ESA and permitted work

[dyfed]

If the rich tax avoiders payed their taxes then there would be no need for poor to get poorer with benefit cuts.

 

The WP/CWP is brought about by idiology. £billions have been wasted in the persuit of punishing individuals for being sick, disabled and unemployed.

The political middle ground has leaped to the right. Labour is no longer a champion for the poor working man or needy.

[estellyn]

If the rich tax avoiders payed their taxes then there would be no need for poor to get poorer with benefit cuts.

 

The WP/CWP is brought about by idiology. £billions have been wasted in the persuit of punishing individuals for being sick, disabled and unemployed.

The political middle ground has leaped to the right. Labour is no longer a champion for the poor working man or needy.

 

I agree mostly. The only point I would add to is that I don't think that punishing the poor is end goal, merely a side benefit of having the unwashed masses turn on each in response to government propaganda - the end goal of course being that while we're all throwing stones at each other, we're too busy to concentrate too hard on what the rich are doing.

 

A distracted populace is one that's not turning on the 1% who rule.

[jasta11]

Essexmat has expressed my sentiments very well in Post #2. The Work Programme is a business, there to make money for it's owners and employees. That in itself is enough to guarantee rule-bending, exploitation, malpractice and outright corruption, if they think they can get away with it.

 

They're salespeople; nothing more, nothing less. Getting you to do things - whether willingly or not - for which they're paid. If it was run on purely charitable lines, by volunteers with nothing to gain personally then you might actually get something useful out of it, or at the very least, not forced into things which were of no use to you.

 

As I've said more than once on here, it's all pure image and no real substance. If you can't actually do anything for people then try and look as though you are to justify your service contract being retained. I blame the government who allow these companies to operate far more than I blame the companies themselves.

[essexmat]

Essexmat has expressed my sentiments very well in Post #2. The Work Programme is a business, there to make money for it's owners and employees. That in itself is enough to guarantee rule-bending, exploitation, malpractice and outright corruption, if they think they can get away with it.

 

They're salespeople; nothing more, nothing less. Getting you to do things - whether willingly or not - for which they're paid. If it was run on purely charitable lines, by volunteers with nothing to gain personally then you might actually get something useful out of it, or at the very least, not forced into things which were of no use to you.

 

As I've said more than once on here, it's all pure image and no real substance. If you can't actually do anything for people then try and look as though you are to justify your service contract being retained. I blame the government who allow these companies to operate far more than I blame the companies themselves.

 

Absolutely right - it is like immigrants getting thousands in benefits - do we blame them or the system? If I could sytematically get hundreds per week in a country and live comfortably I would also take it - not their fault, it is the system that is at fault

[fletch70]

@fletch

 

Children are a right. Do you think that disabled should not have children because they cant work? Do you think that a working family should not have children in case the bread winner losses their job?

 

Maybe you think only middle and upper classes should have the right to have children.

 

Its a very right wing view you have there my friend.

 

I have been called many many things in my time , but never right wing. Which ideas do you think are right wing?

I stand by my belief that children should, where possible be planned for . They should not be used as a means to an end which although not as common as certain newspapers would like us to believe is not that uncommon . Surely no responsible person would want to bring a child into the world if they can not care for them .

There are plenty of bad parents in all sectors of society , cruelty is not just about physical harm or depriving a child of material things.

I for one would never generalise and say disabled=can't work

 

We are raised and conditioned that we must want children , well I for one never did although I love my nieces and nephews

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I have been called many many things in my time , but never right wing. Which ideas do you think are right wing?

I stand by my belief that children should, where possible be planned for . They should not be used as a means to an end which although not as common as certain newspapers would like us to believe is not that uncommon . Surely no responsible person would want to bring a child into the world if they can not care for them .

There are plenty of bad parents in all sectors of society , cruelty is not just about physical harm or depriving a child of material things.

I for one would never generalise and say disabled=can't work

 

We are raised and conditioned that we must want children , well I for one never did although I love my nieces and nephews

 

 

 

Fletch once again we are in agreement (as staggering as that maybe) having children to secure an income (often not to benefit the children it seems) is totally wrong.

[SabreSheep]

Yes having children is a basic right. But while we are going back to basic rights Man had the basic right to club each other to death with bits of bones fashioned into weapons, or bludgeon each other with BIG ROCKS

 

Somewhere along the lines we developed the concept of civilization which rendered for the majority the right to not be bludgeoned to death by BIG ROCKS, or at least make rules on which it was permissible.

 

 

Noone says you cannot have children. But planning for them and their care and upbringing is essential. The difference between us and a Virus is that we can choose to stop or reverse our uncontrolled breeding in order to protect the host (Planet)

[estellyn]

Erm, I think that it's going a bit far to start restricting breeding based on income/wealth, it's a very slippery slope. If someone is poor all of their life should they not be allowed to breed? Since poverty is more prevalent in certain class groups and ethnic groups, trying to restrict breeding in these groups will start to smack of eugenics (or have a similar result regardless of intent). It is bad policy to say that someone born into wealth has the right to procreate, but someone who never moves out of poverty does not.

 

There is however no right to have government funding for unlimited children - so simply provide support for two or three (or whatever number is deemed acceptable).

[Sparks_]

Erm, I think that it's going a bit far to start restricting breeding based on income/wealth, it's a very slippery slope. If someone is poor all of their life should they not be allowed to breed? Since poverty is more prevalent in certain class groups and ethnic groups, trying to restrict breeding in these groups will start to smack of eugenics (or have a similar result regardless of intent). It is bad policy to say that someone born into wealth has the right to procreate, but someone who never moves out of poverty does not.

 

There is however no right to have government funding for unlimited children - so simply provide support for two or three (or whatever number is deemed acceptable).

 

What about those who 'breed' when relatively well off then no fault of their own lose their income say from illness or marriage break up? What are we supposed to do with the children? send them back?

[fletch70]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you limit the basic right to have children regardless of race or creed or wealth .

The radical suggestion I made (not necessarily one I agree with) was that if parents are popping out children like smarties with no means of support other than benefits should have their children adopted by families with the resources to care for them. That does not necessarily mean wealth .

 

I do sometimes think that when a tough decision is talked about people start to throw words like right wing and privilege about. There are some very eminent people who positively talk about eugenics which personally I find abhorrent just as I wonder where gene therapy or gene identification will end. It is diversity that makes the human race great

[Belfaster]

I thought this thread was about the Work Programme or am I missing something?

[Bullpoofilter]

1) The general idea behind it may be a good one - absolutely, as an employer I see so many half hearted attempts at interviews / applications that the idea of providing assistance or training is, on the face of it, an excellent one.

 

2) There are some people that "play" the system in fact with ESA things are so bad you often do have to describe your condition on the worst possible day - also true, the sad fact is that people do play the 'system' like other minority groups they are not representative of the majority of their peers in a similar situation. But, the sad fact is that for some, not all, it is seen as a lifestyle choice.

 

3) People who work for the various work providers are generally ok people who are doing a job to the best of their ability although they may get worn down by the constant demands placed on them by clients and employer - I became an adviser for a prime with that intention of doing what I could to help, I left 6 months later. There were no nasty or cruel people that I worked with, we were there to do a job and at times that job was especially challenging.

 

4) Making it a business where profit is based on results causes more problems than it solves - completely agree, sadly though outcomes based funding is now prevalent as the bean counters need a box to tick

 

5) The DWP can abdicate from the bad processes by blaming the work providers nothing like outsourcing your problems to clear up your image

 

6) There is a general lack of training with the advisers, particularly where disabilities are concerned and even more so where MH issues are concerned - totally agree, we spent at most a couple of days looking at it. The focus was always on what the person could do rather on what they could not..

 

I found that actually spending time with people who could be helped was frowned upon as it didn't get quick results, I had over 250 individual clients at any one time all of whom had their own needs and requirements, as much as I might have wanted to, there was never enough time to spend in a quality manner.

 

Likewise I had my fair share of people who were excellent, capable people with whom I thoroughly enjoyed my time and learnt from, they made the appointments with the aggressive, physically threatening people go just that little bit quicker, those who wanted to demean and berate, shout and swear and generally cause mayhem in the hope that you'd get fed up were just part of the job. I was called some wonderful names and have no doubt that some who read this will be thinking exactly the same and that's your choice...

 

The work programme, in any form is going to be a challenge, there's no sticking plaster to cure the lack of jobs in the job roles that so many people were reliant on for their whole career. Likewise, you can't force someone to do something but it's clear that our government is constantly seeking out more persuasive ways of asking not-so-nicely.

 

I could go on, but I won't.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

The idea of starting a thread where the pros and cons of the work programme can be discussed objectively is a good one Fletch and could prove to be very advantageous to claimants who find themselves overwhelmed by the way it is being administered.

 

However, the idea of using the thread for the purpose of letting off steam is counter-productive in the sense that subjective and opinionated comment with no basis in fact could nullify any good that may come of it.

 

It is not really surprising therefore that the intended, or was it, discussion has so quickly degenerated from the work programme to a discussion on social engineering.

 

The greater part of the welfare budget goes on people who are actually in work. Child benefits are paid to all parents irrespective of income so why put a cap on the number of children born only to poor families?

Fortunately my children had grown up and done well for themselves before I got made redundant. Had they been still of an age that qualified them or me for child benefits and some fascist came to the door and demanded that I give them over to someone they considered to be better placed than I was to raise them would certainly get short shrift.

 

Your admission that you have no children of your own Fletch does not excuse or reduce the disgust I feel for such barbaric, uncaring, unsympathetic, not to say ill-conceived, opinions as you have put forward here.

How do you expect that your version of the final solution is going to benefit you, or the country for that matter?

[fletch70]

Oh dear oh dear

Firstly you are quite correct in that the thread has become sidetracked , it is very easy to happen . I just have one question, where have I said that ANYONE rich or poor should have their children taken off them at ANYTIME. I put forward an idea that I had heard and not surprisingly it got some reaction .

What I did say is that IMHO children should be planned for and to use them as a means to an end has to be wrong.

The fact I have no children is my choice, I have never wanted any and I believe I am too selfish to have any but that doesn't make me a bad person .

As I said I personally have severe reservations about gene therapy and identification

 

So go on, please tell me where I have said what some people are claiming I have said?

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Fletch: Mock indignation about the likely consequences of the proposed or preferred solutions that you advocate just won’t wash.

 

You began a thread with a view to addressing issues to do with the work programme. Your own view appears to be nothing more or less than an apologetic statement on behalf of the work programme providers and their employees for their abject incompetence and failure to administer the programme as it was intended and instead use it as a tool of repression.

 

In post 8 of the thread you aid and abet the hijacking of your own thread with your impression of ‘family values’ and your ideas on education. But what confirmed to me your ulterior motives and the despotic attitude you seem to be advocating is where you say:

 

“.....we must not allow unemployment to be a lifestyle choice as it is for some. Here is a radical idea for you, the people who appear to be baby factories with no job or partner have these children taken and adopted by families who want and can afford children.”

 

Who are the ‘we’ that you count yourself amongst who must not allow anyone a lifestyle choice that you falsely blame for ills not of their making?

As you say, you chose not to have children for reasons of your own, that's your business, not mine, and I'm not particularly interested in your explanation or your reasons. What I do find hard to stomach though is that you appear to have taken it on yourself to be among the 'we' who would deny choice to others.

 

 

 

I, for one, do not wish to be counted as someone who must be brainwashed into ‘contributing’ to a society that props up an ‘establishment’ where the abuse of children by some seems to be par for the course while the rest turn a blind eye and even cover it up.

[fletch70]

I suggest you actually read what was said. I have no time for the family values talked about by Maggie and john major. The post before was expressing a view of a national income that included money for children. My view is we should not be making it financially beneficial to have children.

I also think that where possible we should all contribute to society in the best way we can. Fir people unable to, then the rest support them and not in the pittance they get today. In the same breath we should not make having babies or choosing not to work a valid existence.

As for my radical idea further down i do say it doesn't mean i believe it is a good in.

Care for the weak and vulnerable should be a priority.

You know nothing about me so do not pretend to know what i think. This is not the first time you have misunderstood what someone has said.

If you want to know my idea of a utopian society it is probably more Marxist than anything else

Edited August 20, 2014 by fletch70

[fletch70]

Or are you of the belief that we should have no laws or rules. Not one i agree with but still a valid viewpoint.

When it comes to the work program i think the system stinks the way it us funded stinks but that doesn't mean the people in the cal face stink

Oh and what are my views on education, i bet you have no idea.

Finally if we want to talk about hijacking a post maybe look in the mirror.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Most of us who write posts on here, whether they realise it or not, reflect their views.

 

“In the same breath we should not make having babies or choosing not to work a valid existence.”

 

You wrote that so one can only assume that it is a view you hold.

 

Who are the ‘we’ you refer to? I had three children back in the eighties, they were grown up by the time I was made redundant in 2010. I chose to have the children, I did not choose redundancy.

 

Back in the eighties many of my contemporaries also had children. However many of them were not lucky enough to retain their jobs. Whole swathes of the industrial north and mid-Scotland was laid to waste and the prime of the working class were thrown on the scrap heap. Are the ‘we’ you speak of of the view that there should have been a cull of their children in order to decrease the surplus population and make life somehow pleasanter for the ‘we’ of today.

 

As for your views on education I don’t claim to know what they are apart from the one view that you put forward here which was:

 

“....I am not keen on mandating education to 18”

 

Why not if the present education system fails them? Must be better than sending 60 year olds on courses to learn to write job application letters and CVs.

 

But, as you suggest, who is the likes of me, the lower order, to dare to interpret or contradict the views as expressed by the high and mighty ‘we’.

[nexxusone]

I really think a line should be drawn under the child statements (off topic) and possibly some edits made by admin ( they like to edit my posts lol) as it's starting to go the way of a mud slinging exercise.

[antone]

Aye, well, I'd rather it didn't come to that. Perhaps we could all be civil?

 

When I say "perhaps", I mean, of course, "civility is not optional".

[fletch70]

Antone

I would apologise if I have insulted anyone . Yes this thread did get sidetracked and yes I am partly to blame by responding to off topic comments. I do not apologise for defending my position or trying to clarify what was said.

Going back to the work program ,

I think the way it is wrong stinks

I think the way it is funded stinks

I do not necessarily think that all the people who work for the WP are bad people , they are stuck in a system that is wrong

 

Anyone is of course free to disagree with me but I would ask that they check that what they think I said is actually what I said and do not make assumptions from 1 sentence .

Now if you will excuse me I must go and flog the servants before I pop out to do a bit of hunting

Cheerio old bean

[Chester6]

Some are there for genuine reasons but too many are jobsworths and some A&E worst and willj g to call you a liar and be abusive

[osdset]

As I've said before, many start their work 'journey' with the providers with good intent. However the system grinds them down just as quickly as the unfortunate claimant.

I've conversed with a few ex provider employees on other forums, and all have emerged from the experience jaded and disillusioned, we have to remember that the set-up is akin to a sales driven call centre. Profit is the driving force, any compassion or understanding gets eradicated by the relentless march of corporate greed.

 

It's the provider employees that have embraced the brainwashing that are the dangerous ones, they actually believe they are on a god given mission to rid the world of it's so-called feckless layabouts.

[fletch70]

As I've said before, many start their work 'journey' with the providers with good intent. However the system grinds them down just as quickly as the unfortunate claimant.

I've conversed with a few ex provider employees on other forums, and all have emerged from the experience jaded and disillusioned, we have to remember that the set-up is akin to a sales driven call centre. Profit is the driving force, any compassion or understanding gets eradicated by the relentless march of corporate greed.

 

It's the provider employees that have embraced the brainwashing that are the dangerous ones, they actually believe they are on a god given mission to rid the world of it's so-called feckless layabouts.

 

I couldn't have put it better myself , thank you

[Belfaster]

As I've said before, many start their work 'journey' with the providers with good intent. However the system grinds them down just as quickly as the unfortunate claimant.

I've conversed with a few ex provider employees on other forums, and all have emerged from the experience jaded and disillusioned, we have to remember that the set-up is akin to a sales driven call centre. Profit is the driving force, any compassion or understanding gets eradicated by the relentless march of corporate greed.

 

It's the provider employees that have embraced the brainwashing that are the dangerous ones, they actually believe they are on a god given mission to rid the world of it's so-called feckless layabouts.

 

There is also the question of arrogance and lack of professionalism with these individuals who work for the providers. In my short time at Seetec, I saw mature men and women treated and spoken to like children and the complete ignorance when it came to differentiating between ESA and JSA participants was nothing short of a joke, believe me I could go on and on........

 

They are set targets which in turn generates profit, greed is the all important factor. It is a sales position pure and simple, humanity is simply not part of the equation!