[n00]

(Original post by sconter)
by job seeker you mean an unemployed man sets himself on fire.

doesnt sound as good then though does it.

[Historophilia]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I know, I am not saying they should take on this role.

Considering however that long-term JSAers get regular 'interviews' (or at least they are supposed to) to see how they are getting on, you would think at least that part of this would/could be concerned with the well-being of the person as they are going about their job search.

But obviously this is not the case, as for a JobCentre worker (even a senior who may be doing the interview) it is still a numbers game.

It could be as simple as questioning how are you doing through this process and if the JobCentre worker thought/could see it was taking its toll then yes throwing them some leaflets to give the person some direction would hardly cost them a second of their time.

In the end, the onus is on the jobseeker but at the same time I have heard and read so many stories that the JobCentre are not the most helpful in actually 'helping' to find people a job.

But that's still expecting untrained people to try and spot signs of depression etc.

Even senior people at the Jobcentre can't really be expected to take that responsibility. You can see the headlines now if they missed someone who really was ill and committed suicide or something.

You'd have to have people who were trained and dedicated to doing those interviews for them to at all effective and lets be honest there just isn't the money for that at the moment.

Jobcentre staff (leaving their effectiveness in actually getting people jobs aside) aren't social workers and they shouldn't be expected to act like them.

[gateshipone]

(Original post by ufo2012)
I know, I am not saying they should take on this role.

Considering however that long-term JSAers get regular 'interviews' (or at least they are supposed to) to see how they are getting on, you would think at least that part of this would/could be concerned with the well-being of the person as they are going about their job search.

But obviously this is not the case, as for a JobCentre worker (even a senior who may be doing the interview) it is still a numbers game.

It could be as simple as questioning how are you doing through this process and if the JobCentre worker thought/could see it was taking its toll then yes throwing them some leaflets to give the person some direction would hardly cost them a second of their time.

In the end, the onus is on the jobseeker but at the same time I have heard and read so many stories that the JobCentre are not the most helpful in actually 'helping' to find people a job.

Out of interest, do you know that the primary role of Jobcentres is simply to make sure people comply with JSA regulations? They're not there to find people jobs, just to provide some assistance. The actual job seeking, surprisingly, is down to the job seeker. They can do a job search and provide public job searching facilities, but that's about it.

Also I'd point out that if they do see someone in need of help, they'll try to do it. I signed a guy once who was an alcoholic. He sat there and told me how it had started after he was unemployed for a while and he wanted help but didn't know where to start. I sat with him for half an hour to find details online of places in our town that he could go to. He was in tears by the end but was incredibly thankful that I sat and helped him. A few weeks later he came in to tell me again that he appreciated my help.

Another guy I signed had just gone through his wife dying and we (meaning everyone on my team) practically broke every rule in the book to make his signing on as stress free and good for him as we could. For what we did we could have faced serious consequences from the powers that be but we put this guys health and mental well being above our jobs and the rules. After a few months he was doing a lot better and actually gave us a card and a tin of biscuits as a way of thanking us for our support in such a difficult time.

What I'm getting at is that the idea that the staff are uncaring and only seeing people as numbers is untrue. They help people a lot more than you know but it doesn't get reported because that doesn't make a good headline.

There is only so much that can be done, and they can only do something if the person in front of them asks them for help. As others have said, they're not trained to assess the mental health of people, so can't be expected to be able to help everyone.

Please, don't keep thinking JCP staff are all uncaring drones, it's not true and actually just perpetuates the myth that they don't care. What this does is make people less likely to ask for help or advice when, while not part of their job, most JCP staff will try to do something to help.

[ForKicks]

Just sounds like a mentally ill man throwing his toys out the pram.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by gateshipone)
Out of interest, do you know that the primary role of Jobcentres is simply to make sure people comply with JSA regulations? They're not there to find people jobs, just to provide some assistance. The actual job seeking, surprisingly, is down to the job seeker. They can do a job search and provide public job searching facilities, but that's about it.

Also I'd point out that if they do see someone in need of help, they'll try to do it. I signed a guy once who was an alcoholic. He sat there and told me how it had started after he was unemployed for a while and he wanted help but didn't know where to start. I sat with him for half an hour to find details online of places in our town that he could go to. He was in tears by the end but was incredibly thankful that I sat and helped him. A few weeks later he came in to tell me again that he appreciated my help.

Another guy I signed had just gone through his wife dying and we (meaning everyone on my team) practically broke every rule in the book to make his signing on as stress free and good for him as we could. For what we did we could have faced serious consequences from the powers that be but we put this guys health and mental well being above our jobs and the rules. After a few months he was doing a lot better and actually gave us a card and a tin of biscuits as a way of thanking us for our support in such a difficult time.

What I'm getting at is that the idea that the staff are uncaring and only seeing people as numbers is untrue. They help people a lot more than you know but it doesn't get reported because that doesn't make a good headline.

There is only so much that can be done, and they can only do something if the person in front of them asks them for help. As others have said, they're not trained to assess the mental health of people, so can't be expected to be able to help everyone.

Please, don't keep thinking JCP staff are all uncaring drones, it's not true and actually just perpetuates the myth that they don't care. What this does is make people less likely to ask for help or advice when, while not part of their job, most JCP staff will try to do something to help.

Yes I am well aware of this, in fact it is very obvious at some Jobcentres that is their sole purpose and nothing beyond this. So yes, in these cases, they are uncaring drones.

As you say "They're not there to find people jobs, just to provide some assistance." In cases I have seen sometimes though, they are of no assistance at all, except to say "the computer is over there, if you know how to use it, go and search". Or alternatively, "I will search for you and tell you what is available".

What help is that to anyone? A person could do that at home.

The examples you have cited, I think you are the exception rather than the rule, but at the same time, I think it probably depends on the actual JobCentre location that the person is attending as to how helpful or useless the staff are.

[Stasiaxx]

(Original post by gateshipone)
Umm...what does Jan Palach have to do with this? I'm not saying everyone who sets themselves on fire is mentally ill, I'm saying in this particular case the person probably was due to the reason they did it. When I signed on I had a payment get delayed. Guess what, I didn't threaten the staff at my local Jobcentre and then set myself on fire! I did eventually work at the Jobcentre, and guess what, no one who had a delayed payment set themselves on fire outside. While I can't say with 100% confidence this guy was mentally ill, based on the details we have it's a solid guess that he was.


I was unemployed for a year and I will admit I suffered a lot of depression because of it. This guy would have my sympathy if he hadn't threatened to kill others first. That to me isn't right and removes a lot of pity I may have for him. It may sound harsh but it's true, there was no reason for him to do what he did. Yes being on JSA sucks but to threaten other peoples lives for no reason is sick.

It doesn't say any where in the article that he threatened to harm anyone only that he threatened to set himself alight. He then tied himself to the railings, it doesn't sound like he wanted to hurt anyone to me. If he did he could have poured petrol all over the carpet and set that alight.

[gateshipone]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Yes I am well aware of this, in fact it is very obvious at some Jobcentres that is their sole purpose and nothing beyond this. So yes, in these cases, they are uncaring drones.

As you say "They're not there to find people jobs, just to provide some assistance." In cases I have seen sometimes though, they are of no assistance at all, except to say "the computer is over there, if you know how to use it, go and search". Or alternatively, "I will search for you and tell you what is available".

What help is that to anyone? A person could do that at home.

Exactly, the whole point is that the person looking for work does the searching. Not everyone has access to the internet so an in person job search or using the jobpoints is assistance to them. You can't expect JCP's to start doing detailed searches for everyone. The point is if you want a job, you have to look. You can't and shouldn't expect someone else to do all the work for you.

The examples you have cited, I think you are the exception rather than the rule, but at the same time, I think it probably depends on the actual JobCentre location that the person is attending as to how helpful or useless the staff are.

Believe me this isn't the exception. As I said, good things being done isn't reported. The little things staff do every day aren't reported as no one wants to read that in the papers. Just because it's not advertised, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I know people in plenty of offices all over the country who do what we did in mine. They can't help everyone, but they sure as hell help a lot of people if they need it and ask for it.

Sure, some JCP staff are useless, I won't deny that, I worked with a few. However most AREN'T useless and uncaring.

[gateshipone]

(Original post by Stasiaxx)
It doesn't say any where in the article that he threatened to harm anyone only that he threatened to set himself alight. He then tied himself to the railings, it doesn't sound like he wanted to hurt anyone to me. If he did he could have poured petrol all over the carpet and set that alight.

"The guy came into the Jobcentre with petrol and made threats, so they evacuated the whole building"

He was inside the office making threats. If he'd set himself on fire inside he would have injured people.

He could have just skipped that whole part and just done the fire thing outside. He purposely went into the office first. That to me suggests he wanted to threaten the people who worked there.

[ANARCHY__]

Some guy wrote this in response. Not necessarily my opinion.

[Stasiaxx]

(Original post by gateshipone)
"The guy came into the Jobcentre with petrol and made threats, so they evacuated the whole building"

He was inside the office making threats. If he'd set himself on fire inside he would have injured people.

He could have just skipped that whole part and just done the fire thing outside. He purposely went into the office first. That to me suggests he wanted to threaten the people who worked there.

It suggests to me that he wanted someone to notice him. It wasn't a nice position to put them in, but if he wanted to hurt someone he could have. I just think it's a sad situation, he must be very lonely.

[M4LLY]

He may have been trying to draw attention to his situation

[n00]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Just sounds like a mentally ill man throwing his toys out the pram.

So not fit to work then i guess?

[Pitt1988]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Literally.

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/2...7319-31284847/

I suppose some Tory politicians are just loving this thinking that's what you get for being too lazy to work.

They'll probably stick his head on a spike as a reminder to everyone outside the job center.

Reminds of the story of the elderly Greek man who shot himself outside of government buildings because of the **** state the country was in and not much in the way of prospects etc.

I think the people in this thread that immediately say 'mental health issues' are wrong really. Hopelessness, no faith in government, no prospects, no opportunities combined with being constantly castigated, shunned and ridiculed for being one of the 2.6 million unemployed isn't exactly a nice place to be. It's desperation more than anything. An air of Tibetan Buddhist about it, a way of drawing attention to the situation that there really aren't jobs for everyone, contrary to what the Tories may seem to think.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by n00)
So not fit to work then i guess?

I would be very surprised if he doesn't undergo some form of mental health assessment following that.

[Profesh]

(Original post by I Gurn Hard)
I love how someone would prefer to set fire to themselves than take menial work or gain some qualifications. Screwed up priorities or what?

Edit: Not sure what the negs are for, he isn't a martyr for those without a voice like the buddhist guy who self immolated in protest. Would you seriously prefer to set fire to yourself than speak to the job centre staff maturely and sensibly? There's plenty of bloody work out there, I was offered all the positions I applied for. Yes, they were menial jobs, but all the interviewers said the same - they were desperate for people and they were barely getting any applicants. They thanked me for applying. This moron who set fire to himself is clearly one of the people so dependent on benefits that he can't imagine a living a week without his giro cheque. His priorities are clearly screwed up - a default in benefits payments is not worth setting yourself on fire for. Also, do any of you actually understand JSA? As long as you follow the rules you WILL receive payment. I know plenty of people on JSA and they did as they were told and they received payment no problem. This idiot probably couldn't be arsed to apply for jobs one week so his payment was delayed. That is fair. His gross overreaction proves there is something terribly wrong with the system, and probably this lazy, feckless reprobate's head. Neg me all you want, but I fail to see how you can argue that setting fire to oneself is a reasonable and justifiable reaction to what happened.

Your extrapolation is baseless, offensive and beyond absurd.

[I Gurn Hard]

(Original post by Profesh)
Your extrapolation is baseless, offensive and beyond absurd.

I was deliberately offensive. The point still stands - why would one resort to self-immolation over a benefits issue. THAT is beyond absurd, regardless of what my extrapolation may be.

[Florrick]

Poor guy.


Reading news like this gets me down.

[Profesh]

(Original post by I Gurn Hard)
I was deliberately offensive.

How unedifying.

The point still stands - why would one resort to self-immolation over a benefits issue.

Why, indeed? However, I think it not altogether unreasonable to speculate that any legitimate insight - be it clinical or otherwise - will defy the grotesque caricatures and senseless hyperbole beloved of such odious, rabble-rousing polemicists as you self-consciously imitate.

THAT is beyond absurd, regardless of what my extrapolation may be.

Tu quoque. No-one is suggesting that setting oneself on fire could ever be considered conventionally 'rational': rather that your viewpoint appears to have become hideously distorted by long-term exposure to a stultifying intellectual miasma of tabloid rhetoric masquerading as incisive social commentary.

Yes, critical (as opposed to cynical) thought can be a demanding proposition, but do at least try.

[I Gurn Hard]

(Original post by Profesh)
How unedifying.


Why, indeed? However, I think it not altogether unreasonable to speculate that any legitimate insight - be it clinical or otherwise - will defy the grotesque caricatures and senseless hyperbole beloved of such odious, rabble-rousing polemicists as you self-consciously imitate.


Tu quoque. No-one is suggesting that setting oneself on fire could ever be considered conventionally 'rational': rather that your viewpoint appears to have become hideously distorted by long-term exposure to a stultifying intellectual miasma of tabloid rhetoric masquerading as incisive social commentary.

Yes, critical (as opposed to cynical) thought can be a demanding proposition, but do at least try.

Stop being so pretentious. It won't help you become well liked in future.

I don't want to continue a pointless argument anyway, so i'll say we should agree to disagree. I don't think the man should even be acknowledged, and should especially not be given sympathy. You obviously see it differently. I understand and respect that and can move on, there's nothing to be gained by arguing a difference of opinion that can never be reconciled.

Don't reply again unless you agree we should disagree - I will not respond to any more of your comments, although I respect your opinion.

[OU Student]

(Original post by Historophilia)

Perhaps their could be more leaflets and phone numbers up in Jobcentres that people can use if they think they need help but Jobcentre staff can't be expected to know when someone needs help. For a start they don't know them well enough or see them often enough.

There was something in the news earlier this year / last year about how staff will be given information to deal with people who have this kind of problems. But yeah, it's not their responsibility. And why should it be?