That's not the tune the site team sing when other posters have attacked me for where I live even though people have posted on this forum asking about how to get UK benefits when they live in Spain and no-one has said a word about that. Not to mention the post that the moderators let sit for months in which a poster called an employer a nasty name in French (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?245901-Dismissal-with-no-prior-warnings-(Constructive-Unfair-Dismissal-)&p=3864306#post3864306 - I point to my post for the date but the post in question was made in March). Apparently, it is 'not judgemental' to call people libellous names if they are employers or other unfavoured groups. Ask yourself, will you, whether you would be saying what you said if the poster had wrote several posts agreeing with everything the poster in question was saying. I think the moderation on this forum is biased against anyone who isn't politically-correct. 'Not being judgemental' is just a code for 'not ever criticising someone who claims to be a victim'. So, in other words, everyone is supposed to offer tea and sympathy - and ways to get more money from taxpayers - but no-one is allowed to say that there are other ways of doing things and that maybe, just maybe, if people stopped concentrating on their so-called victimhood, they could find a way to do things. Oh, and for the record, at one time, I walked 2 and half miles a day each way to get to work because I didn't have a car, I don't like bikes, and the bus service was insufficient. I had to cross a rather tricky road at at roundabout, as well. It can be done. It just takes determination and planning. It also takes a sense of responsibility.

First of all, the OP is not the woman who is having the problems; she is the woman's cousin. Second of all, and I hate to say it, but it sounds as if she isn't being very helpful here. She may be focussing too much on her perception of how the system should work and therefore, may be unintentionally making her cousin's problems worse. They are not out to get her cousin, that's what I am saying. They are following the rules. Her cousin might not like it and the OP might not like it, but that is the case. To say anything else just makes the situation worse.

The woman may be worked up, but that doesn't change the facts in this case. The fact is that these are the rules and there are there because she is receiving other people's money. That is it. People have to understand that being upset doesn't mean that the world revolves around them. The rules simply aren't going to change because she is upset about them and if you think about it, that's a good thing. What's the point of having rules if every time someone said he was upset about them, the rules were just tossed out? If you want a rule of law, then it has to be this way. The sooner this woman realises that, the better, because then she can start really dealing with it. Frankly, though, it isn't as if she has to do anything much more than show bank statements, and she will have to do that no matter how upset she gets, so she had better get on with it. Getting worked up about these things will not do her any good. To say anything else in this situation will simply make matters worse for her. As to where I live, what does it matter? The truth is the truth. Stop trying to flame me and start dealing with the truth.

It's not all her money, though, is it? She is getting money from the taxpayer so it is reasonable, therefore, for her to have to be accountable for what she is doing with that money and whether she is eligible to even be receiving it. Her age has nothing to do with it. That she is not asking for more money has nothing to do with it. She has taken money from the taxpayer and therefore she has to comply with the rules.

What's so atrocious about it? The son is sometimes earning more money and he lives at home with his parents. It is reasonable that the government assumes that he is helping out with costs at home. As that is the case, the family doesn't need to take as much money as it does from the taxpayer. That's all. Look, people on these forums often accuse the government of intefering too much in their lives, and so it does. To prevent this, people have to hang together and that means families and friends supporting each other and not looking to the government to do it for them. In this case, the family members are assumed to be supporting each other. The government is doing them a favour because they should be supporting each other. They shouldn't be happy about taking money from taxpayers. This is what people used to do in the past, you know: support each other. The human race survived a long time without income support and other benefits and the world was definitely not a worse place because of it.

You know, elpulpo, what you called the ex-employer is very insulting. Some of us speak French, you know. Why is is ok to use language like that to describe someone you don't even know? Why do you, and all the others, by the way, assume that you have all the facts and that it is perfectly fine for you to try and then hang the ex-employer in this way. There seems to be an assumption on this forum that employer = bad and employee = good, without any facts, without anything at all. The facts we have in this case are that someone posted that a family member had been dismissed and that the OP believes and says that the family members also believes that the dismissal was unfair. That's it: a second-hand telling of what someone believes happened. And for that, and just on that, the ex-employer has been villified. This is just lynch mob behaviour, pure and simple. There are people, you know, who don't post here but who do read this forum to glean advice from it. If all they see is the 'hang the employer' attitude, it might encourage them to see themselves as victims and to go after their employers when they really don't have a case at all. Someone said on this thread that it was very telling that employers rarely posted on this forum to ask how to treat their employees. Given the anti-employer slant of this forum, can you really blame them?

Um, you're the one who seems to have the problem with emmigration; after all, if you don't have a problem with immigrants, then you shouldn't have a problem with emmigrants. You have insulted me and you have, in my opinion, insulted both the French and France. This is not civil of you and it is not called for at all. I don't know all the rules of the French system, as I have said, but no-one here starves in the streets, that is for certain. No-one is taken out and shot. If you are so interested, why don't you do some research yourself? There is information in English and French is easy enough to learn at any rate. This is my last reply on this subject as I have been repeatedly insulted by various posters here. Not only that, but an entire country and its people have been insulted. If you cannot carry out a civil conversation, then really, I don't think you should be posting here.

Why do you wish so much to insult the French? Why can't you hold a civilised conversation without being so very insulting? As for the sick/disabled/unemployed, generally, they are taken care of by their families. France is very strong on families. If one member of the family is working, then, provided the members are living together, they are all covered. I don't know all the rules, no, but no-one is being shot in the streets. What a dreadful accusation to make. Tell me, do you often insult other countries simply because they don't do things exactly the same way that they are done in England? Yes, I am entitled to my views, although it sounds as if you would rather that I not be. As I said, this site has no residence requirement for making comments. If you are as left-wing as you make yourself out to be, I should think that you would feel enriched by having an emmigrant inform you of diverse cultural differences outside of Britain.

Because I could hear their conversations. They didn't bother to disguise the fact that there wasn't anything wrong with them and that they just liked meeting at the surgery to have a chat with their friends. The fee doesn't put off anyone; remember that 70% of it is reimbursed by l'Assurance Maladie, and the rest by private insurance. Believe me, if people felt it was putting them off, they would say so and it would be in the newspapers. This is France and if people don't like something, they will protest. They will make themselves known.

There is no requirement to live in the UK to post on this forum, I might remind you. I still take an interest in what is going on in the UK, as anyone might. I plan indeed to stay in France where the system is very fair to those who work and pay taxes. The reason the surgeries are not full is that the fee puts off those who would be there to merely waste the doctor's time. Doctor's surgeries are not social clubs, you know, or, at least, they shouldn't be. Too often in the UK, I found that they were, however. When you are working and have to take time off to see the doctor, there is nothing more annoying than finding that people who do not have any reason to be there are clogging up the system. I find your insinuations about France and the French medical system to be more than a bit insulting. There is no need for that. I was asked how I would like having to pay to see the doctor and I made a reply based on my own experience.

I live in France, therefore, I do pay when I visit the doctor, some of which is reimbursed by l'Assurance Maladie, the state insurance cover, and some of which is reimbursed by private insurance. Each visit costs 22 euros and then there's any medicine I might need, as well as any treatment. The state insurance cover, as far as I am aware, is only available to people who work and to the retired. I like the system very much, thank you. For one thing, the surgery waiting room of my doctor isn't filled with old people and young mothers using it as a social meeting place. For another, the treatment is excellent. Oh, and the doctor keeps hours that fit with the lifestyle of working people: early morning, evening and Saturdays. It really is a great system.

If they managed to lower taxes when they dismantle the welfare state, then people will have more of their own money to spend on their own needs.

Many working people have to live with family and friends. Many working people have to live in bedsits. I never said that people claiming benefits have never paid taxes. I am saying, though, that they are being supported by current taxpayers. That's how the system works. Current taxpayers cannot really afford to pay what they are paying now, let alone pay for people on benefits to have infinite choices. Anyway, taxpayers don't have infinite choices. They have to make compromises. They have to put up with things not being as they would like them to be. Why should it be any different for people on benefits? You make the assumption, by the way, that I am calling for a tax cut in the UK. I haven't said a thing about it. Indeed, it doesn't affect me as I moved to France a few years back. I don't pay for the original poster. As for age discrimination, ha! I don't have to justify anything. I don't have to justify, for instance, your stance that people on benefits should have more choices than the people who are paying those benefits. I don't have to justify the fact that you appear to believe that taxpayers are an endless source of money and that it can be spent any way that pleases someone who holds out his hand and says 'need'. I don't have to justify anything because I'm not asking for anything from the UK taxpayer. You are: you are asking for people who do not have infinite choices to pay with their own money for others to have them.

I didn't say a word about benefit scroungers or benefit cheats. I just said that taxpayers can't afford to provide people on benefits with inifinite choices. I also pointed out that taxpayers don't have infinite choices. I might add, as well, that taxpayers don't benefit normally benefit from any form of protected work. Why should those live off the money of taxpayers get more than the taxpayers themselves get?

It's easy to be free with other people's money, isn't it? Taxpayers, that is, people in work, are footing the bill and there's only so much that they can afford. The fact is that people who are living off of other people's money shouldn't have infinite choices. Given the high price of housing, people in work often have to house share. No-one takes up any campaign on their behalf, no, they are just told to get on with it. People who don't live on benefits have to make compromises all the time so that they can live within their circumstances, so why shouldn't it be the same for people on benefits?

It sounds to me that you don't like the armed forces and so you would like them to suffer under the pretext of 'fairness'. It does matter what people have done. Do you think, do you really think, that, for example, someone who becomes disabled because he falls down some stairs while drunk deserves the exact same treatment as soldiers who put their lives on the line for their country? Don't you have any regard at all for the sacrifices those in the armed forces make?

The problem, as I see it, is frankly, that you are taking off an awful amount of time sick. How long do you think your employer has to put up with this? Why is it that you think it is unfair for your employer to expect you to come in and do the job you were hired to do? I realise that your wife has problems, but, to put it bluntly, these aren't anything to do with your employer. If you wish to stay in a job, any job, you need to find a way to solve your wife's problems so that you can actually go to work. Perhaps working for yourself might be the answer. As well, you were looking for a payout rather than reinstatement. And if you had had that payout, what would you do when the money ran out? Employers are very adverse to hiring people who have taken their employers to the tribunal. After the money ran out, you might have found yourself unable to find other employment. I suspect that the 'something better' you are looking for doesn't exist: an employer who pays you no matter how much time off sick you take.

This is all wrong, this call for identification of people who report those who they think committing fraud. This is all wrong, tarring them as terrible people. Do you really approve of people defrauding taxpayers? You act as if we aren't supposed to judge anyone on benefits, but, if someone reports someone for benefit fraud, you are only too ready to judge that person. You are oh so ready to sling the word 'malicious'. Benefit frauds are not rebels against the system, you know. They aren't some form of revolutionary. They are selfish people playing the system to get what they can for themselves and they don't care about anyone else. If you want a revolution, then fine, run one, but don't glorify those who commit fraud.

Report her. She is stealing from you and all the other taxpayers. She doesn't have any more rights than you do and you do have the right to protect yourself from thieves. Nothing will happen to you. She will never find out it was you unless you tell her or you tell someone else who tells her. So report her and tell no-one that you did. I speak from experience. I reported someone once. I didn't set out to be someone who reports others, but after the facts came to light, I didn't see that there was any other choice. And yes, I had the facts. I had the woman's own statements in writing. Nothing happened to me. I'm not certain quite all that happened to her, but by accident, some time later, I found out that she had lost her council house, which was only fair because she was living with someone else part of the time in another part of the country.

I think you really need to move on from this. Check to make certain that all deductions from pay are correct, certainly, but stop worrying about the appeal. You don't have the employment rights to make the appeal, and even if you had, you wouldn't get any where with it, given what happened. Your employer was entirely within his rights to do what he did, I'm afraid. What you really need to do now is work on your problems. You say that you don't handle stress well. Well, that's probably what led to what happened. Seek help, as you have been doing, and figure out ways of addressing the problem. What you should not do is dwell on what happened here. It will not profit you to do this. Going over and over in your mind the 'what if' of the appeal, of this conversation or that letter will not help you; indeed, it will just continue to enflame your stress and depression. I know it's easy for others to say 'move on' and hard for you to do. The way to do it is to turn your thoughts to the feelings of others. For instance, the manager who you implicated in the parking fine. How do you think he felt? How would you feel in his position? What would you do in his position? Sympathise with him and you will soon be able to put your own problems into perspective and move on from what happened.

It's not just direct cash handling roles, however, that could be compromised if a cash-strapped employee felt tempted - information is money, you know, and a debt-burdened employee with access to the sort of information often available in call centre jobs could sell that information to identity thieves, con artists and the like. I'm NOT saying that you would do this; employers, however, have a duty of care to their business and their customers and have to take such things into consideration. You are going to have to face the fact that employers can and will disqualify you for their jobs if you have a CCJ and there is nothing that you can do about it. Your best bet is to look for jobs in sectors where this isn't an issue.

Look, I know you want to help this man, but you can't. Only he can help himself. Indeed, as hard as it is to say, the fact that you are trying to help him may mean that he does less to help himself. Why do I say this? It comes down to the fact that in the end, his problems are his responsibility, but, if you - or anyone else - tries to take on that responsibility for him, then he will almost certainly feel that he doesn't have to address his problems. This is nothing personal against you - many, many people have tried to help people with alcohol and anger problems and have, in the end, been burnt by it. It just can't be done. He has to do it. The fact is, as well, that most people with these problems do little or nothing about them until they hit bottom. Until then, they keep thinking that something will turn them around or that they will get lucky and everything will resolve itself. It never does resolve itself, but that doesn't stop them from thinking that it will. Sacking this guy for gross misconduct was the best thing you could have done for him. He needs to know that he can't just go on doing as he likes and somehow get everyone to tolerate it because he has problems. Another thing. You say one of his girlfriends threw him out and that his problems are linked to depression because of this. You may have this backwards. His problems didn't arise overnight, you know. It is perfectly possible, and entirely likely, that she tossed him out because she grew tired of tolerating his problems with drinking and anger. That is the key: you shouldn't tolerate his problems. You shouldn't help him to sustain his illusion that if only such-and-such were better or if people were a little kinder to him, or whatever, that his problems would go away without him having to make an effort. The sooner he realises this, the sooner he will seriously begin to deal with his problems. In the end, just walk away from him. Don't give him a helping hand. Don't listen to his sob stories. Don't let him into your pub, even as a customer. Make him take responsibility for his actions. This is the best thing you can do for him.

There would be no stand off. As far as I know, under the laws of England and Wales, once a letter has been sent via the post - and that includes normal post, not just recorded delivery - then it is deemed to have been delivered. That's why the courts use the normal post for sending documents relating to claims. All one has to have is proof of sending and that can be obtained for free from the post office, or it could, the last time I checked, which was a few years ago. Basically, if you say you have sent something and have proof of that you did indeed put something through the postal system, then you will have been deemed to have sent it and the person to whom it was addressed will have been deemed to have received it. This only applies to stuff delivered via Royal Mail, however. Other forms of delivery are not deemed to have been received until there is proof of delivery. How a court would handle someone claiming to have received a blank piece of paper, I don't know, but probably, given the law, it would be up to the claimant to prove it and that could be difficult to do. Note that I am not legally trained. I may be wrong about this.

Years ago, I'm sure that people wouldn't have thought that 'social protection' would cost the UK £200 billion a year: that's £4 billion more than the combined total for housing and environment; industry, agriculture and employment; education; transport; and defence. And yet here we are. Link:

I agree. I have had, in the past, interviews that seemed promising up until the company reorganised itself and reorganised the positions out of existence. I remember one job where I had obtained provisional acceptance of the position, only to find, at the last minute, and after I had turned down another job, that the company had been taken over and the new owners were reorganising everything, and, as a consequence, the job no longer existed. The only real difference between the OP's situation and mine is that I am white so I couldn't conjure up a race card. I just took it on the chin and started looking for a job again.