If this man totally wrong and cameron totally right Watch

Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 years ago
#81
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
How's that then?

Rules are clearly explained. Break them and there's sanctions.

How else do you ensure that people paid to look for work are actually looking for work.

It may come as a bit if a shock to you but there's quite a few people on benefits who have no intention of finding work.
Just go down to your local food bank mate and speak to the people there. Please.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 years ago
#82
(Original post by Moosferatu)
Just go down to your local food bank mate and speak to the people there. Please.
The ones parked outside with nicer cars than me?
1
reply
Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 years ago
#83
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
The ones parked outside with nicer cars than me?
You continue to astound me. Urgh. Nevermind.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 years ago
#84
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
What were you sanctioned for ?
For "repetitive job search" i.e., putting "found nothing suitable" on my CC record.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 years ago
#85
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Are we upset a little bit?

I've no problem with getting targets set. The police set targets for their officers. It deviant mean they're fitting people up just to meet targets.

I don't doubt some sanctions get incorrectly imposed. But that's the minority.

Food banks. A new method for delivering food for those who can't budget properly? Or a global phenomena based on the fact that we're wasting more food now in the supply chain than at any other time in history.
I'm not upset - why would I be? If you want to be an ignorant bigot then that's up to you - it's your loss not mine!

You might not have a problem with sanction targets then thats up to you. For me, there's something disgraceful about a system that is promoting the cash-benefits of benefit sanctions (see the Grantham Job Centre poster discovered in 2011). Combined with DWP staffing cuts, is it any coincidence that record numbers of sanctions are being wrongfully imposed? Sanctions ought to be imposed because of serious and intentional violations; not because of pressures to meet arbitrary targets out of fear of losing your job.

Numbers aside, these are people's livelihoods that the government is wreaking havoc with. Sanctions can last for months; during which time these individuals have, literally, no income. They're destitute. No gas, electricity or food - it's not about a failure to budget - that's a complete myth.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I'll let you dig the evidence out for me.

When you've claimed 58%. It that 58% of appeals are successful?
Had you bothered to read the article, yes, that's what it says.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
How many sanctions result in appeals.

If say for example 1000 sanctions are imposed and only 100 are appealed then that means the 942 times out of 1000 they're justified.0
In the 18 months to March 2014, 1.2m government sanctions were imposed. Of those, 350,000 were sent for review, resulting in 172,000 sanction reversals.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-9667291.html

But that's irrelevant; only the most harsh sanctions can be reviewed - 2 and 4 week sanctions cannot be sent to a tribunal.

"32. JSA benefit sanctions are applied for specific periods, which may follow on from each other if a participant fails to participate in a mandated activity more than once. The sanction periods are:

• 2 weeks – first sanction (cannot be reviewed)
• 4 weeks – second sanction (cannot be reviewed)
• 26 weeks – third sanction (can be reviewed)"

http://stg.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-6.pdf

So although 1.2m sanctions were imposed, only a minority of those will be eligible for review.

Besides, your logic is faulty. Just because X amount of sanctions aren't appealed, it doesn't mean they're justified. That's complete nonsense. The appeal process is lengthy, time-consuming, bureaucratic and costly - a lot of people will become completely overwhelmed by the tribunal process and so won't pursue it.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
The ones parked outside with nicer cars than me?
Food-bank eligibility is based on a review of the individuals circumstances by professionals such as Social Workers and the CAB Advisors. People can't just turn up and help themselves.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 years ago
#86
(Original post by Burridge)
I'm not upset - why would I be? If you want to be an ignorant bigot then that's up to you - it's your loss not mine!

You might not have a problem with sanction targets then thats up to you. For me, there's something disgraceful about a system that is promoting the cash-benefits of benefit sanctions (see the Grantham Job Centre poster discovered in 2011). Combined with DWP staffing cuts, is it any coincidence that record numbers of sanctions are being wrongfully imposed? Sanctions ought to be imposed because of serious and intentional violations; not because of pressures to meet arbitrary targets out of fear of losing your job.

Numbers aside, these are people's livelihoods that the government is wreaking havoc with. Sanctions can last for months; during which time these individuals have, literally, no income. They're destitute. No gas, electricity or food - it's not about a failure to budget - that's a complete myth.



Had you bothered to read the article, yes, that's what it says.



In the 18 months to March 2014, 1.2m government sanctions were imposed. Of those, 350,000 were sent for review, resulting in 172,000 sanction reversals.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-9667291.html

But that's irrelevant; only the most harsh sanctions can be reviewed - 2 and 4 week sanctions cannot be sent to a tribunal.

"32. JSA benefit sanctions are applied for specific periods, which may follow on from each other if a participant fails to participate in a mandated activity more than once. The sanction periods are:

• 2 weeks – first sanction (cannot be reviewed)
• 4 weeks – second sanction (cannot be reviewed)
• 26 weeks – third sanction (can be reviewed)"

http://stg.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-6.pdf

So although 1.2m sanctions were imposed, only a minority of those will be eligible for review.

Besides, your logic is faulty. Just because X amount of sanctions aren't appealed, it doesn't mean they're justified. That's complete nonsense. The appeal process is lengthy, time-consuming, bureaucratic and costly - a lot of people will become completely overwhelmed by the tribunal process and so won't pursue it.



Food-bank eligibility is based on a review of the individuals circumstances by professionals such as Social Workers and the CAB Advisors. People can't just turn up and help themselves.
So just to recap, 85% of sanctions are held up?
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 years ago
#87
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
So just to recap, 85% of sanctions are held up?
Nope. 12% of sanctions are held up. 15% are overturned. The remaining 73% go unchallenged (are neither held up nor overturned).

-- Is there any particular reason as to why you've chosen not to address the bulk of my post?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 years ago
#88
(Original post by Burridge)
Nope. 12% of sanctions are held up. 15% are overturned. The remaining 73% go unchallenged (are neither held up nor overturned).

-- Is there any particular reason as to why you've chosen not to address the bulk of my post?
I'm
Merely highlighting that the majority if sanctions are held up.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 years ago
#89
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I'm
Merely highlighting that the majority if sanctions are held up.
Wrong. As I've just pointed out, only 12% are held up.

This is getting boring now. Do you actually want to engage in a real debate about this or not? As a 'mature student', I'd expect you to at least have the decency to respond to most (if not all) of my points - I offer you that courtesy!
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 years ago
#90
(Original post by Burridge)
Wrong. As I've just pointed out, only 12% are held up.

This is getting boring now. Do you actually want to engage in a real debate about this or not? As a 'mature student', I'd expect you to at least have the decency to respond to most (if not all) of my points - I offer you that courtesy!
No you never.

You've taken part of the information and presented it in a way to support your argument.

You have net told me what prercentage of benfits recipients end up going unto appeal.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 years ago
#91
(Original post by Burridge)
Wrong. As I've just pointed out, only 12% are held up.

This is getting boring now. Do you actually want to engage in a real debate about this or not? As a 'mature student', I'd expect you to at least have the decency to respond to most (if not all) of my points - I offer you that courtesy!
He's already decided what he thinks regardless of any evidence. It's completely piontelss engaging with him.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 years ago
#92
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
No you never.

You've taken part of the information and presented it in a way to support your argument.

You have net told me what prercentage of benfits recipients end up going unto appeal.
The double-standards here are almost laughable. I've cited evidence for every single point I've made, yet you haven't even sourced one of your claims.

I demonstrated how only 12% of sanctions are held up. I've already given you the numbers, do you actually want me to do the math for you? 12%+15%= 27%. Wasn't hard was it? But there's more to it as I've explained:
- Not all eligible sanctions are sent for review
- The most common (lower and intermediate) level sanctions cannot be challenged, and so make the 27% figure pretty irrelevant (but I doubt you'll take note of this)

So, just to recap, I've proven:
- Most food bank users are referred due to benefit sanctions or benefit delays, not a failure to budget;
- Sanctions are being wrongfully imposed, and evidence suggests that, in part, this stems from target-setting and DWP staffing cuts;
- The majority of independently reviewed sanctions are overturned upon appeal;
- Food-bank eligibility is based on an assessment of the individuals circumstances - only the most desolate are eligible - it's pretty unlikely that the vast majority have cars at all.

:yawn:

(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
He's already decided what he thinks regardless of any evidence. It's completely piontelss engaging with him.
I'm finally starting to realise that. After looking through some other politics threads it's clear that he's an ignorant bigot; his replies often being laconic and unsubstantiated. Boring.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 years ago
#93
(Original post by Burridge)
The double-standards here are almost laughable. I've cited evidence for every single point I've made, yet you haven't even sourced one of your claims.

I demonstrated how only 12% of sanctions are held up. I've already given you the numbers, do you actually want me to do the math for you? 12%+15%= 27%. Wasn't hard was it? But there's more to it as I've explained:
- Not all eligible sanctions are sent for review
- The most common (lower and intermediate) level sanctions cannot be challenged, and so make the 27% figure pretty irrelevant (but I doubt you'll take note of this)

So, just to recap, I've proven:
- Most food bank users are referred due to benefit sanctions or benefit delays, not a failure to budget;
- Sanctions are being wrongfully imposed, and evidence suggests that, in part, this stems from target-setting and DWP staffing cuts;
- The majority of independently reviewed sanctions are overturned upon appeal;
- Food-bank eligibility is based on an assessment of the individuals circumstances - only the most desolate are eligible - it's pretty unlikely that the vast majority have cars at all.

:yawn:



I'm finally starting to realise that. After looking through some other politics threads it's clear that he's an ignorant bigot; his replies often being laconic and unsubstantiated. Boring.
No you haven't. You've posted an unsubstantiated link.

Are you regretting get a sanction? Feel it was unfair? Felt hard done by?

Stick to the rules and you won't go wrong.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 years ago
#94
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
No you haven't. You've posted an unsubstantiated link.

Are you regretting get a sanction? Feel it was unfair? Felt hard done by?

Stick to the rules and you won't go wrong.
An unsubstantiated link? I've posted a .gov website, the Guardian, the Independent and the Trussel Trust. What links have you posted to support your claims? You've got to be trolling, right?

I've never been sanctioned. I've never claimed Job Seekers Allowance. In fact, I've never claimed benefits of any kind. Cheers!
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 years ago
#95
(Original post by Burridge)
An unsubstantiated link? I've posted a .gov website, the Guardian, the Independent and the Trussel Trust. What links have you posted to support your claims? You've got to be trolling, right?

I've never been sanctioned. I've never claimed Job Seekers Allowance. In fact, I've never claimed benefits of any kind. Cheers!
You posted this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-9667291.html

And said of 1.2million sanctions imposed. 172k were reversed.

By my reckoning, thats 15%that are raised in error
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 years ago
#96
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You posted this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-9667291.html

And said of 1.2million sanctions imposed. 172k were reversed.

By my reckoning, thats 15%that are raised in error
Yes, of 1.2m imposed sanctions, 350,000 were challenged, and of those, 172,000 were reversed. I've said that how many times? Are you intentionally playing-dumb? :rolleyes:
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 years ago
#97
(Original post by Burridge)
Yes, of 1.2m imposed sanctions, 350,000 were challenged, and of those, 172,000 were reversed. I've said that how many times? Are you intentionally playing-dumb? :rolleyes:
So thy got it wrong 15% of the time is what your saying.

The other 85% of the time, the benefits agency got it right.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 years ago
#98
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
So thy got it wrong 15% of the time is what your saying.

The other 85% of the time, the benefits agency got it right.
Oh dear. You're playing-dumb, surely?

73% of sanctions go unchallenged. That doesn't mean to say they got it right, since:
a) Not every sanction eligible for review will be pursued
b) Only a minority of sanctions are eligible for review

27% of sanctions are challenged. Of those:
a) 12% are help up
b) 15% are overturned

-- When heard in front of an independent and fully-qualified legal professional, the majority of the time, the DWP is found to have wrongly imposed a sanction.

Cheers
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 years ago
#99
(Original post by Burridge)
Oh dear. You're playing-dumb, surely?

73% of sanctions go unchallenged. That doesn't mean to say they got it right, since:
a) Not every sanction eligible for review will be pursued
b) Only a minority of sanctions are eligible for review

27% of sanctions are challenged. Of those:
a) 12% are help up
b) 15% are overturned

-- When heard in front of an independent and fully-qualified legal professional, the majority of the time, the DWP is found to have wrongly imposed a sanction.

Cheers
You can't start claiming unchallenged sanctions were incorrect.

Pretend we're not talking about benefits sanctions but parking fines.

We've sadly git to this stage because we have people who should be looking for work who aren't.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 years ago
#100
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You can't start claiming unchallenged sanctions were incorrect.

Pretend we're not talking about benefits sanctions but parking fines.

We've sadly git to this stage because we have people who should be looking for work who aren't.
When did I claim that unchallenged sanctions were incorrect? Please quote me.

"When heard in front of an independent and fully-qualified legal professional, the majority of the time, the DWP is found to have wrongly imposed a sanction."

Equally, you can't claim that unchallenged sanctions are correct, for reasons I've highlighted numerous times.

The parallel with parking fines is a complete non-starter. Parking fines are imposed at a flat-rate and can universally be challenged.

Care to substantiate that last remark? Do you have any evidence to support your position? I believe that we've gotten to this stage because of a ruthless, class-based ideological agenda, not because people are unwilling to work.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (83)
39.15%
No - but I will (10)
4.72%
No - I don't want to (14)
6.6%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (105)
49.53%

Watched Threads

View All