joke you cant be grateful for what you have then go fighting for things you have not got Millions of Americans do not know the meaning of Thanksgiving it's just a National holiday to them now A bit like Christmas and the "Christian" population of this country then." I think the meaning has evolved for some. It's a celebration of family, which is fair enough. I'm not religious but I celebrate Christmas in the spirit of it being a time for family and goodwill. For some it's an excuse for gluttony, excess and worship of the gods of consumerism, which I find sad. | |||
 | |||
"You would be surprised at what human beings will do to survive I laugh at those American post apocalyptic movies where they are all huddled together in communities growing their own food days after whatever event brings the planet to a stand still The London riots a couple of years ago were nothing in comparison to what would happen There would be mass looting and serious violence toward each other. Initially people would group together in little cliques with similar in common to each other ie religion, neighbourhood etc. Then there would be a breakdown of that and people will start killing each other until there is practically nothing left Then natural leaders will take control and we would revert to small communities, however once again these will be cliques again and they will wage war with other cliques " so like the walking dead or the blackout witch was based in the uk where the national grid shut down everyone went crazy. There is nothing wrong with growing your own food at least then you know what you are eating as for the scenario of the walking dead you have to do what you have to do to survive as soon as technology is shut down most of the people will be dumbstruck and will not survive | |||
| |||
"You would be surprised at what human beings will do to survive I laugh at those American post apocalyptic movies where they are all huddled together in communities growing their own food days after whatever event brings the planet to a stand still The London riots a couple of years ago were nothing in comparison to what would happen There would be mass looting and serious violence toward each other. Initially people would group together in little cliques with similar in common to each other ie religion, neighbourhood etc. Then there would be a breakdown of that and people will start killing each other until there is practically nothing left Then natural leaders will take control and we would revert to small communities, however once again these will be cliques again and they will wage war with other cliques " Speak for yourself. I'd become a hermit.  | |||
| |||
"You would be surprised at what human beings will do to survive I laugh at those American post apocalyptic movies where they are all huddled together in communities growing their own food days after whatever event brings the planet to a stand still The London riots a couple of years ago were nothing in comparison to what would happen There would be mass looting and serious violence toward each other. Initially people would group together in little cliques with similar in common to each other ie religion, neighbourhood etc. Then there would be a breakdown of that and people will start killing each other until there is practically nothing left Then natural leaders will take control and we would revert to small communities, however once again these will be cliques again and they will wage war with other cliques Speak for yourself. I'd become a hermit. "I am already a hermit | |||
"Saw three blokes on tv trying to wrestle a tv off each other , I thought to my self surly by time one wins tv will be broke " It's been sitting on a shelf in the store room for the past couple of years gathering dust Probably doesn't work anyway | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it." And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant. | |||
"People fighting over a television in asda may be uncvilised.....but funny as fuck to watch " | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant." It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. " We'd have a bun fight FOR REAL !!! | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant." Very often for totally spurious reasons. Jobcentres have targets to meet for how many sanctions they hand out. How can that be reasonable? If nobody does anything wrong then nobody should be sanctioned. Instead advisors are inventing reasons to sanction in order to meet targets. People have been sanctioned for being 10 minutes late for an appointment just once, or for failing to attend an appointment on a day the centre was closed due to a strike! Some are sanctioned because their advisor decides they aren't doing enough to find work even though they've done everything (sometimes more) than is required on their jobseeker's agreement. I saw a transcript of an interview with a man at a jobcentre recently where the advisor told him they can do absolutely what they like with him. It's true. Official figures show Jobcentres are sanctioning nearly twice as many people as are finding work. It's a cost cutting exercise and a means of manipulating the unemployment figures, that's all. If you look into it, you'll see the DWP are abusing the sanctions system. | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant. It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result."
The number of people totally in the dark about what's happening and who seem to genuinely believe it can't be true when they're told, is staggering.
The media are completely complicit in spreading government propaganda. | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant. It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result.
The number of people totally in the dark about what's happening and who seem to genuinely believe it can't be true when they're told, is staggering.
The media are completely complicit in spreading government propaganda."On a thread about crowd mentality it's interesting that the crowd mentality that government needs to stay in authority has come up. | |||
| |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. I wouldn't class them as ordinary people ! Then you have already judged them! Oh yes I have it a disgrace the way people behave just to get something they don't need just because on that day its cheaper than any other day its even worse for Americans because it renders thanks giving a joke you cant be grateful for what you have then go fighting for things you have not got Millions of Americans do not know the meaning of Thanksgiving it's just a National holiday to them now A bit like Christmas and the "Christian" population of this country then. I think the meaning has evolved for some. It's a celebration of family, which is fair enough. I'm not religious but I celebrate Christmas in the spirit of it being a time for family and goodwill. For some it's an excuse for gluttony, excess and worship of the gods of consumerism, which I find sad." Christmas is a farce anyway as no one actually knows when Jesus was born and only Pagans celebrated birthdays at that time in history. Off topic but popped into my head | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen to get a bargain) do you ever wonder how bad it would get if these pillars of society were deprived of food for a month. How far would you go to survive. Personally I'd eat my neighbours noisy kids. " shopping for me is a nightmare but sales where they purposely put a load of rubbish it would appear they don't normally sell noooooooo not for me although would be quite good in the thick of it picking them up and throwing them to one side | |||
" A great philosopher once said that humanity was 3 meals away from sliding into chaos. Just one day of food deprivation was all it would take for society to fall apart. On the evidence of last Friday I'd probably agree" My mum starved for years and done it myself on and off, so do most people when they're poor. They just put up with it and get used to it and you stop feeling hungry after a while anyway. | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant. It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result.
The number of people totally in the dark about what's happening and who seem to genuinely believe it can't be true when they're told, is staggering.
The media are completely complicit in spreading government propaganda.
On a thread about crowd mentality it's interesting that the crowd mentality that government needs to stay in authority has come up. "I'd happily shoot the fucking lot of the greedy scum at the moment. And the media selling lies to the nation. | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant. It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result.
The number of people totally in the dark about what's happening and who seem to genuinely believe it can't be true when they're told, is staggering.
The media are completely complicit in spreading government propaganda.
On a thread about crowd mentality it's interesting that the crowd mentality that government needs to stay in authority has come up.
I'd happily shoot the fucking lot of the greedy scum at the moment. And the media selling lies to the nation. "If ever there was a reason for a mob....... | |||
" I'd happily shoot the fucking lot of the greedy scum at the moment. And the media selling lies to the nation. " | |||
" A great philosopher once said that humanity was 3 meals away from sliding into chaos. Just one day of food deprivation was all it would take for society to fall apart. On the evidence of last Friday I'd probably agree My mum starved for years and done it myself on and off, so do most people when they're poor. They just put up with it and get used to it and you stop feeling hungry after a while anyway." hey have been there to and understand I weigh 92 kg but could actually go without food and drink for 4 days when you got no money you got no money  | |||
" A great philosopher once said that humanity was 3 meals away from sliding into chaos. Just one day of food deprivation was all it would take for society to fall apart. On the evidence of last Friday I'd probably agree My mum starved for years and done it myself on and off, so do most people when they're poor. They just put up with it and get used to it and you stop feeling hungry after a while anyway. hey have been there to and understand I weigh 92 kg but could actually go without food and drink for 4 days when you got no money you got no money "I have money now and been alright for about 6 years, was a big eye opener though to not have to count the pennies when shopping or worry about paying bills and it was a bit depressing to realise that plenty of people have always lived this way and never had to struggle, didn't even know life could be like that until my late 30s. Once you're out of poverty it's great but took us forever to get out of it but i'm well aware we could end up back in poverty at any time because the past year we have had our income cut by a third and also being taxed a lot right now so our income is going down again but we're still managing coz i have great budgeting skills. | |||
"How do you get unemployment levels to fall? Change your definition of unemployed! The rate we are going, the only people that fit the definition will be people unemployed for no more than two days, living in a two bed semi, a dog called Allen and a rusty ford fiesta. With a hubcap missing." hahahahaha
also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. | |||
"How do you get unemployment levels to fall? Change your definition of unemployed! The rate we are going, the only people that fit the definition will be people unemployed for no more than two days, living in a two bed semi, a dog called Allen and a rusty ford fiesta. With a hubcap missing. hahahahaha
also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'."I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. | |||
 | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener." Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. | |||
| |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though." well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out | |||
"But...but..that's for the greater good. Isn't it?? "we are all in it together | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out "the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out "If the figures aren't published anywhere, a FOI request will get them. | |||
| |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though "You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes. | |||
"Since when are pensions welfare ? Irrespective of our views on the matter if it's a pension that a person has contributed to, it's surely not welfare ? " It is on that "informative" "transparent" pie chart that was sent out recently, along with many other things that aren't usually considered welfare. They have to maintain hate for the "scroungers" somehow. The state pension bill is actually considered part of the welfare bill (and is by far the largest part of it) but pensions had its own section on the pie chart, except the pensions of teachers and other public employees which were treated separately and included in the welfare section. There were a lot of things on that pie chart that amounted to very misleading accounting and reporting. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes."Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to."tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.
tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription "That's not correct. You only have to pay for a TV licence if you watch television as it is being broadcast. You don't need a licence just to own a TV. You don't need a licence if you only watch TV on online services like iPlayer, after it has been broadcast. | |||
" Just one day of food deprivation was all it would take for society to fall apart. " yeah I'd agree a day or so before you'd start seeing the nightmare begin. esp if there were no donuts to be had in my house  | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription "I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years. I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money."well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license "ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv | |||
" apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv " No need to apologise, tv licence actually depend on people not knowing the truth and spread a bit of misinformation themselves when they can, just to get your money. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv "I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast. There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need."well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.
well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license "No you don't. Freeview is, uh, free. Ok, you need a box, but then you also need a TV. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.
well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license
No you don't. Freeview is, uh, free. Ok, you need a box, but then you also need a TV."just had a guy at the door about tv license seems if you have a signal coming from your house you have to pay it hmmmmm confused much | |||
"After watching the events of Black Friday, (ordinary people walking over the fallen... " It's ok I'm fine. I wasn't even there on Black Friday | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.
well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license
No you don't. Freeview is, uh, free. Ok, you need a box, but then you also need a TV. just had a guy at the door about tv license seems if you have a signal coming from your house you have to pay it hmmmmm confused much "If you don't watch TV as it is broadcast then tell him you don't watch TV as it is broadcast and therefore don't need a licence. You don't have to let him in to look unless he has a warrant. They won't get a warrant unless they have reasonable cause for one. There's no such thing as a "signal coming from your house". You receive a TV signal, not broadcast one. | |||
| |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.
well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license
No you don't. Freeview is, uh, free. Ok, you need a box, but then you also need a TV. just had a guy at the door about tv license seems if you have a signal coming from your house you have to pay it hmmmmm confused much
If you don't watch TV as it is broadcast then tell him you don't watch TV as it is broadcast and therefore don't need a licence. You don't have to let him in to look unless he has a warrant.
They won't get a warrant unless they have reasonable cause for one.
There's no such thing as a "signal coming from your house". You receive a TV signal, not broadcast one."that's what i told him and he said if i didn't pay the owed amount i would be fined and walked off oh well back to my catch up tv | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.
well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license
No you don't. Freeview is, uh, free. Ok, you need a box, but then you also need a TV. just had a guy at the door about tv license seems if you have a signal coming from your house you have to pay it hmmmmm confused much
If you don't watch TV as it is broadcast then tell him you don't watch TV as it is broadcast and therefore don't need a licence. You don't have to let him in to look unless he has a warrant.
They won't get a warrant unless they have reasonable cause for one.
There's no such thing as a "signal coming from your house". You receive a TV signal, not broadcast one.that's what i told him and he said if i didn't pay the owed amount i would be fined and walked off oh well back to my catch up tv "Ignore it. The only way they can catch you is if they see you watching TV as it's broadcast or you admit it. They are trained to try to talk their way into people's houses or to trick them into admitting they watch TV. Harassment is their standard tactic and I think it's outrageous that they are allowed to get away with it. The threatening tone of the letters they send is absolutely out of order. They aim to scare or annoy people into paying for a licence they don't need. Email your MP and complain about the harassment. You are in the right and they have no grounds to be threatening you and harassing you. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.
well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license
No you don't. Freeview is, uh, free. Ok, you need a box, but then you also need a TV. just had a guy at the door about tv license seems if you have a signal coming from your house you have to pay it hmmmmm confused much
If you don't watch TV as it is broadcast then tell him you don't watch TV as it is broadcast and therefore don't need a licence. You don't have to let him in to look unless he has a warrant.
They won't get a warrant unless they have reasonable cause for one.
There's no such thing as a "signal coming from your house". You receive a TV signal, not broadcast one.that's what i told him and he said if i didn't pay the owed amount i would be fined and walked off oh well back to my catch up tv
Ignore it.
The only way they can catch you is if they see you watching TV as it's broadcast or you admit it. They are trained to try to talk their way into people's houses or to trick them into admitting they watch TV.
Harassment is their standard tactic and I think it's outrageous that they are allowed to get away with it. The threatening tone of the letters they send is absolutely out of order. They aim to scare or annoy people into paying for a licence they don't need.
Email your MP and complain about the harassment. You are in the right and they have no grounds to be threatening you and harassing you."a friend of mine had marstons at the door over unpaid tv license they got someone to ring them and tell them they didn't live there anymore and they haven't heard from them since | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.
well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license
No you don't. Freeview is, uh, free. Ok, you need a box, but then you also need a TV. just had a guy at the door about tv license seems if you have a signal coming from your house you have to pay it hmmmmm confused much
If you don't watch TV as it is broadcast then tell him you don't watch TV as it is broadcast and therefore don't need a licence. You don't have to let him in to look unless he has a warrant.
They won't get a warrant unless they have reasonable cause for one.
There's no such thing as a "signal coming from your house". You receive a TV signal, not broadcast one.that's what i told him and he said if i didn't pay the owed amount i would be fined and walked off oh well back to my catch up tv
Ignore it.
The only way they can catch you is if they see you watching TV as it's broadcast or you admit it. They are trained to try to talk their way into people's houses or to trick them into admitting they watch TV.
Harassment is their standard tactic and I think it's outrageous that they are allowed to get away with it. The threatening tone of the letters they send is absolutely out of order. They aim to scare or annoy people into paying for a licence they don't need.
Email your MP and complain about the harassment. You are in the right and they have no grounds to be threatening you and harassing you.a friend of mine had marstons at the door over unpaid tv license they got someone to ring them and tell them they didn't live there anymore and they haven't heard from them since "If you Google for Marston you will find they are well known for all sorts of shoddy practices and break the law quite frequently. They're bullies and will stoop to practically any depths to extort money from people. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.
well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license
No you don't. Freeview is, uh, free. Ok, you need a box, but then you also need a TV. just had a guy at the door about tv license seems if you have a signal coming from your house you have to pay it hmmmmm confused much
If you don't watch TV as it is broadcast then tell him you don't watch TV as it is broadcast and therefore don't need a licence. You don't have to let him in to look unless he has a warrant.
They won't get a warrant unless they have reasonable cause for one.
There's no such thing as a "signal coming from your house". You receive a TV signal, not broadcast one.that's what i told him and he said if i didn't pay the owed amount i would be fined and walked off oh well back to my catch up tv
Ignore it.
The only way they can catch you is if they see you watching TV as it's broadcast or you admit it. They are trained to try to talk their way into people's houses or to trick them into admitting they watch TV.
Harassment is their standard tactic and I think it's outrageous that they are allowed to get away with it. The threatening tone of the letters they send is absolutely out of order. They aim to scare or annoy people into paying for a licence they don't need.
Email your MP and complain about the harassment. You are in the right and they have no grounds to be threatening you and harassing you.a friend of mine had marstons at the door over unpaid tv license they got someone to ring them and tell them they didn't live there anymore and they haven't heard from them since
If you Google for Marston you will find they are well known for all sorts of shoddy practices and break the law quite frequently. They're bullies and will stoop to practically any depths to extort money from people."yea i know ive had them at my mums door when i was a teenager for my fine and wouldn't leave till she paid it all there and then i become very short tempered with people like them or any one who throws their waight around it usually means i end up in more trouble lol but that was then now im really quiet when it comes to any confrontation | |||
 | |||
"I love this place. From Black Friday to baliffs in 77 easy steps. "well if you don't pay your debts then everything you bought on black Friday the bailiffs will take it all away so it kind of ties in lmao | |||
| |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant. It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. " Can you show use where this is revealed. Currently your accusation is simple hear-say " It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. " Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves "
The number of people totally in the dark about what's happening and who seem to genuinely believe it can't be true when they're told, is staggering.
"What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true " The media are completely complicit in spreading government propaganda." Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license "No you don't. Digital Terrestrial TV in the UK is provided by FreeView, which, like its name suggests, is Free. There is also FreeSat which is also free-to-air. | |||
"I didn't have a TV licence for several years as I didn't watch TV. The TV Licensing people seem unable to comprehend that anyone can live without TV and therefore believe everyone should have a TV licence. They will send letter after letter of official sounding intimidation and pester and pester but if you don't need a licence, you don't need a licence. Just tell them that There is a way to register on their website that you don't watch TV as it's being broadcast so you don't need one, but I found when I did that that it prompted pestering for me to prove it, (prove I don't watch TV how exactly?), and confirm it in writing and do this and do that, so I started ignoring them again. They send a few letters, they send a few more letters, the send someone round. I send them away. They send a few letters... rinse and repeat. Just tell them clearly every time that you do not watch TV as it is broadcast and decline to let them in because they have no flipping right. I believe that if they continue to pester you that you can withdraw their right to come on to your property but I never had to do that, so I don't know anything about it." So it seems it's not just the wealthy and big corporations that are able and willing to use loop-holes in the law for tax avoidance. | |||
"It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. Can you show use where this is revealed. Currently your accusation is simple hear-say " just google the words "conditionality and sanctions" ..... this should take you to the governments website and is the report of an investigation into allegations that targets have been set for sanctions in Jobcentre Plus. The report was prepared by Neil Couling, DWP Work Services Director, for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. just because you don't chose to read the information that has been reported by the more neutral journalists doesn't mean that folks are making this stuff up. your accusation of this post being accusations based on hear-say, is itself in fact an accusation based on ignorance. | |||
"It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. Can you show use where this is revealed. Currently your accusation is simple hear-say just google the words "conditionality and sanctions" ..... this should take you to the governments website and is the report of an investigation into allegations that targets have been set for sanctions in Jobcentre Plus. The report was prepared by Neil Couling, DWP Work Services Director, for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. just because you don't chose to read the information that has been reported by the more neutral journalists doesn't mean that folks are making this stuff up. your accusation of this post being accusations based on hear-say, is itself in fact an accusation based on ignorance. " Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves. | |||
"It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result." the dwp hasn't finished it's report in to the death of mark wood as yet but it is eargerly waited on with anticipation. they have however appologised for what has happened and admit that things should have been handled differently. "Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. " all of the above accusations are quite emphatic in their attempt to discredit other members posts on this thread. in this case it is all substantiated as you will find if you do your research. your humble pie may have finished cooking and be ready for you to eat by the time you finish reading the dwp report. "Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves." by the way i have given credence to someone elses arguement, not mine | |||
"I didn't have a TV licence for several years as I didn't watch TV. The TV Licensing people seem unable to comprehend that anyone can live without TV and therefore believe everyone should have a TV licence. They will send letter after letter of official sounding intimidation and pester and pester but if you don't need a licence, you don't need a licence. Just tell them that There is a way to register on their website that you don't watch TV as it's being broadcast so you don't need one, but I found when I did that that it prompted pestering for me to prove it, (prove I don't watch TV how exactly?), and confirm it in writing and do this and do that, so I started ignoring them again. They send a few letters, they send a few more letters, the send someone round. I send them away. They send a few letters... rinse and repeat. Just tell them clearly every time that you do not watch TV as it is broadcast and decline to let them in because they have no flipping right. I believe that if they continue to pester you that you can withdraw their right to come on to your property but I never had to do that, so I don't know anything about it. So it seems it's not just the wealthy and big corporations that are able and willing to use loop-holes in the law for tax avoidance. " How is it tax avoidance not to pay for something that you don't need, want or use and are not required to have? If you don't watch live TV, you don't need a licence. Nobody deserves to be continually harassed and threatened simply for not being part of the majority that watch TV. | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant. It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. Can you show use where this is revealed. Currently your accusation is simple hear-say It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves
The number of people totally in the dark about what's happening and who seem to genuinely believe it can't be true when they're told, is staggering.
What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true
The media are completely complicit in spreading government propaganda.
Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. "Ah yes, and there we go with the "it simply can't be happening that way" thinking. Everyone is a month or two away from being penniless and then they find out for themselves, with shock and disbelief, the truth of the situation. The figures, reported in many places totally without bias are absolutely astounding. I won't add more links because someone already has, and they are easy enough to find if one cares to look. | |||
"It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. the dwp hasn't finished it's report in to the death of mark wood as yet but it is eargerly waited on with anticipation. they have however appologised for what has happened and admit that things should have been handled differently. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. all of the above accusations are quite emphatic in their attempt to discredit other members posts on this thread. in this case it is all substantiated as you will find if you do your research. your humble pie may have finished cooking and be ready for you to eat by the time you finish reading the dwp report. Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves. by the way i have given credence to someone elses arguement, not mine" I really don't think I'm discrediting any one by asking them to provide proof of what they are saying. It's always easy to make a point; it's a lot more difficult to substantiate it with independent evidence. But, if you want to convince people of what you (not you specially but any one) are saying then it is necessary. Otherwise this turns into a slinging match of name calling and abuse. Unfortunately some times when you do provide it people read it and this happens This is the link to the ‘ CONDITIONALITY AND SANCTIONS REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS for those that want to know for themselves https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199242/sanctions-report.pdf And, to be fair, it does not quite say what some on here are saying it says. It basically says that the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) union made allegations that targets for conditionality sanctions were being set and that a number of internal emails and memo were leaked to the Guardian news paper that suggested that this might be true. On investigation it turned out that some managers had sent out emails to staff suggesting that they were not reaching their targets for applying sanctions related to conditionality. These managers have now been told that they were incorrect to send out such emails and that there is NO target for sanctioning claimants (clients) for violations in conditionality. All such targets, having been introduced in 1996(Conservative) and further updated and strengthened in 2006(Labour) were actually scrapped in 2011(Conservative/LibDem) (See section 2.1). Also Job centre advisor are not allowed to apply sanctions for non-compliance with conditionality, they can only refer the case to an independent decision maker. (Section 2.7) Section 3 goes into the specific cases and why what the adviser managers had done by sending out the emails was not the correct procedure and that no matrix or targets are allowed to be used for Conditionality Sanctions. It blames the incident on the still pervasive culture of target setting and achieving that had previously existed but was in fact scrapped in 2011. In section 4 it concludes 4.1 We found no evidence of a secret national regime of targets or widespread secret imposition of local regimes to that effect. There is no national use of league tables. We found no evidence people are being wrongly sanctioned as a consequence. Indeed the accusation itself is founded on a misapprehension that advisers in jobcentres sanction people. As this report explained earlier advisers merely raise a doubt about conditionality. Independent Decision-Makers make the sanction decision and claimants have a right to an independent appeal with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service if they are unhappy with the decision. 4.2 After an extensive trawl through of the material provided to us or leaked to the press we have found a limited number of instances where a local manager has misinterpreted the instructions or has fallen back on target methodology in an effort to exercise their responsibilities to ensure the law is being properly applied. I believe that is happening because the cultural change underpinning the move away from a target-based approach to sanctions and conditionality is incomplete. We need to be vigilant and consistent to ensure junior managers continue to move away from legacy habits as we focus on building the freedom and flexibility approach. We are using these incidents and the recent press coverage to redouble our efforts. For the individual Managers concerned we are supporting them in tackling these issues with coaching and guidance. Where, despite these efforts, managers fall short of the standard required, disciplinary action will be considered. There are other conclusions as well that have not included. | |||
"It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. the dwp hasn't finished it's report in to the death of mark wood as yet but it is eargerly waited on with anticipation. they have however appologised for what has happened and admit that things should have been handled differently. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. all of the above accusations are quite emphatic in their attempt to discredit other members posts on this thread. in this case it is all substantiated as you will find if you do your research. your humble pie may have finished cooking and be ready for you to eat by the time you finish reading the dwp report. Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves. by the way i have given credence to someone elses arguement, not mine I really don't think I'm discrediting any one by asking them to provide proof of what they are saying. It's always easy to make a point; it's a lot more difficult to substantiate it with independent evidence. But, if you want to convince people of what you (not you specially but any one) are saying then it is necessary. Otherwise this turns into a slinging match of name calling and abuse. Unfortunately some times when you do provide it people read it and this happens This is the link to the ‘ CONDITIONALITY AND SANCTIONS REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS for those that want to know for themselves https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199242/sanctions-report.pdf And, to be fair, it does not quite say what some on here are saying it says. It basically says that the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) union made allegations that targets for conditionality sanctions were being set and that a number of internal emails and memo were leaked to the Guardian news paper that suggested that this might be true. On investigation it turned out that some managers had sent out emails to staff suggesting that they were not reaching their targets for applying sanctions related to conditionality. These managers have now been told that they were incorrect to send out such emails and that there is NO target for sanctioning claimants (clients) for violations in conditionality. All such targets, having been introduced in 1996(Conservative) and further updated and strengthened in 2006(Labour) were actually scrapped in 2011(Conservative/LibDem) (See section 2.1). Also Job centre advisor are not allowed to apply sanctions for non-compliance with conditionality, they can only refer the case to an independent decision maker. (Section 2.7) Section 3 goes into the specific cases and why what the adviser managers had done by sending out the emails was not the correct procedure and that no matrix or targets are allowed to be used for Conditionality Sanctions. It blames the incident on the still pervasive culture of target setting and achieving that had previously existed but was in fact scrapped in 2011. In section 4 it concludes 4.1 We found no evidence of a secret national regime of targets or widespread secret imposition of local regimes to that effect. There is no national use of league tables. We found no evidence people are being wrongly sanctioned as a consequence. Indeed the accusation itself is founded on a misapprehension that advisers in jobcentres sanction people. As this report explained earlier advisers merely raise a doubt about conditionality. Independent Decision-Makers make the sanction decision and claimants have a right to an independent appeal with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service if they are unhappy with the decision. 4.2 After an extensive trawl through of the material provided to us or leaked to the press we have found a limited number of instances where a local manager has misinterpreted the instructions or has fallen back on target methodology in an effort to exercise their responsibilities to ensure the law is being properly applied. I believe that is happening because the cultural change underpinning the move away from a target-based approach to sanctions and conditionality is incomplete. We need to be vigilant and consistent to ensure junior managers continue to move away from legacy habits as we focus on building the freedom and flexibility approach. We are using these incidents and the recent press coverage to redouble our efforts. For the individual Managers concerned we are supporting them in tackling these issues with coaching and guidance. Where, despite these efforts, managers fall short of the standard required, disciplinary action will be considered. There are other conclusions as well that have not included. " read the annexes .... and do you want brown sauce or tomato sauce on your humble pie | |||
"It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. the dwp hasn't finished it's report in to the death of mark wood as yet but it is eargerly waited on with anticipation. they have however appologised for what has happened and admit that things should have been handled differently. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. all of the above accusations are quite emphatic in their attempt to discredit other members posts on this thread. in this case it is all substantiated as you will find if you do your research. your humble pie may have finished cooking and be ready for you to eat by the time you finish reading the dwp report. Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves. by the way i have given credence to someone elses arguement, not mine I really don't think I'm discrediting any one by asking them to provide proof of what they are saying. It's always easy to make a point; it's a lot more difficult to substantiate it with independent evidence. But, if you want to convince people of what you (not you specially but any one) are saying then it is necessary. Otherwise this turns into a slinging match of name calling and abuse. Unfortunately some times when you do provide it people read it and this happens This is the link to the ‘ CONDITIONALITY AND SANCTIONS REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS for those that want to know for themselves https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199242/sanctions-report.pdf And, to be fair, it does not quite say what some on here are saying it says. It basically says that the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) union made allegations that targets for conditionality sanctions were being set and that a number of internal emails and memo were leaked to the Guardian news paper that suggested that this might be true. On investigation it turned out that some managers had sent out emails to staff suggesting that they were not reaching their targets for applying sanctions related to conditionality. These managers have now been told that they were incorrect to send out such emails and that there is NO target for sanctioning claimants (clients) for violations in conditionality. All such targets, having been introduced in 1996(Conservative) and further updated and strengthened in 2006(Labour) were actually scrapped in 2011(Conservative/LibDem) (See section 2.1). Also Job centre advisor are not allowed to apply sanctions for non-compliance with conditionality, they can only refer the case to an independent decision maker. (Section 2.7) Section 3 goes into the specific cases and why what the adviser managers had done by sending out the emails was not the correct procedure and that no matrix or targets are allowed to be used for Conditionality Sanctions. It blames the incident on the still pervasive culture of target setting and achieving that had previously existed but was in fact scrapped in 2011. In section 4 it concludes 4.1 We found no evidence of a secret national regime of targets or widespread secret imposition of local regimes to that effect. There is no national use of league tables. We found no evidence people are being wrongly sanctioned as a consequence. Indeed the accusation itself is founded on a misapprehension that advisers in jobcentres sanction people. As this report explained earlier advisers merely raise a doubt about conditionality. Independent Decision-Makers make the sanction decision and claimants have a right to an independent appeal with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service if they are unhappy with the decision. 4.2 After an extensive trawl through of the material provided to us or leaked to the press we have found a limited number of instances where a local manager has misinterpreted the instructions or has fallen back on target methodology in an effort to exercise their responsibilities to ensure the law is being properly applied. I believe that is happening because the cultural change underpinning the move away from a target-based approach to sanctions and conditionality is incomplete. We need to be vigilant and consistent to ensure junior managers continue to move away from legacy habits as we focus on building the freedom and flexibility approach. We are using these incidents and the recent press coverage to redouble our efforts. For the individual Managers concerned we are supporting them in tackling these issues with coaching and guidance. Where, despite these efforts, managers fall short of the standard required, disciplinary action will be considered. There are other conclusions as well that have not included. " Any idea how long it takes to appeal a sanction? And meanwhile the person is trying to survive on no income at all. There are numerous accounts out there, but it's easier to stick one's head in the sand, deny it and believe it couldn't happen to me. | |||
"It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. the dwp hasn't finished it's report in to the death of mark wood as yet but it is eargerly waited on with anticipation. they have however appologised for what has happened and admit that things should have been handled differently. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. all of the above accusations are quite emphatic in their attempt to discredit other members posts on this thread. in this case it is all substantiated as you will find if you do your research. your humble pie may have finished cooking and be ready for you to eat by the time you finish reading the dwp report. Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves. by the way i have given credence to someone elses arguement, not mine I really don't think I'm discrediting any one by asking them to provide proof of what they are saying. It's always easy to make a point; it's a lot more difficult to substantiate it with independent evidence. But, if you want to convince people of what you (not you specially but any one) are saying then it is necessary. Otherwise this turns into a slinging match of name calling and abuse. Unfortunately some times when you do provide it people read it and this happens This is the link to the ‘ CONDITIONALITY AND SANCTIONS REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS for those that want to know for themselves https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199242/sanctions-report.pdf And, to be fair, it does not quite say what some on here are saying it says. It basically says that the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) union made allegations that targets for conditionality sanctions were being set and that a number of internal emails and memo were leaked to the Guardian news paper that suggested that this might be true. On investigation it turned out that some managers had sent out emails to staff suggesting that they were not reaching their targets for applying sanctions related to conditionality. These managers have now been told that they were incorrect to send out such emails and that there is NO target for sanctioning claimants (clients) for violations in conditionality. All such targets, having been introduced in 1996(Conservative) and further updated and strengthened in 2006(Labour) were actually scrapped in 2011(Conservative/LibDem) (See section 2.1). Also Job centre advisor are not allowed to apply sanctions for non-compliance with conditionality, they can only refer the case to an independent decision maker. (Section 2.7) Section 3 goes into the specific cases and why what the adviser managers had done by sending out the emails was not the correct procedure and that no matrix or targets are allowed to be used for Conditionality Sanctions. It blames the incident on the still pervasive culture of target setting and achieving that had previously existed but was in fact scrapped in 2011. In section 4 it concludes 4.1 We found no evidence of a secret national regime of targets or widespread secret imposition of local regimes to that effect. There is no national use of league tables. We found no evidence people are being wrongly sanctioned as a consequence. Indeed the accusation itself is founded on a misapprehension that advisers in jobcentres sanction people. As this report explained earlier advisers merely raise a doubt about conditionality. Independent Decision-Makers make the sanction decision and claimants have a right to an independent appeal with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service if they are unhappy with the decision. 4.2 After an extensive trawl through of the material provided to us or leaked to the press we have found a limited number of instances where a local manager has misinterpreted the instructions or has fallen back on target methodology in an effort to exercise their responsibilities to ensure the law is being properly applied. I believe that is happening because the cultural change underpinning the move away from a target-based approach to sanctions and conditionality is incomplete. We need to be vigilant and consistent to ensure junior managers continue to move away from legacy habits as we focus on building the freedom and flexibility approach. We are using these incidents and the recent press coverage to redouble our efforts. For the individual Managers concerned we are supporting them in tackling these issues with coaching and guidance. Where, despite these efforts, managers fall short of the standard required, disciplinary action will be considered. There are other conclusions as well that have not included. read the annexes .... and do you want brown sauce or tomato sauce on your humble pie "There's none so blind as those who don't want to know! | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant. It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. Can you show use where this is revealed. Currently your accusation is simple hear-say It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves
The number of people totally in the dark about what's happening and who seem to genuinely believe it can't be true when they're told, is staggering.
What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true
The media are completely complicit in spreading government propaganda.
Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them.
Ah yes, and there we go with the "it simply can't be happening that way" thinking.
Everyone is a month or two away from being penniless and then they find out for themselves, with shock and disbelief, the truth of the situation.
The figures, reported in many places totally without bias are absolutely astounding.
I won't add more links because someone already has, and they are easy enough to find if one cares to look."I haven't said 'it can't be happening'. I'm simply asking you provide information on where you got your figures from so I can go and see for myself. If you don't want to provide that information, for what ever reason, people will draw their own conclusions as to the validity of your posts. Personally I don't question your honesty or sincerity, I don't have to. I just want to know the facts. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. the dwp hasn't finished it's report in to the death of mark wood as yet but it is eargerly waited on with anticipation. they have however appologised for what has happened and admit that things should have been handled differently. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. all of the above accusations are quite emphatic in their attempt to discredit other members posts on this thread. in this case it is all substantiated as you will find if you do your research. your humble pie may have finished cooking and be ready for you to eat by the time you finish reading the dwp report. Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves. by the way i have given credence to someone elses arguement, not mine I really don't think I'm discrediting any one by asking them to provide proof of what they are saying. It's always easy to make a point; it's a lot more difficult to substantiate it with independent evidence. But, if you want to convince people of what you (not you specially but any one) are saying then it is necessary. Otherwise this turns into a slinging match of name calling and abuse. Unfortunately some times when you do provide it people read it and this happens This is the link to the ‘ CONDITIONALITY AND SANCTIONS REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS for those that want to know for themselves https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199242/sanctions-report.pdf And, to be fair, it does not quite say what some on here are saying it says. It basically says that the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) union made allegations that targets for conditionality sanctions were being set and that a number of internal emails and memo were leaked to the Guardian news paper that suggested that this might be true. On investigation it turned out that some managers had sent out emails to staff suggesting that they were not reaching their targets for applying sanctions related to conditionality. These managers have now been told that they were incorrect to send out such emails and that there is NO target for sanctioning claimants (clients) for violations in conditionality. All such targets, having been introduced in 1996(Conservative) and further updated and strengthened in 2006(Labour) were actually scrapped in 2011(Conservative/LibDem) (See section 2.1). Also Job centre advisor are not allowed to apply sanctions for non-compliance with conditionality, they can only refer the case to an independent decision maker. (Section 2.7) Section 3 goes into the specific cases and why what the adviser managers had done by sending out the emails was not the correct procedure and that no matrix or targets are allowed to be used for Conditionality Sanctions. It blames the incident on the still pervasive culture of target setting and achieving that had previously existed but was in fact scrapped in 2011. In section 4 it concludes 4.1 We found no evidence of a secret national regime of targets or widespread secret imposition of local regimes to that effect. There is no national use of league tables. We found no evidence people are being wrongly sanctioned as a consequence. Indeed the accusation itself is founded on a misapprehension that advisers in jobcentres sanction people. As this report explained earlier advisers merely raise a doubt about conditionality. Independent Decision-Makers make the sanction decision and claimants have a right to an independent appeal with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service if they are unhappy with the decision. 4.2 After an extensive trawl through of the material provided to us or leaked to the press we have found a limited number of instances where a local manager has misinterpreted the instructions or has fallen back on target methodology in an effort to exercise their responsibilities to ensure the law is being properly applied. I believe that is happening because the cultural change underpinning the move away from a target-based approach to sanctions and conditionality is incomplete. We need to be vigilant and consistent to ensure junior managers continue to move away from legacy habits as we focus on building the freedom and flexibility approach. We are using these incidents and the recent press coverage to redouble our efforts. For the individual Managers concerned we are supporting them in tackling these issues with coaching and guidance. Where, despite these efforts, managers fall short of the standard required, disciplinary action will be considered. There are other conclusions as well that have not included. read the annexes .... and do you want brown sauce or tomato sauce on your humble pie
There's none so blind as those who don't want to know!"My eyes are wide open, I do want to know and I have read the annexes. Why don't you point out to me exactly which part you think says different to what I say it says. Or are you just going to keep on throwing meaningless slogans around in the misguided belief that's some how going to convince me, or any one else that what your saying is right. Please show me the proof. | |||
"http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ You’re a 60-year-old army veteran who volunteers to sell poppies for the Royal British Legion in memory of fallen comrades. You’ve applied for dozens of jobs – including the supermarket where you sold the poppies – but without success. You are sanctioned for four weeks. Source: Daily Mirror You get a job interview. It’s at the same time as your job centre appointment, so you reschedule the job centre. You attend your rearranged appointment and then get a letter saying your benefits will be stopped because going to a job interview isn’t a good enough reason to miss an appointment. Source: Daily Mail Your gran dies during the night. The next morning your partner calls the job centre and asks if you can come in the following day instead. The centre agrees, and you sign in the next day. Then you get a letter stating that you failed to sign in and would be sanctioned if you don’t reply within seven days. You reply, explaining the situation. The job centre gives you a six-week sanction for not replying. Source: Mari-claire M at Netmums You’ve signed in on time, been to interviews and applied for work. Your job centre advisor suggests you make a two-line change to your CV, which you do, but fail to give the updated CV to the job centre (you weren’t told you had to). You are sanctioned for four weeks. Source: nciaw36 at MoneySavingExpert You work for 20 years and then miss a job centre appointment because you haven’t had the process clearly explained. You are sanctioned for 3 weeks. Source: Councillor John O’Shea You get a job that starts in two weeks time. You don’t look for work while you are waiting for the job to start. You’re sanctioned. Source: The Guardian You are forced to retire due to a heart condition, and you claim Employment and Support Allowance. During your assessment you have a heart attack. You are sanctioned for not completing your assessment. Source: Debbie Abrahams MP It’s Christmas Day and you don’t fill in your job search evidence form to show that you’ve looked for all the new jobs that are advertised on Christmas Day. You are sanctioned. Merry Christmas. Source: Poverty Alliance You are given a training appointment that clashes with your job centre appointment. The job centre is unwilling to rearrange its appointment and tells you to get a letter from the training organisation. The training organisation says it doesn’t provide letters. Source: Russell Brown MP You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week. Source: Pontefract and Castleford Express (via Benefit Tales) You miss your job centre appointment due to the funeral of a close family relative. You are sanctioned. Source: Derek Twigg MP You’ve been unemployed for seven months and are forced onto a workfare scheme in a shop miles away, but can’t afford to travel. You offer to work in a nearer branch but are refused and get sanctioned for not attending your placement. Source: Caroline Lucas MP You have a job interview which overruns so you arrive at your job centre appointment 9 minutes late. You get sanctioned for a month. Source: jsdk at Consumer Action You can’t afford to travel to look for work so you get sanctioned. Source: Citizens Advice Bureau Your job centre advisor suggests a job. When you go online to apply it says the job has “expired” so you don’t apply. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks. Source: Penny at Yahoo! Answers" This may be evidence of a bad policy or a bad implementation of the policy. But your allegation was that targets for sanctions on conditionality were being set and non of this is evidence of that. The only evidence provided to support that allegations turns out not to support it but actually to contradict it. I also wonder whether any of these people tuck up their right to appeal, because, unless there is something more to these cases that is not clear from your post, they probably would have won. | |||
| |||
"http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/22/labour-demands-action-jobcentre-targets" This seems to refer to the cases covered in the report. The managers that tries to apply targets, that did not exist, have been told they were wrong to that and threatened with disciplinary action if they do it again. The report says that it happened and also that it should not have happened. I still see no evidence of a policy of setting targets for conditionality sanctions | |||
"http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ You’re a 60-year-old army veteran who volunteers to sell poppies for the Royal British Legion in memory of fallen comrades. You’ve applied for dozens of jobs – including the supermarket where you sold the poppies – but without success. You are sanctioned for four weeks. Source: Daily Mirror You get a job interview. It’s at the same time as your job centre appointment, so you reschedule the job centre. You attend your rearranged appointment and then get a letter saying your benefits will be stopped because going to a job interview isn’t a good enough reason to miss an appointment. Source: Daily Mail Your gran dies during the night. The next morning your partner calls the job centre and asks if you can come in the following day instead. The centre agrees, and you sign in the next day. Then you get a letter stating that you failed to sign in and would be sanctioned if you don’t reply within seven days. You reply, explaining the situation. The job centre gives you a six-week sanction for not replying. Source: Mari-claire M at Netmums You’ve signed in on time, been to interviews and applied for work. Your job centre advisor suggests you make a two-line change to your CV, which you do, but fail to give the updated CV to the job centre (you weren’t told you had to). You are sanctioned for four weeks. Source: nciaw36 at MoneySavingExpert You work for 20 years and then miss a job centre appointment because you haven’t had the process clearly explained. You are sanctioned for 3 weeks. Source: Councillor John O’Shea You get a job that starts in two weeks time. You don’t look for work while you are waiting for the job to start. You’re sanctioned. Source: The Guardian You are forced to retire due to a heart condition, and you claim Employment and Support Allowance. During your assessment you have a heart attack. You are sanctioned for not completing your assessment. Source: Debbie Abrahams MP It’s Christmas Day and you don’t fill in your job search evidence form to show that you’ve looked for all the new jobs that are advertised on Christmas Day. You are sanctioned. Merry Christmas. Source: Poverty Alliance You are given a training appointment that clashes with your job centre appointment. The job centre is unwilling to rearrange its appointment and tells you to get a letter from the training organisation. The training organisation says it doesn’t provide letters. Source: Russell Brown MP You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week. Source: Pontefract and Castleford Express (via Benefit Tales) You miss your job centre appointment due to the funeral of a close family relative. You are sanctioned. Source: Derek Twigg MP You’ve been unemployed for seven months and are forced onto a workfare scheme in a shop miles away, but can’t afford to travel. You offer to work in a nearer branch but are refused and get sanctioned for not attending your placement. Source: Caroline Lucas MP You have a job interview which overruns so you arrive at your job centre appointment 9 minutes late. You get sanctioned for a month. Source: jsdk at Consumer Action You can’t afford to travel to look for work so you get sanctioned. Source: Citizens Advice Bureau Your job centre advisor suggests a job. When you go online to apply it says the job has “expired” so you don’t apply. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks. Source: Penny at Yahoo! Answers This may be evidence of a bad policy or a bad implementation of the policy. But your allegation was that targets for sanctions on conditionality were being set and non of this is evidence of that. The only evidence provided to support that allegations turns out not to support it but actually to contradict it. I also wonder whether any of these people tuck up their right to appeal, because, unless there is something more to these cases that is not clear from your post, they probably would have won." DWP aren't going to admit targets. Many, many jobcentre staff have told news sources that there are targets but of course they have to remain anonymous because their job is on the line! Why are the majority of these stories only reported by charities and small news sources, rather than And as I said, statistics show a huge number of sanctions are over-turned on appeal (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/jobseekers-allowance-and-employment-and-support-allowance-sanctions-decisions-made-to-september-2013), meaning they clearly should not have been applied in the first place! The payments are back-dated but how does that help people who have been left for months without any money AT ALL, and have been in poverty for a while so have no savings to fall back on, throughout that process? The system is unfair and is being abused by the DWP. The first stage of an appeal is a "mandatory reconsideration" by the same organisation that imposed the sanction in the first place and they can, and do, drag that process out. Your implication was that people are sanctioned for a good reason and it's deserved. This is clearly not the case. Did you not notice the mention of the competition to win an Easter egg??? Who can sanction the most people to win a bloody Easter egg? | |||
"http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/22/labour-demands-action-jobcentre-targets This seems to refer to the cases covered in the report. The managers that tries to apply targets, that did not exist, have been told they were wrong to that and threatened with disciplinary action if they do it again. The report says that it happened and also that it should not have happened. I still see no evidence of a policy of setting targets for conditionality sanctions" Also I find your examples of bad application of conditionality sanctions, while not being relevant to the subject of whether a target exists or not, quite enlightening a worth a closes look in themselves alone. | |||
"It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. the dwp hasn't finished it's report in to the death of mark wood as yet but it is eargerly waited on with anticipation. they have however appologised for what has happened and admit that things should have been handled differently. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. all of the above accusations are quite emphatic in their attempt to discredit other members posts on this thread. in this case it is all substantiated as you will find if you do your research. your humble pie may have finished cooking and be ready for you to eat by the time you finish reading the dwp report. Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves. by the way i have given credence to someone elses arguement, not mine I really don't think I'm discrediting any one by asking them to provide proof of what they are saying. It's always easy to make a point; it's a lot more difficult to substantiate it with independent evidence. But, if you want to convince people of what you (not you specially but any one) are saying then it is necessary. Otherwise this turns into a slinging match of name calling and abuse. Unfortunately some times when you do provide it people read it and this happens This is the link to the ‘ CONDITIONALITY AND SANCTIONS REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS for those that want to know for themselves https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199242/sanctions-report.pdf And, to be fair, it does not quite say what some on here are saying it says. It basically says that the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) union made allegations that targets for conditionality sanctions were being set and that a number of internal emails and memo were leaked to the Guardian news paper that suggested that this might be true. On investigation it turned out that some managers had sent out emails to staff suggesting that they were not reaching their targets for applying sanctions related to conditionality. These managers have now been told that they were incorrect to send out such emails and that there is NO target for sanctioning claimants (clients) for violations in conditionality. All such targets, having been introduced in 1996(Conservative) and further updated and strengthened in 2006(Labour) were actually scrapped in 2011(Conservative/LibDem) (See section 2.1). Also Job centre advisor are not allowed to apply sanctions for non-compliance with conditionality, they can only refer the case to an independent decision maker. (Section 2.7) Section 3 goes into the specific cases and why what the adviser managers had done by sending out the emails was not the correct procedure and that no matrix or targets are allowed to be used for Conditionality Sanctions. It blames the incident on the still pervasive culture of target setting and achieving that had previously existed but was in fact scrapped in 2011. In section 4 it concludes 4.1 We found no evidence of a secret national regime of targets or widespread secret imposition of local regimes to that effect. There is no national use of league tables. We found no evidence people are being wrongly sanctioned as a consequence. Indeed the accusation itself is founded on a misapprehension that advisers in jobcentres sanction people. As this report explained earlier advisers merely raise a doubt about conditionality. Independent Decision-Makers make the sanction decision and claimants have a right to an independent appeal with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service if they are unhappy with the decision. 4.2 After an extensive trawl through of the material provided to us or leaked to the press we have found a limited number of instances where a local manager has misinterpreted the instructions or has fallen back on target methodology in an effort to exercise their responsibilities to ensure the law is being properly applied. I believe that is happening because the cultural change underpinning the move away from a target-based approach to sanctions and conditionality is incomplete. We need to be vigilant and consistent to ensure junior managers continue to move away from legacy habits as we focus on building the freedom and flexibility approach. We are using these incidents and the recent press coverage to redouble our efforts. For the individual Managers concerned we are supporting them in tackling these issues with coaching and guidance. Where, despite these efforts, managers fall short of the standard required, disciplinary action will be considered. There are other conclusions as well that have not included. read the annexes .... and do you want brown sauce or tomato sauce on your humble pie
There's none so blind as those who don't want to know!
My eyes are wide open, I do want to know and I have read the annexes. Why don't you point out to me exactly which part you think says different to what I say it says.
Or are you just going to keep on throwing meaningless slogans around in the misguided belief that's some how going to convince me, or any one else that what your saying is right.
Please show me the proof.
"You don't want to see what's being said. It's easy to dismiss the people who work in the system who verify there are targets as unreliable and the claims as hearsay because it's not being reported in official reports. Of course it's not. Those telling the truth are in fear of their jobs and everyone who could expose the situation has a vested interest in not doing so! | |||
| |||
| |||
"http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ You’re a 60-year-old army veteran who volunteers to sell poppies for the Royal British Legion in memory of fallen comrades. You’ve applied for dozens of jobs – including the supermarket where you sold the poppies – but without success. You are sanctioned for four weeks. Source: Daily Mirror You get a job interview. It’s at the same time as your job centre appointment, so you reschedule the job centre. You attend your rearranged appointment and then get a letter saying your benefits will be stopped because going to a job interview isn’t a good enough reason to miss an appointment. Source: Daily Mail Your gran dies during the night. The next morning your partner calls the job centre and asks if you can come in the following day instead. The centre agrees, and you sign in the next day. Then you get a letter stating that you failed to sign in and would be sanctioned if you don’t reply within seven days. You reply, explaining the situation. The job centre gives you a six-week sanction for not replying. Source: Mari-claire M at Netmums You’ve signed in on time, been to interviews and applied for work. Your job centre advisor suggests you make a two-line change to your CV, which you do, but fail to give the updated CV to the job centre (you weren’t told you had to). You are sanctioned for four weeks. Source: nciaw36 at MoneySavingExpert You work for 20 years and then miss a job centre appointment because you haven’t had the process clearly explained. You are sanctioned for 3 weeks. Source: Councillor John O’Shea You get a job that starts in two weeks time. You don’t look for work while you are waiting for the job to start. You’re sanctioned. Source: The Guardian You are forced to retire due to a heart condition, and you claim Employment and Support Allowance. During your assessment you have a heart attack. You are sanctioned for not completing your assessment. Source: Debbie Abrahams MP It’s Christmas Day and you don’t fill in your job search evidence form to show that you’ve looked for all the new jobs that are advertised on Christmas Day. You are sanctioned. Merry Christmas. Source: Poverty Alliance You are given a training appointment that clashes with your job centre appointment. The job centre is unwilling to rearrange its appointment and tells you to get a letter from the training organisation. The training organisation says it doesn’t provide letters. Source: Russell Brown MP You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week. Source: Pontefract and Castleford Express (via Benefit Tales) You miss your job centre appointment due to the funeral of a close family relative. You are sanctioned. Source: Derek Twigg MP You’ve been unemployed for seven months and are forced onto a workfare scheme in a shop miles away, but can’t afford to travel. You offer to work in a nearer branch but are refused and get sanctioned for not attending your placement. Source: Caroline Lucas MP You have a job interview which overruns so you arrive at your job centre appointment 9 minutes late. You get sanctioned for a month. Source: jsdk at Consumer Action You can’t afford to travel to look for work so you get sanctioned. Source: Citizens Advice Bureau Your job centre advisor suggests a job. When you go online to apply it says the job has “expired” so you don’t apply. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks. Source: Penny at Yahoo! Answers This may be evidence of a bad policy or a bad implementation of the policy. But your allegation was that targets for sanctions on conditionality were being set and non of this is evidence of that. The only evidence provided to support that allegations turns out not to support it but actually to contradict it. I also wonder whether any of these people tuck up their right to appeal, because, unless there is something more to these cases that is not clear from your post, they probably would have won. DWP aren't going to admit targets. " Well actually, under freedom of information, they would have to and if any person lied about it they could by liable for criminal action. One thing is for sure, if there was no target they would not admit to one being there " Many, many jobcentre staff have told news sources that there are targets but of course they have to remain anonymous because their job is on the line! " Well that's what hear-say is. Some one, who for some reason can't be identified, says this. It may be true, it may not be true. But it's not evidence " Why are the majority of these stories only reported by charities and small news sources, rather than (Edit: the media)" Because they are unsubstantiated. There is empirical evidence that it's true " And as I said, statistics show a huge number of sanctions are over-turned on appeal (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/jobseekers-allowance-and-employment-and-support-allowance-sanctions-decisions-made-to-september-2013), meaning they clearly should not have been applied in the first place! The payments are back-dated but how does that help people who have been left for months without any money AT ALL, and have been in poverty for a while so have no savings to fall back on, throughout that process? The system is unfair and is being abused by the DWP. The first stage of an appeal is a "mandatory reconsideration" by the same organisation that imposed the sanction in the first place and they can, and do, drag that process out. Your implication was that people are sanctioned for a good reason and it's deserved. This is clearly not the case." I don't think I implied anything, and would not imply that because, having gone through an appeal against the DWP in the past, I know that's not always the case. What I asked you was 'What were they sanctioned for?'. Nothing was meant to be implied or intended. " Did you not notice the mention of the competition to win an Easter egg??? Who can sanction the most people to win a bloody Easter egg?" I did, and the report covered that. It was one of the emails that the manager should not have sent because setting targets for referrals for conditional sanctions, or indeed any sanctions, is against the new policy brought in in 2011. I hope you noted were it said that if managers continued to try and set targets for referrals for sanctions they could face disciplinary action. | |||
| |||
"I hope you noted were it said that if managers continued to try and set targets for referrals for sanctions they could face disciplinary action." Any yet the people doing the job - a really large proportion of people doing the job - continue to confirm that targets and pressure exist. | |||
"What I asked you was 'What were they sanctioned for?'. Nothing was meant to be implied or intended." Then I misunderstood because to me your comment read as "in order for it to have happened, they must have deserved it". I apologise. | |||
"It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. the dwp hasn't finished it's report in to the death of mark wood as yet but it is eargerly waited on with anticipation. they have however appologised for what has happened and admit that things should have been handled differently. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. all of the above accusations are quite emphatic in their attempt to discredit other members posts on this thread. in this case it is all substantiated as you will find if you do your research. your humble pie may have finished cooking and be ready for you to eat by the time you finish reading the dwp report. Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves. by the way i have given credence to someone elses arguement, not mine I really don't think I'm discrediting any one by asking them to provide proof of what they are saying. It's always easy to make a point; it's a lot more difficult to substantiate it with independent evidence. But, if you want to convince people of what you (not you specially but any one) are saying then it is necessary. Otherwise this turns into a slinging match of name calling and abuse. Unfortunately some times when you do provide it people read it and this happens This is the link to the ‘ CONDITIONALITY AND SANCTIONS REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS for those that want to know for themselves https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199242/sanctions-report.pdf And, to be fair, it does not quite say what some on here are saying it says. It basically says that the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) union made allegations that targets for conditionality sanctions were being set and that a number of internal emails and memo were leaked to the Guardian news paper that suggested that this might be true. On investigation it turned out that some managers had sent out emails to staff suggesting that they were not reaching their targets for applying sanctions related to conditionality. These managers have now been told that they were incorrect to send out such emails and that there is NO target for sanctioning claimants (clients) for violations in conditionality. All such targets, having been introduced in 1996(Conservative) and further updated and strengthened in 2006(Labour) were actually scrapped in 2011(Conservative/LibDem) (See section 2.1). Also Job centre advisor are not allowed to apply sanctions for non-compliance with conditionality, they can only refer the case to an independent decision maker. (Section 2.7) Section 3 goes into the specific cases and why what the adviser managers had done by sending out the emails was not the correct procedure and that no matrix or targets are allowed to be used for Conditionality Sanctions. It blames the incident on the still pervasive culture of target setting and achieving that had previously existed but was in fact scrapped in 2011. In section 4 it concludes 4.1 We found no evidence of a secret national regime of targets or widespread secret imposition of local regimes to that effect. There is no national use of league tables. We found no evidence people are being wrongly sanctioned as a consequence. Indeed the accusation itself is founded on a misapprehension that advisers in jobcentres sanction people. As this report explained earlier advisers merely raise a doubt about conditionality. Independent Decision-Makers make the sanction decision and claimants have a right to an independent appeal with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service if they are unhappy with the decision. 4.2 After an extensive trawl through of the material provided to us or leaked to the press we have found a limited number of instances where a local manager has misinterpreted the instructions or has fallen back on target methodology in an effort to exercise their responsibilities to ensure the law is being properly applied. I believe that is happening because the cultural change underpinning the move away from a target-based approach to sanctions and conditionality is incomplete. We need to be vigilant and consistent to ensure junior managers continue to move away from legacy habits as we focus on building the freedom and flexibility approach. We are using these incidents and the recent press coverage to redouble our efforts. For the individual Managers concerned we are supporting them in tackling these issues with coaching and guidance. Where, despite these efforts, managers fall short of the standard required, disciplinary action will be considered. There are other conclusions as well that have not included. read the annexes .... and do you want brown sauce or tomato sauce on your humble pie
There's none so blind as those who don't want to know!
My eyes are wide open, I do want to know and I have read the annexes. Why don't you point out to me exactly which part you think says different to what I say it says.
Or are you just going to keep on throwing meaningless slogans around in the misguided belief that's some how going to convince me, or any one else that what your saying is right.
Please show me the proof.
You don't want to see what's being said. It's easy to dismiss the people who work in the system who verify there are targets as unreliable and the claims as hearsay because it's not being reported in official reports. Of course it's not. Those telling the truth are in fear of their jobs and everyone who could expose the situation has a vested interest in not doing so!"What ever their reasons for not wanting to be identified, it's still hearsay. That's not to discredit them and not saying what they are saying is not true. It might be. But it's not proof it's just what it is - hearsay. The only real proof provided so far contradicts the hearsay. I have no choice but to go with the proof. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
""Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said his party would table amendments in the Lords on Monday to widen the terms of the proposed inquiry if ministers did not give an undertaking "to get to the bottom of every sanction issued by a jobcentre where targets were in operation"." " What would be really useful on this would be some dates. I can't tell if any of this is from today, last year, 5 years ago or more. Anything prior to March 2013 is covered by the report. " Admits targets are in operation, and that's only the ones that have been caught. "Jobcentre staff have since contacted the Guardian to say that it is widespread practice for managers to set targets for removing benefits, sometimes under the guise of benchmarks or expectations for the number of sanctions levied. A separate investigation suggests there is evidence from jobcentres around the UK that pressure is being applied on staff to remove more people's benefits." Jobcentre staff claim they are set targets. "It was also reported that staff in a jobcentre in the West Midlands were this week told that the team who submitted the most Stricter Benefit Regime "Refusal of Employment" referrals would be rewarded with Easter eggs. The staff were told there was drive on this particular type of sanction." Rewards are offered for sanctioning people. The people offered these rewards are saying so. They have no reason to lie where as managers and Ministers do. "Pressed again, he said: "Anybody caught imposing a target will be dealt with. That is absolutely clear. That message has already gone out. It went out before on innumerable occasions."" Meanwhile "ineffective" staff lose their jobs and the rest are told to carry on and keep their fucking mouths shut. There are still staff reporting that targets and league tables exist so nothing has changed. Again, it's the Ministers who have the reason to lie. "In the same debate Stella Creasy, Labour MP for Walthamstow, urged jobcentre workers to come forward to describe the situation in their offices. She said: "The email is not the work of one over-enthusiastic member of staff. When it mentions league tables and the role of divisional managers, it is clear that this is not happening by accident. "I trusted ministers when, on Tuesday, they claimed that there are no targets whatsoever. I now see that means that they are either simply admitting that they do not know what goes on in their own department, or that they were not giving us the full truth on Tuesday in this house." It's not happening by accident, which means it's a plan. Ministers have already been caught lying about it but you prefer to believe them when they say it will be dealt with? "Byrne also asked why if the instruction banning targets had been sent out on innumerable occasions it was simply being ignored by managers – and if the DWP would, in the light of Duncan Smith's comments, discipline managers imposing targets and also allow staff to speak up about the imposition of targets without fear of being disciplined." Yes, why indeed would the banning of targets be ignored if that's the official line?" | |||
"It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. the dwp hasn't finished it's report in to the death of mark wood as yet but it is eargerly waited on with anticipation. they have however appologised for what has happened and admit that things should have been handled differently. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. all of the above accusations are quite emphatic in their attempt to discredit other members posts on this thread. in this case it is all substantiated as you will find if you do your research. your humble pie may have finished cooking and be ready for you to eat by the time you finish reading the dwp report. Actually I do chose to read it; that's why I was asking for the links. Also by providing it you add credence to your argument, rather than it just being your word, we can now go and look for ourselves. by the way i have given credence to someone elses arguement, not mine I really don't think I'm discrediting any one by asking them to provide proof of what they are saying. It's always easy to make a point; it's a lot more difficult to substantiate it with independent evidence. But, if you want to convince people of what you (not you specially but any one) are saying then it is necessary. Otherwise this turns into a slinging match of name calling and abuse. Unfortunately some times when you do provide it people read it and this happens This is the link to the ‘ CONDITIONALITY AND SANCTIONS REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS for those that want to know for themselves https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199242/sanctions-report.pdf And, to be fair, it does not quite say what some on here are saying it says. It basically says that the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) union made allegations that targets for conditionality sanctions were being set and that a number of internal emails and memo were leaked to the Guardian news paper that suggested that this might be true. On investigation it turned out that some managers had sent out emails to staff suggesting that they were not reaching their targets for applying sanctions related to conditionality. These managers have now been told that they were incorrect to send out such emails and that there is NO target for sanctioning claimants (clients) for violations in conditionality. All such targets, having been introduced in 1996(Conservative) and further updated and strengthened in 2006(Labour) were actually scrapped in 2011(Conservative/LibDem) (See section 2.1). Also Job centre advisor are not allowed to apply sanctions for non-compliance with conditionality, they can only refer the case to an independent decision maker. (Section 2.7) Section 3 goes into the specific cases and why what the adviser managers had done by sending out the emails was not the correct procedure and that no matrix or targets are allowed to be used for Conditionality Sanctions. It blames the incident on the still pervasive culture of target setting and achieving that had previously existed but was in fact scrapped in 2011. In section 4 it concludes 4.1 We found no evidence of a secret national regime of targets or widespread secret imposition of local regimes to that effect. There is no national use of league tables. We found no evidence people are being wrongly sanctioned as a consequence. Indeed the accusation itself is founded on a misapprehension that advisers in jobcentres sanction people. As this report explained earlier advisers merely raise a doubt about conditionality. Independent Decision-Makers make the sanction decision and claimants have a right to an independent appeal with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service if they are unhappy with the decision. 4.2 After an extensive trawl through of the material provided to us or leaked to the press we have found a limited number of instances where a local manager has misinterpreted the instructions or has fallen back on target methodology in an effort to exercise their responsibilities to ensure the law is being properly applied. I believe that is happening because the cultural change underpinning the move away from a target-based approach to sanctions and conditionality is incomplete. We need to be vigilant and consistent to ensure junior managers continue to move away from legacy habits as we focus on building the freedom and flexibility approach. We are using these incidents and the recent press coverage to redouble our efforts. For the individual Managers concerned we are supporting them in tackling these issues with coaching and guidance. Where, despite these efforts, managers fall short of the standard required, disciplinary action will be considered. There are other conclusions as well that have not included. read the annexes .... and do you want brown sauce or tomato sauce on your humble pie
There's none so blind as those who don't want to know!
My eyes are wide open, I do want to know and I have read the annexes. Why don't you point out to me exactly which part you think says different to what I say it says.
Or are you just going to keep on throwing meaningless slogans around in the misguided belief that's some how going to convince me, or any one else that what your saying is right.
Please show me the proof.
You don't want to see what's being said. It's easy to dismiss the people who work in the system who verify there are targets as unreliable and the claims as hearsay because it's not being reported in official reports. Of course it's not. Those telling the truth are in fear of their jobs and everyone who could expose the situation has a vested interest in not doing so!
What ever their reasons for not wanting to be identified, it's still hearsay. That's not to discredit them and not saying what they are saying is not true. It might be. But it's not proof it's just what it is - hearsay.
The only real proof provided so far contradicts the hearsay. I have no choice but to go with the proof."What "proof" discounts it? You're simply choosing to believe what Ministers say over what (a really large number of) jobcentre workers say. There's no proof that targets have been eradicated across centres, only a claim that they would be. Workers state this isn't the case. | |||
"What would be really useful on this would be some dates. I can't tell if any of this is from today, last year, 5 years ago or more. Anything prior to March 2013 is covered by the report." The PCS survey was this year. There's still an awful lot of actual workers claiming sanction targets and pressure exists. | |||
""Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said his party would table amendments in the Lords on Monday to widen the terms of the proposed inquiry if ministers did not give an undertaking "to get to the bottom of every sanction issued by a jobcentre where targets were in operation"." What would be really useful on this would be some dates. I can't tell if any of this is from today, last year, 5 years ago or more. Anything prior to March 2013 is covered by the report." The news report clearly is from Friday 22 March 2013 and it says the amendments would be tabled on Monday, which would be March 25th. What further dates are needed? | |||
"The document, passed to LabourList, adds that overall performance should be 5% of the "live load". How can there be a "should be" when sanctions are meant to be a response to the actions of claimants. If this is meant merely as an indication of the average then it's a strange way to phrase it. It looks like a target to me, and yet even then the DWP were denying targets exist. Why would a manager feel the need to compete with other centres without pressure to do so?" But the report clearly says that that should not have happened. I don't think anyone could deny that targets did exist for sanctions and referral of sanctions up until they were scrapped in 2011. I also think, and the report clearly says also, that some managers tried to infer a target and implement it. The report says that they were wrong to do that and that NO targets exist for referral of any sanctions and if managers try to infer and implement one they could face disciplinary action. The long and short of it is, there is no target for referrals for sanctions and if any manager tries to implement one they could face the sack. Why don't you spend your time fighting the real scandal which is the number of sanctions that are over turned on appeal. That's provable and serious and causing real hardship. This targets thing is totally un-provable, probably because it's not true and a complete red herring. | |||
"The document, passed to LabourList, adds that overall performance should be 5% of the "live load". How can there be a "should be" when sanctions are meant to be a response to the actions of claimants. If this is meant merely as an indication of the average then it's a strange way to phrase it. It looks like a target to me, and yet even then the DWP were denying targets exist. Why would a manager feel the need to compete with other centres without pressure to do so? But the report clearly says that that should not have happened. I don't think anyone could deny that targets did exist for sanctions and referral of sanctions up until they were scrapped in 2011. I also think, and the report clearly says also, that some managers tried to infer a target and implement it. The report says that they were wrong to do that and that NO targets exist for referral of any sanctions and if managers try to infer and implement one they could face disciplinary action. The long and short of it is, there is no target for referrals for sanctions and if any manager tries to implement one they could face the sack. Why don't you spend your time fighting the real scandal which is the number of sanctions that are over turned on appeal. That's provable and serious and causing real hardship. This targets thing is totally un-provable, probably because it's not true and a complete red herring. " So why are so many actual workers saying it is still happening despite Ministerial sound bites that it was an anomaly, should not have happened and would be dealt with? It clearly hasn't been dealt with. | |||
""Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said his party would table amendments in the Lords on Monday to widen the terms of the proposed inquiry if ministers did not give an undertaking "to get to the bottom of every sanction issued by a jobcentre where targets were in operation"." What would be really useful on this would be some dates. I can't tell if any of this is from today, last year, 5 years ago or more. Anything prior to March 2013 is covered by the report. The news report clearly is from Friday 22 March 2013 and it says the amendments would be tabled on Monday, which would be March 25th. What further dates are needed?" That one is more than enough. So it is covered by the report. A reasonable explanation of what happened has been put forward in the report and those managers who tried to infer a target were non existed have been told that if they do it again they will face disciplinary action. Where's the big scandal. There is not and has not been official targets set for sanctions since 2011 and were managers have tried to create one they have been told in no uncertain that should not try to do it again. Let's move on | |||
| |||
""Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said his party would table amendments in the Lords on Monday to widen the terms of the proposed inquiry if ministers did not give an undertaking "to get to the bottom of every sanction issued by a jobcentre where targets were in operation"." What would be really useful on this would be some dates. I can't tell if any of this is from today, last year, 5 years ago or more. Anything prior to March 2013 is covered by the report. The news report clearly is from Friday 22 March 2013 and it says the amendments would be tabled on Monday, which would be March 25th. What further dates are needed? That one is more than enough. So it is covered by the report. A reasonable explanation of what happened has been put forward in the report and those managers who tried to infer a target were non existed have been told that if they do it again they will face disciplinary action. Where's the big scandal. There is not and has not been official targets set for sanctions since 2011 and were managers have tried to create one they have been told in no uncertain that should not try to do it again. Let's move on" And the PCS worker claims you are so conveniently ignoring. It still exists. | |||
"The document, passed to LabourList, adds that overall performance should be 5% of the "live load". How can there be a "should be" when sanctions are meant to be a response to the actions of claimants. If this is meant merely as an indication of the average then it's a strange way to phrase it. It looks like a target to me, and yet even then the DWP were denying targets exist. Why would a manager feel the need to compete with other centres without pressure to do so? But the report clearly says that that should not have happened. I don't think anyone could deny that targets did exist for sanctions and referral of sanctions up until they were scrapped in 2011. I also think, and the report clearly says also, that some managers tried to infer a target and implement it. The report says that they were wrong to do that and that NO targets exist for referral of any sanctions and if managers try to infer and implement one they could face disciplinary action. The long and short of it is, there is no target for referrals for sanctions and if any manager tries to implement one they could face the sack. Why don't you spend your time fighting the real scandal which is the number of sanctions that are over turned on appeal. That's provable and serious and causing real hardship. This targets thing is totally un-provable, probably because it's not true and a complete red herring. So why are so many actual workers saying it is still happening despite Ministerial sound bites that it was an anomaly, should not have happened and would be dealt with? It clearly hasn't been dealt with." Well you keep saying that but you have no real evidence. And without real evidence your just wasting your time. This government has many faults but on of the main things it set out to do and has done is to move away from a culture of targets. For good or bad, most targets have been removed both in the NHS and DWP. They don't believe in targets as a good way to produce results. They are not going to make an exception for this. So, unless you can produce proof that a target is being set, it's just not convincing. Especially as the only real proof produced in all this thread actually shows the contrary. Seriously, let's move on. There is nothing further to discuss on this targets. it's a total red herring | |||
| |||
""Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said his party would table amendments in the Lords on Monday to widen the terms of the proposed inquiry if ministers did not give an undertaking "to get to the bottom of every sanction issued by a jobcentre where targets were in operation"." What would be really useful on this would be some dates. I can't tell if any of this is from today, last year, 5 years ago or more. Anything prior to March 2013 is covered by the report. The news report clearly is from Friday 22 March 2013 and it says the amendments would be tabled on Monday, which would be March 25th. What further dates are needed? That one is more than enough. So it is covered by the report. A reasonable explanation of what happened has been put forward in the report and those managers who tried to infer a target were non existed have been told that if they do it again they will face disciplinary action. Where's the big scandal. There is not and has not been official targets set for sanctions since 2011 and were managers have tried to create one they have been told in no uncertain that should not try to do it again. Let's move on And the PCS worker claims you are so conveniently ignoring. It still exists." The PCS has always opposed conditionality sanctions. It's part of their policy and they are not independent. But regardless, if they have proof, as they did, they can bring it forward, as they did, and it will be investigated, as it was. IF found to be true, as it was, action will be taken to correct or discipline those doing it, as it was. What else can be done? | |||
"The document, passed to LabourList, adds that overall performance should be 5% of the "live load". How can there be a "should be" when sanctions are meant to be a response to the actions of claimants. If this is meant merely as an indication of the average then it's a strange way to phrase it. It looks like a target to me, and yet even then the DWP were denying targets exist. Why would a manager feel the need to compete with other centres without pressure to do so? But the report clearly says that that should not have happened. I don't think anyone could deny that targets did exist for sanctions and referral of sanctions up until they were scrapped in 2011. I also think, and the report clearly says also, that some managers tried to infer a target and implement it. The report says that they were wrong to do that and that NO targets exist for referral of any sanctions and if managers try to infer and implement one they could face disciplinary action. The long and short of it is, there is no target for referrals for sanctions and if any manager tries to implement one they could face the sack. Why don't you spend your time fighting the real scandal which is the number of sanctions that are over turned on appeal. That's provable and serious and causing real hardship. This targets thing is totally un-provable, probably because it's not true and a complete red herring. So why are so many actual workers saying it is still happening despite Ministerial sound bites that it was an anomaly, should not have happened and would be dealt with? It clearly hasn't been dealt with. Well you keep saying that but you have no real evidence. And without real evidence your just wasting your time. This government has many faults but on of the main things it set out to do and has done is to move away from a culture of targets. For good or bad, most targets have been removed both in the NHS and DWP. They don't believe in targets as a good way to produce results. They are not going to make an exception for this. So, unless you can produce proof that a target is being set, it's just not convincing. Especially as the only real proof produced in all this thread actually shows the contrary. Seriously, let's move on. There is nothing further to discuss on this targets. it's a total red herring" I've provided results of a survey of actual people working in the system. To accept the word of Ministers over those is just denial. You've no more evidence that the Ministers are telling the truth than the vast majority of those working in the system, who have no reason to lie. I still haven't seen your proof that contradicts the "hearsay". I've searched and I can't find evidence of any action being taken against any manager of any centre for imposing targets. That's not evidence targets don't exist. Still, if you insist on burying your head in the sand and denying what JCP workers report, when neither they nor the union conducting the survey have any reason to lie, that's your call and there is indeed no reason to discuss it further. And as you say, there are other abuses of the system like clearly unfair sanctions that should not be being applied. That is far more important. It's you that seized on the question of proof of targets, which is why I have been addressing that primarily. When I posted information about my other claims, you pointed out that didn't answer your question. Now you are telling me to focus on the unfair sanctions? You were the one that diverted the conversation in the direction of targets. | |||
""Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said his party would table amendments in the Lords on Monday to widen the terms of the proposed inquiry if ministers did not give an undertaking "to get to the bottom of every sanction issued by a jobcentre where targets were in operation"." What would be really useful on this would be some dates. I can't tell if any of this is from today, last year, 5 years ago or more. Anything prior to March 2013 is covered by the report. The news report clearly is from Friday 22 March 2013 and it says the amendments would be tabled on Monday, which would be March 25th. What further dates are needed? That one is more than enough. So it is covered by the report. A reasonable explanation of what happened has been put forward in the report and those managers who tried to infer a target were non existed have been told that if they do it again they will face disciplinary action. Where's the big scandal. There is not and has not been official targets set for sanctions since 2011 and were managers have tried to create one they have been told in no uncertain that should not try to do it again. Let's move on And the PCS worker claims you are so conveniently ignoring. It still exists. The PCS has always opposed conditionality sanctions. It's part of their policy and they are not independent. But regardless, if they have proof, as they did, they can bring it forward, as they did, and it will be investigated, as it was. IF found to be true, as it was, action will be taken to correct or discipline those doing it, as it was. What else can be done?" Ministers and the DWP are not independent either, yet you're simply accepting their claim, with no evidence, that it's not policy and will be dealt with! It isn't being investigated or dealt with. If it was, the problem would not now be so prolific, since the promise to tackle it was made in March last year! A large proportion of JCP workers now claim that they have targets, or at least pressure, to sanction and in a year, with the awareness from March last year there is no evidence that an investigation has uncovered any instance of targets or that anyone has been punished? Surely if they had been the Government would be waving their evidence that the issue is being addressed. Instead they merely continue to claim there are no targets, in the face of what the workers say! It must be lovely to be in a position to accept government rhetoric and dismiss any accounts of wrongdoing. I honestly wish I could. | |||
"The document, passed to LabourList, adds that overall performance should be 5% of the "live load". How can there be a "should be" when sanctions are meant to be a response to the actions of claimants. If this is meant merely as an indication of the average then it's a strange way to phrase it. It looks like a target to me, and yet even then the DWP were denying targets exist. Why would a manager feel the need to compete with other centres without pressure to do so? But the report clearly says that that should not have happened. I don't think anyone could deny that targets did exist for sanctions and referral of sanctions up until they were scrapped in 2011. I also think, and the report clearly says also, that some managers tried to infer a target and implement it. The report says that they were wrong to do that and that NO targets exist for referral of any sanctions and if managers try to infer and implement one they could face disciplinary action. The long and short of it is, there is no target for referrals for sanctions and if any manager tries to implement one they could face the sack. Why don't you spend your time fighting the real scandal which is the number of sanctions that are over turned on appeal. That's provable and serious and causing real hardship. This targets thing is totally un-provable, probably because it's not true and a complete red herring. So why are so many actual workers saying it is still happening despite Ministerial sound bites that it was an anomaly, should not have happened and would be dealt with? It clearly hasn't been dealt with. Well you keep saying that but you have no real evidence. And without real evidence your just wasting your time. This government has many faults but on of the main things it set out to do and has done is to move away from a culture of targets. For good or bad, most targets have been removed both in the NHS and DWP. They don't believe in targets as a good way to produce results. They are not going to make an exception for this. So, unless you can produce proof that a target is being set, it's just not convincing. Especially as the only real proof produced in all this thread actually shows the contrary. Seriously, let's move on. There is nothing further to discuss on this targets. it's a total red herring I've provided results of a survey of actual people working in the system. To accept the word of Ministers over those is just denial. You've no more evidence that the Ministers are telling the truth than the vast majority of those working in the system, who have no reason to lie. I still haven't seen your proof that contradicts the "hearsay". I've searched and I can't find evidence of any action being taken against any manager of any centre for imposing targets. That's not evidence targets don't exist. Still, if you insist on burying your head in the sand and denying what JCP workers report, when neither they nor the union conducting the survey have any reason to lie, that's your call and there is indeed no reason to discuss it further. And as you say, there are other abuses of the system like clearly unfair sanctions that should not be being applied. That is far more important. It's you that seized on the question of proof of targets, which is why I have been addressing that primarily. When I posted information about my other claims, you pointed out that didn't answer your question. Now you are telling me to focus on the unfair sanctions? You were the one that diverted the conversation in the direction of targets." Will you give me a chance to read it before you decide what I think about it. For those interested this is the full PCS report http://www.pcs.org.uk/download.cfm?docid=C3210D91-DB5E-4211-987556A51D969699 | |||
| |||
"The document, passed to LabourList, adds that overall performance should be 5% of the "live load". How can there be a "should be" when sanctions are meant to be a response to the actions of claimants. If this is meant merely as an indication of the average then it's a strange way to phrase it. It looks like a target to me, and yet even then the DWP were denying targets exist. Why would a manager feel the need to compete with other centres without pressure to do so? But the report clearly says that that should not have happened. I don't think anyone could deny that targets did exist for sanctions and referral of sanctions up until they were scrapped in 2011. I also think, and the report clearly says also, that some managers tried to infer a target and implement it. The report says that they were wrong to do that and that NO targets exist for referral of any sanctions and if managers try to infer and implement one they could face disciplinary action. The long and short of it is, there is no target for referrals for sanctions and if any manager tries to implement one they could face the sack. Why don't you spend your time fighting the real scandal which is the number of sanctions that are over turned on appeal. That's provable and serious and causing real hardship. This targets thing is totally un-provable, probably because it's not true and a complete red herring. So why are so many actual workers saying it is still happening despite Ministerial sound bites that it was an anomaly, should not have happened and would be dealt with? It clearly hasn't been dealt with. Well you keep saying that but you have no real evidence. And without real evidence your just wasting your time. This government has many faults but on of the main things it set out to do and has done is to move away from a culture of targets. For good or bad, most targets have been removed both in the NHS and DWP. They don't believe in targets as a good way to produce results. They are not going to make an exception for this. So, unless you can produce proof that a target is being set, it's just not convincing. Especially as the only real proof produced in all this thread actually shows the contrary. Seriously, let's move on. There is nothing further to discuss on this targets. it's a total red herring I've provided results of a survey of actual people working in the system. To accept the word of Ministers over those is just denial. You've no more evidence that the Ministers are telling the truth than the vast majority of those working in the system, who have no reason to lie. I still haven't seen your proof that contradicts the "hearsay". I've searched and I can't find evidence of any action being taken against any manager of any centre for imposing targets. That's not evidence targets don't exist. Still, if you insist on burying your head in the sand and denying what JCP workers report, when neither they nor the union conducting the survey have any reason to lie, that's your call and there is indeed no reason to discuss it further. And as you say, there are other abuses of the system like clearly unfair sanctions that should not be being applied. That is far more important. It's you that seized on the question of proof of targets, which is why I have been addressing that primarily. When I posted information about my other claims, you pointed out that didn't answer your question. Now you are telling me to focus on the unfair sanctions? You were the one that diverted the conversation in the direction of targets. Will you give me a chance to read it before you decide what I think about it. For those interested this is the full PCS report http://www.pcs.org.uk/download.cfm?docid=C3210D91-DB5E-4211-987556A51D969699 " You've said what you think of it. The PCS are not independent and I should move on. I am, I'm going to bed. | |||
""Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, said his party would table amendments in the Lords on Monday to widen the terms of the proposed inquiry if ministers did not give an undertaking "to get to the bottom of every sanction issued by a jobcentre where targets were in operation"." What would be really useful on this would be some dates. I can't tell if any of this is from today, last year, 5 years ago or more. Anything prior to March 2013 is covered by the report. The news report clearly is from Friday 22 March 2013 and it says the amendments would be tabled on Monday, which would be March 25th. What further dates are needed? That one is more than enough. So it is covered by the report. A reasonable explanation of what happened has been put forward in the report and those managers who tried to infer a target were non existed have been told that if they do it again they will face disciplinary action. Where's the big scandal. There is not and has not been official targets set for sanctions since 2011 and were managers have tried to create one they have been told in no uncertain that should not try to do it again. Let's move on And the PCS worker claims you are so conveniently ignoring. It still exists. The PCS has always opposed conditionality sanctions. It's part of their policy and they are not independent. But regardless, if they have proof, as they did, they can bring it forward, as they did, and it will be investigated, as it was. IF found to be true, as it was, action will be taken to correct or discipline those doing it, as it was. What else can be done? Ministers and the DWP are not independent either, yet you're simply accepting their claim, with no evidence, that it's not policy and will be dealt with! " Government policy is a matter of public record and the policy is that there are no targets for any sanctions. The question is not whether it's government policy, because it just simply isn't, but whether it is happening at all and, if so, whether and how much the government may know about it. " It isn't being investigated or dealt with. If it was, the problem would not now be so prolific, since the promise to tackle it was made in March last year! " It has been investigated and the incidents brought forward have been dealt with. You have now, finally, brought forward some evidence that it is still going on. This to should be investigated, and may be it is, because it is real evidence. " A large proportion of JCP workers now claim that they have targets, or at least pressure, to sanction and in a year, with the awareness from March last year there is no evidence that an investigation has uncovered any instance of targets " but it did discover instances of managers setting targets when they should not have, that is clearly stated in the report. " or that anyone has been punished? " The report clearly said that, in this occasion, it was felt that the managers responsible needed more training but, if the same behaviour continued, disciplinary action should be considered "Surely if they had been the Government would be waving their evidence that the issue is being addressed. " Why would they do that? I really don't thing that the correct or incorrect sanctioning of JSA clients (or is it customers now?) is top of the list of either potential or actual conservative voters " Instead they merely continue to claim there are no targets, in the face of what the workers say! " Well we don't know what they're saying about this yet because the report referred to the 2013 allegations. I would be good to get hold of the minutes of the meeting of the 1st May referred to in the report and I will be looking to see if I can find anything relating to these new allegations to find out what is actually happening. " It must be lovely to be in a position to accept government rhetoric and dismiss any accounts of wrongdoing. I honestly wish I could." Why would you want do that? I don't accept any bodies rhetoric; government, yours, opposition or other. And I never dismissed your accounts of wrongdoing, I simply asked you to prove them. You have now provided some proof that supports what you were saying. In my opinion it's still not perfect proof but it does add credibility to what you were saying and should not be ignored and I'm not going to ignore it. | |||
"The document, passed to LabourList, adds that overall performance should be 5% of the "live load". How can there be a "should be" when sanctions are meant to be a response to the actions of claimants. If this is meant merely as an indication of the average then it's a strange way to phrase it. It looks like a target to me, and yet even then the DWP were denying targets exist. Why would a manager feel the need to compete with other centres without pressure to do so? But the report clearly says that that should not have happened. I don't think anyone could deny that targets did exist for sanctions and referral of sanctions up until they were scrapped in 2011. I also think, and the report clearly says also, that some managers tried to infer a target and implement it. The report says that they were wrong to do that and that NO targets exist for referral of any sanctions and if managers try to infer and implement one they could face disciplinary action. The long and short of it is, there is no target for referrals for sanctions and if any manager tries to implement one they could face the sack. Why don't you spend your time fighting the real scandal which is the number of sanctions that are over turned on appeal. That's provable and serious and causing real hardship. This targets thing is totally un-provable, probably because it's not true and a complete red herring. So why are so many actual workers saying it is still happening despite Ministerial sound bites that it was an anomaly, should not have happened and would be dealt with? It clearly hasn't been dealt with. Well you keep saying that but you have no real evidence. And without real evidence your just wasting your time. This government has many faults but on of the main things it set out to do and has done is to move away from a culture of targets. For good or bad, most targets have been removed both in the NHS and DWP. They don't believe in targets as a good way to produce results. They are not going to make an exception for this. So, unless you can produce proof that a target is being set, it's just not convincing. Especially as the only real proof produced in all this thread actually shows the contrary. Seriously, let's move on. There is nothing further to discuss on this targets. it's a total red herring I've provided results of a survey of actual people working in the system. To accept the word of Ministers over those is just denial. You've no more evidence that the Ministers are telling the truth than the vast majority of those working in the system, who have no reason to lie. I still haven't seen your proof that contradicts the "hearsay". I've searched and I can't find evidence of any action being taken against any manager of any centre for imposing targets. That's not evidence targets don't exist. Still, if you insist on burying your head in the sand and denying what JCP workers report, when neither they nor the union conducting the survey have any reason to lie, that's your call and there is indeed no reason to discuss it further. And as you say, there are other abuses of the system like clearly unfair sanctions that should not be being applied. That is far more important. It's you that seized on the question of proof of targets, which is why I have been addressing that primarily. When I posted information about my other claims, you pointed out that didn't answer your question. Now you are telling me to focus on the unfair sanctions? You were the one that diverted the conversation in the direction of targets. Will you give me a chance to read it before you decide what I think about it. For those interested this is the full PCS report http://www.pcs.org.uk/download.cfm?docid=C3210D91-DB5E-4211-987556A51D969699 You've said what you think of it. The PCS are not independent and I should move on. I am, I'm going to bed." That was in reply to your previous comment. I'm not a peed reader. !! | |||
"As is aways the way, people will choose to believe what suits their purposes and what they are comfortable with. " I think in this case it is far more that you are assuming what people believe than anything to do with what they actually believe. It's not really reasonable to start attacking a persons character just because they have asked you to provide proof of what you are saying " I think it's a shame that the Government campaign of propaganda and outright lies is being so successful but they are experts at it." So we're back to unsubstantiated allegations again. If it's not the truth as you see it it's an evil lie. Never mind any evidence. The only truth allowed is yours. | |||
"also, change your definition of welfare to include health and social care, child protection, teachers and state employees pensions. Print shiny pie charts showing the proportion of tax spent on this new definition of welfare on the back of everyones tax return, omitting subsidies given to banks, etc, and the cost of 5m for the pie charts, fueling more anger against 'benefit scroungers'. I'd like to have seen MP's salary and MP's expenses on that chart as individual categories. And the spending on subsidised restaurant and bar in Parliament. And the spending on 'hospitality' and hosting summit meetings etc. That would be an eye opener. Just realised that MPs pensions probably do take up most of the welfare bill, can't find anything conclusive on google yet though. well spotted. It will be interesting to find out if you can find out the bbc bosses earn more than David Cameron and claim more expenses according to the sun not sure if its true though
You aren't forced to pay for a tv licence though if you don't watch live tv, you are forced to pay your taxes.
Unless you are wealthy or a large corporation. The more you should pay, the less likely you are to have to.tv license is enforced if you own anything you can watch tv on a loptop games console mobile phones you have to pay tv license which is bullshit i refuse to pay tv license the bbc get enough to cover all the things we are paying tv license for so why are we paying it. Its just another thing we are forced to pay and if we don't pay it we get taken to court and could face jail time for it and now the bbc want to change it to a subscription
I got 3 tvs, a laptop, 2 mobiles (all these arne't mine they're like all my famileies overall), we don't need a licence coz none of us watch tv. I'm online chatting all day with youtube music in the background, my kids play ps3 or go on fb, none of us are into watching tv and haven't been for years.
I agree with that tax thing as well said before you, on rule for us and another for those who actually have all the money. well that's what i was told by the court officer that came to my house about my tv license ok i apologies seem the guy was talking a load of bull you only need a tv license if you watch live tv
I believe you used to need a licence if you owned any device with a tuner but the TV Licensing site is quite clear now that you only need one if you watch TV as it's being broadcast.
There's still a lot of misinformation about and a lot of people believe it to be as you said. No need to apologise. Glad you now know what you were told isn't true. I'm sure a lot of people are still paying for a licence that they don't need.
well i was wrong so its common curtsey to apologise and i think its wrong to pay tv license since they have got rid of analog tv and you now have to pay for sky or any other tv supplier as well as a tv license
No you don't. Freeview is, uh, free. Ok, you need a box, but then you also need a TV. just had a guy at the door about tv license seems if you have a signal coming from your house you have to pay it hmmmmm confused much "What signal? He's talking bollocks. | |||
"Some of them are being denied food for a month or more through benefit sanctions. The number of people stealing food for this reason has risen dramatically. In some areas, I'm told, the police have given up prosecuting for it. And why were those sanctions applied. I think it might be relevant. It has been revealed that job centres staff have targets to reach every week/month of the number of claimants put onto sanctions. Can you show use where this is revealed. Currently your accusation is simple hear-say It has also been revealed that many vulnerable claimants who agueably should not be on jobseekers allowance but were kicked off sickness benefits following ATOS assessment were sanctioned (meeting job centre targets) and may have died as a result. Again, where is this revealed, can you show unbiased documentation that proves or even suggests that this is the case. If so could you provide a link so we can all see for ourselves
The number of people totally in the dark about what's happening and who seem to genuinely believe it can't be true when they're told, is staggering.
What I find even more staggering is the number of people who make unsubstantiated allegations and expect everyone else to believe them without producing any empirical evidence that what they are saying is actually true
The media are completely complicit in spreading government propaganda.
Just because the media does not reflect your, so far unproven, view of what is going on does not mean they are complicit in either a cover-up or spreading propaganda. It could just as equally mean the media is not prepared to give credence to biased, unproven and unsubstantiated stories and is not willing to be a propaganda agent for those trying to spread them. "ATOS do have targets. My sister- in-law is an ATOS assessor, and she is given quarterly targets. | |||
"So we're back to unsubstantiated allegations again. If it's not the truth as you see it it's an evil lie. Never mind any evidence. The only truth allowed is yours. " you might find this next revelation really contentious and i know from your previous modus operandi on the forums that you will attempt to blindly argue against it, but it has recently come to light that black is actually black  | |||
"So we're back to unsubstantiated allegations again. If it's not the truth as you see it it's an evil lie. Never mind any evidence. The only truth allowed is yours. you might find this next revelation really contentious and i know from your previous modus operandi on the forums that you will attempt to blindly argue against it, but it has recently come to light that black is actually black "I don't believe. Prove it. LOL | |||
