[nonotrly]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18070203

If it's just the 'South East', does that include Oxford? (Hoping...)

Taxpayer leeches A4e have had their contract terminated, but it seems this is only for a south-east contract, and it's not clear if A4e are still in another contract or if A4e's grip on the people of the south-east is dead. (What's with all these contracts? It's A4e, the same thing happens on each 'course', what a waste of money.)

Even if it's just the south east, surely it is only a matter of time until A4e crumble now that the government have actually taken action against A4e for the first time since their birth 21 years ago. God, I hope so. How have they got away with everything for so long? Just 'cause of David Blunkett?

(Incidentally: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalis...rk-anyway.html)

[Martyn*]

Good news for the SE. We'll have to see whether this spreads or not. If it does, it means Ingeus and others gets the contract. As far as I know Ingeus have not had allegations of fraud against them, but I have heard that, just like A4E, they look down at the people they are supposed to find work for.

I was at A4E today, and in the lift with me was a young man. He was distraught that even though he had found full time work he still had to report to Ingeus every fortnight so that they can keep an eye on him.

[SilverSurfer22]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Good news for the SE. We'll have to see whether this spreads or not. If it does, it means Ingeus and others gets the contract. As far as I know Ingeus have not had allegations of fraud against them, but I have heard that, just like A4E, they look down at the people they are supposed to find work for.

I was at A4E today, and in the lift with me was a young man. He was distraught that even though he had found full time work he still had to report to Ingeus every fortnight so that they can keep an eye on him.

why would he have to report to them every fortnight, he has a job, he would not be entitled to benefits, so there is nothing they can threaten him with

[nonotrly]

Oh, how depressing, that's right - even if A4e go, there'll still be a dozen companies who make a business of manipulating the system. Is such a massive unknown irony.

(Original post by SilverSurfer22)
why would he have to report to them every fortnight, he has a job, he would not be entitled to benefits, so there is nothing they can threaten him with

Hum, maybe it's in the contract and it's more money, so if he stops going the company could sue him? All I know is that if you have the audacity to be unemployed and on JSA, eventually you'll start having to sign things and get stalked, otherwise you'll be refused any form of income or financial aid and cast aside. It's like celeb photographers for newspapers - legal criminal activity.

Weird because it's obviously presented as a 'choice', but that's like saying "please sign here and agree to a daily paddling, or you could choose not to sign if you don't want, that just means I'll rape you for a year and destroy your entire family and home, assuming you still have it after that year "

[Martyn*]

(Original post by SilverSurfer22)
why would he have to report to them every fortnight, he has a job, he would not be entitled to benefits, so there is nothing they can threaten him with

It's in the small print of the contract. They have to ensure that the 'customer' stays in employment for more than six months or else the contracter gets no money. It's all about the money, and that's why people come second and not first with these companies.

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by Martyn*)
It's in the small print of the contract. They have to ensure that the 'customer' stays in employment for more than six months or else the contracter gets no money. It's all about the money, and that's why people come second and not first with these companies.

I'm confused. The contract between the formerly unempoyed person and A4e? What sanction could they possibly enforce against him?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
I'm confused. The contract between the formerly unempoyed person and A4e? What sanction could they possibly enforce against him?

The contract is third party.

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The contract is third party.

I'm no less confused. I understand why A4e wants to keep him in employment, but what possible sanction could they impose if he refused to attend any more?

[nonotrly]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
I'm no less confused. I understand why A4e wants to keep him in employment, but what possible sanction could they impose if he refused to attend any more?

Breaking a contract = sued.

A4e send letters out to people threatening 'the highest possible financial penalty' to people who comment on news articles. They censor free speech.



A4e and their kind have SERIOUS issues with human rights, it's madness that they exist in civilised Western society, let alone get away with countless counts of fraud, expansion into illegal and unrecognised territories and so on. Next they'll be declaring war on America, and the government will still look the other way.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by nonotrly)
Breaking a contract = sued.

A4e send letters out to people threatening 'the highest possible financial penalty' to people who comment on news articles. They censor free speech.

That is very true. Go to any A4E center and try log-on to http://watchinga4e.blogspot.co.uk/

The site is blocked.

[nonotrly]

Apparently, in my area at least (Oxfordshire), those on A4e only have to go for 2-and-a-half hours in one day a week. Is this true? Is this the case everywhere else?

Quite a change. Years ago it was every day for 2 weeks, then you had to go for 6 weeks I think, then it was upped to every for 3 months, then according to some people it was bumped up further to every day for 2 years as recently as a few months ago, but now apparently it's shot all the way down to a few hours a week (which is a few hours too many still) because of A4e's dire statistics.

An improvement, but not enough. Need to void the contract, raid the joint, and jail all those involved for human rights violations, illegal occupation/expansion into unrecognised territory, fraud of course, and anything/everything else.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by nonotrly)
Breaking a contract = sued.

You can't break a "third party contract" (ie. a contract to which you are not a party). So I don't understand this either. Martyn misunderstood, or made the story up, or else there is some other reason it is enforceable that has not been mentioned in the thread.

A4e send letters out to people threatening 'the highest possible financial penalty' to people who comment on news articles. They censor free speech.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2649/a4e.png

This is nothing to do with contracts. They are threatening you with libel laws. They don't need any contract for you not to be able to libel them, in the same way you don't have to agree not to steal things from someone for them to be able to reclaim their property.

However this looks like a phishing-style con with very little chance of them actually suing you.

A4e and their kind have SERIOUS issues with human rights, it's madness that they exist in civilised Western society, let alone get away with countless counts of fraud, expansion into illegal and unrecognised territories and so on. Next they'll be declaring war on America, and the government will still look the other way.

According to the article:

"Mr Grayling said: "While the team found no evidence of fraud, it identified significant weaknesses in A4e's internal controls on the Mandatory Work Activity contract in the South East."

I am not quite sure what they're being accused of. Seemingly that they didn't keep their books according to the strict letter of the law, but not that they have actually defrauded any money from the government. And, I guess, that they are making some people do work in exchange for money when they really would rather get the money for nothing.

[Ferrus]

I would compare it to the workhouse, but at least those running the workhouses kept to running the places off local rate payers rather than setting up a country-wide ponzi scheme designed to enrich the owners.

[nonotrly]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
This is nothing to do with contracts. They are threatening you with libel laws. They don't need any contract for you not to be able to libel them, in the same way you don't have to agree not to steal things from someone for them to be able to reclaim their property.

I am not quite sure what they're being accused of. Seemingly that they didn't keep their books according to the strict letter of the law, but not that they have actually defrauded any money from the government.

I know it's nothing to do with contracts. I wasn't sent that letter btw.

We have to be careful with what Grayling says, to say he is possibly unbiased is putting it lightly, and there's always the chance for abuse. He was squirming on Newsnight and he stonewalls questions about A4e's true behaviour.

It doesn't matter what an investigation, fair or biased, says regarding the fraud 'allegation'. I don't know about legally, though I imagine it is also the case, but they are absolutely being fraudulent to the unemployed and to the government they're contracted to. It is incredibly strange, among other things, though, because it's pretty common knowledge now that A4e (and many other similar companies in their line of work) are contracted and paid to get the unemployed into work, but what they actually do is literally sit there twiddling their thumbs or, if they feel like, partake in some workplace bullying and harrassment to some disabled people in the room to get themselves off.

Then profit from any coincidental successful job applications during a specific time period. Also nothing that their business plan is to KEEP people unemployed by getting people (if they can be bothered) temp jobs, so that they return to being unemployed and they can profit from them again. They're contracted to reduce unemployment, but they exist to keep it level or increase it.

I don't know why it's accepted, perhaps the governments are afraid of looking wrong if they make such a big move in cancelling all the contracts and trying a different scheme. But then I thought the Conservatives would be all over that, as it's a Labour scheme. What better publicity than bringing to light and ending a failed Labour scheme? Why keep them hanging on, let alone giving Emma Harrison (before she had to take early retirement) a flashy title?

In an unbiased situation, A4e would be gone. If this was an unemployed person, they would be having sanctions the same length as a murder sentence and jailed.