Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    Glad to hear it. One of the reasons I comment on these threads is to use what I know of the rules to help people out when they meet the few members of JCP staff who are idiots!
    Well it is very much appreciated. She certainly was an idiot...

    She asked "what do do in the schools?"
    Me: " I'm a classroom assistant so I help the children with their work"
    Her: "But what exactly do you do?"
    In my mind: WTF!!!
    Me: "ermmm well, I help the children with their work"
    Her: "Right, so like when parents go in schools and help out?"

    Seriously I wanted to reach down the phone grab her face and scream it at her lol
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Well obviously not. It is not hyperbole. It is happening. People with very bad conditions which leave them in a lot of pain from doing the simplest things are being found fit to work.

    One common example is being asked for walk a little bit. It doesn't matter how much pain that person is in, if they can do it, then its a "yes" tick. No consideration for the condition, or the pain doing that small walk has caused.

    You may not believe me. If you don't, then just use google.

    The fact is that the people conducting the assesments are just "box tickets" and are ignoring the advice of real medical profesionals. There is no wonder why so many appeals against ATOS's decisions are being successful.

    As for people pretending to be sick - you do realise the number of people, and amount of money wasted on that, is tiny compared to the genuine claiments?
    If they are being assessed by someone who is not medically qualified, checking off a list with no allowances made, then yes, that needs looking at if they feel they have been unjustly assessed.

    That's not the final story though, is it, if they fail the assessment, they can be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner in an appeal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You just don't get it.
    Nope. I do thank you very much. That reply was to you saying there are jobs if you look hard enough. Well the very fact that even if every single job was to be filled, we would still have around 2 million unemployed people, suggests that what you said is not the case.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    That's unfortunate. But if you are on JSA, then I believe there's a great rail service from Rhondda to Cardiff and you will be expected to use that to commute to Cardiff and as such, apply for jobs there. First train will get you in before 7 am and last train back is after 10 pm. There are full time day jobs available in Cardiff.
    I wasn't on JSA. I was just giving an example of when I was in sixth form, so getting a day job in Cardiff was not an option.

    As for the general thing about jobs in Cardiff - what about the fact that many of them will be taken by people who actually live in Cardiff? I understand what you are trying to get at, however you seem to think it is a lot easier than what it actually is.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    If they are being assessed by someone who is not medically qualified, checking off a list with no allowances made, then yes, that needs looking at if they feel they have been unjustly assessed.

    That's not the final story though, is it, if they fail the assessment, they can be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner in an appeal.
    But why should they be forced to appeal to get a decent assessment?
    Surely the whole thing should be done by people who are medically qualified and who know what they are looking for / doing?

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Well, that is irrelevant from next week.

    If they can push themselves in a manual wheelchair they can mobilise sufficiently to work.
    It doesn't just apply to walking. It applies to typing, holding a pen, sitting down for extended periods of time, etc etc etc.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No. Civil servants are virtually never made compulsorily redundant.




    If you are at a jobcentre, you are a civil servant paid a salary. In the case of the companies hired to place people, it will almost certainly depend on the incentives in the contract.



    Who are we being fair to? It is fairer to the taxpayer if this reduces public spending on the unemployed.



    I don't know the specifics. How serious was the fraud? Who committed it? How long ago was it? What other companies are in the market to do this work?



    Why should charities be in a privileged position. Should we not let Tesco sell chocolate because Oxfam is willing to do so?



    I accept that a politician is usually capable of messing up anything but your point is?



    Because the disability analysts are trained (that may be an exaggeration-I have seen some of their work) in determining whether people meet the legally prescribed tests. Most psychiatrists wouldn't know what those tests are if you asked them.



    Given the proportion of wrong decisions they make, this might be a good idea. Why don't you suggest it to to Ian Duncan Smith.




    The independent advisor who reported last year was strongly in favour of this and his conclusion has been welcomed by disability groups.

    I could carry on.
    If their work isnt needed anymore, someway or another they are going to end up out of a job.

    The incentives in their contracts effectively turn the unemployed into things to be exploited for profit...not helped. It is doomed to fail.

    It doesnt reduce public spending on the unemployed. I was once asked to do two weeks on unpaid work experience, went on google found out that the company was goig to get about double what my minimum wage would have been.

    The fraud was that they were faking forms and claiming money they didnt deserve. (ironic) It was commited by a4e. They have a politician on their board of advisors.

    Charities should be in a privaleged position because it is public money and they would be doing the work profit free so every penny would be used to help the unemployed. If you let private companies get contracts the taxpayer is just buying somebody a mansion.

    My point about the politicin was that the company that was found guilty of fraud just happened to have him as a (payed?) advisor.

    Surely the info that psychiatrists give is important information for them to make their assesment with?

    I meant that they are given bonuses for finfing people fit for work.

    Giving responsibility for decision making to somebody with no medical training is a plain stupid thing to do.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    If they are being assessed by someone who is not medically qualified, checking off a list with no allowances made, then yes, that needs looking at if they feel they have been unjustly assessed.

    That's not the final story though, is it, if they fail the assessment, they can be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner in an appeal.
    That slightly misrepresents the position.

    Assessments are conducted by disability analysts, the vast majority of whom are doctors or nurses with a few physiotherapists.

    Decisions are made by civil servants in the name of the Secretary of State. See my previous postings about "ownership" of this decision-making process.

    Decisions are re-considered by more senior civil servants who sometimes call on the advice of more senior doctors at ATOS (who don't see the claimant).

    If the claimant appeals, the appeal is heard by a tribunal with a lawyer and a doctor. No examination of the claimant is conducted. The tribunal decides on the evidence of the claimant, any other evidence e.g. medical reports, he puts forward and the original assessment and any supplementary medical advice given to the DWP.

    There are further rights of appeal but only on points of law.

    Welshbluebird does misrepresent the old test for walking. The test requires walking without severe discomfort. That doesn't mean the walking has to be pain free. A good rule of thumb is that someone who has no choice may walk whilst in severe discomfort but anyone with a choice won't.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morecambebay)
    If their work isnt needed anymore, someway or another they are going to end up out of a job.

    True but redeployment is more likely.

    The incentives in their contracts effectively turn the unemployed into things to be exploited for profit...not helped. It is doomed to fail.
    Exploited is emotive language You are only exploited in the same way that a person who buys a hamburger is exploited by McDonalds.


    It doesnt reduce public spending on the unemployed. I was once asked to do two weeks on unpaid work experience, went on google found out that the company was goig to get about double what my minimum wage would have been.
    The theory is that it does. If that two weeks unpaid work had tipped the balance into you getting a proper job, then it would have been money well spent. Clearly the incentives in the Labour schemes were wrong. That is why the Coalition scrapped them on Day 1. Come back in 2 years and I will tell you if the Coalition scheme is any better.

    The fraud was that they were faking forms and claiming money they didnt deserve. (ironic) It was commited by a4e. They have a politician on their board of advisors.
    And it looks as though one employee at one office had a corrupt arrangement that resulted in repayment of £15K.

    Charities should be in a privaleged position because it is public money and they would be doing the work profit free so every penny would be used to help the unemployed. If you let private companies get contracts the taxpayer is just buying somebody a mansion.
    You don't share my cynicism about charities. You may have seen the person from the Local Government Association this week explaining why councils were cutting back on charity contracts due to charities' inefficiencies in working.

    My point about the politicin was that the company that was found guilty of fraud just happened to have him as a (payed?) advisor.
    That isn't a point. That is two unrelated facts. There was a corrupt employee in Hull and the company had a former Labour cabinet minister from Sheffield advising it.

    Surely the info that psychiatrists give is important information for them to make their assesment with?
    See my posts about the decision-making black hole. It is important information and there is some evidence that it has not been sufficiently taken account of.

    I meant that they are given bonuses for finfing people fit for work.
    No they aren't.

    Giving responsibility for decision making to somebody with no medical training is a plain stupid thing to do.
    Why?

    The person in charge of the defence of the UK has never served in the forces. The Home Secretary has never been in the police. Judges who can't drive trains decide responsibility for rail crashes. Why shouldn't civil servants reach these decisions based upon the evidence before them?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Nope. I do thank you very much. That reply was to you saying there are jobs if you look hard enough. Well the very fact that even if every single job was to be filled, we would still have around 2 million unemployed people, suggests that what you said is not the case.
    Nevertheless, every single job isnt filled. So the obvious conclusion, as supported by available full time jobs on the jobcentre website, and actual vacancies handed to JSA claimants seems to me to lean very much in the direction that these jobs are in fact available.

    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I wasn't on JSA. I was just giving an example of when I was in sixth form, so getting a day job in Cardiff was not an option.

    As for the general thing about jobs in Cardiff - what about the fact that many of them will be taken by people who actually live in Cardiff? I understand what you are trying to get at, however you seem to think it is a lot easier than what it actually is.
    Again, every job in [example] Cardiff isn't filled. Not by people who live in Cardiff, nor by those who choose to commute in. At the risk of repeating myself, my previous response in this post applies here.

    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But why should they be forced to appeal to get a decent assessment?
    Surely the whole thing should be done by people who are medically qualified and who know what they are looking for / doing?

    It doesn't just apply to walking. It applies to typing, holding a pen, sitting down for extended periods of time, etc etc etc.
    I must confess I wasn't 100% up to speed on the way disablement benefits are assessed, and was taking your word for it, but now from another poster it appears you have misrepresented your position and they are assessed by people with at least some degree of medical training?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    That slightly misrepresents the position.

    Assessments are conducted by disability analysts, the vast majority of whom are doctors or nurses with a few physiotherapists.

    Decisions are made by civil servants in the name of the Secretary of State. See my previous postings about "ownership" of this decision-making process.

    Decisions are re-considered by more senior civil servants who sometimes call on the advice of more senior doctors at ATOS (who don't see the claimant).

    If the claimant appeals, the appeal is heard by a tribunal with a lawyer and a doctor. No examination of the claimant is conducted. The tribunal decides on the evidence of the claimant, any other evidence e.g. medical reports, he puts forward and the original assessment and any supplementary medical advice given to the DWP.

    There are further rights of appeal but only on points of law.

    Welshbluebird does misrepresent the old test for walking. The test requires walking without severe discomfort. That doesn't mean the walking has to be pain free. A good rule of thumb is that someone who has no choice may walk whilst in severe discomfort but anyone with a choice won't.
    As I said - it says a lot that in some areas 70% of the appeals are won. A figure that high does suggest some problem with the initial assessment system.

    As for walking:
    1 - What classes as "severe discomfort"? To me, constant pain when walking would probably class as that.
    2 - Again, it isn't just about walking. It is about everything else that they test also.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Nevertheless, every single job isnt filled. So the obvious conclusion, as supported by available full time jobs on the jobcentre website, and actual vacancies handed to JSA claimants seems to me to lean very much in the direction that these jobs are in fact available.
    True. But as I said, over 2 million unemployed into half a million vacancies (not all of which are full time) just does not go.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Again, every job in [example] Cardiff isn't filled. At the risk of repeating myself, my previous response in this post applies here.
    Again correct. But when you have a set of people in cardiff trying to find work, and a set of people in the Rhondda trying to find work, logic suggests that the people in Cardiff will go for the jobs in Cardiff. Now, that does not mean they will get them, but it does mean more competition for everyone involved meaning that getting a job is very difficult in a lot of circumstances.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I must confess I wasn't 100% up to speed on the way disablement benefits are assessed, and was taking your word for it, but now from another poster it appears you have misrepresented your position and they are assessed by people with at least some degree of medical training?
    I am just going on what I have heard / been told. While obviously that may mean I mis-represent what actually is going on, there some very very worrying examples of behaviour that would not (or should not) be found from medical professionals (changing their mind, not writing down the truth on the form etc etc).
    That, and the very fact that so many appeals seem to be won (again, 70% in some parts of the country) does suggest something is wrong with the initial assessment.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)

    True. But as I said, over 2 million unemployed into half a million vacancies (not all of which are full time) just does not go.
    Doesn't have to. At least not all at the same time. In addition, some people will be on benefits until the day they die, with their parents having lived off benefits and their children having lived off benefits all in their entirety.

    The only thing that matters, is that as long as there are vacancies available, and it is highly likely that there will be for the foreseeable future, they can be applied for.

    I don't need to explain why this is, hopefully?

    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Again correct. But when you have a set of people in cardiff trying to find work, and a set of people in the Rhondda trying to find work, logic suggests that the people in Cardiff will go for the jobs in Cardiff. Now, that does not mean they will get them, but it does mean more competition for everyone involved meaning that getting a job is very difficult in a lot of circumstances.
    Competition for the job may matter where someone wants a job, sure, but where JSA is concerned, it is irrelevant. All that matters is that reasonable effort is made in applying for the job vacancies.

    You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that because [in Cardiff] unemployed > job vacancies, at some point in the future, job vacancies = 0. It will never happen, because the jobs market is a fluid system, with employees constantly transitioning employment and new vacancies becoming available as the best people are chosen for those that are closing.

    There will always be people at the top, who are easily able to get jobs, just as there will be people who will always be at the bottom.

    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I am just going on what I have heard / been told. While obviously that may mean I mis-represent what actually is going on, there some very very worrying examples of behaviour that would not (or should not) be found from medical professionals (changing their mind, not writing down the truth on the form etc etc).
    That, and the very fact that so many appeals seem to be won (again, 70% in some parts of the country) does suggest something is wrong with the initial assessment.
    Perhaps you'd do better posting figures for the percentages that have been approved including after appeal, compared to the percentages who have been refused. Thus a reasonable picture of whether "swinging the lead" was a major problem or not.

    If it was found that only 70% of claimants under Labour's system were found to have been entitled to disability benefits, even after appeal, that would be a massive indictment on their system, would it not? After all, we can agree that the appeals process is fair, at least?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    The whole idea of 'clamping down' on benefits at a time when you're putting 300,000 people out of work and with unemployment steadily rising is lunacy.

    The labour government had the chance to clamp down on benefits cheats but they didn't do it, but that boat has sailed now, it's too late. There's just far too many people to process for a 'clamp down' to be fairly enforced. When people slip through the net and get their benefits cut unfairly it is not 'unfortunate', these people's lives are put at risk.

    And anyone who says that we need to clamp down on benefits because of the deficit is an idiot, taking a few hundred pounds off the most vulnerable people in society won't make the blindest bit of difference.
    You really think that the welfare bill isn't a significant part of expenditure?? They're not trying to stop any genuine claimants, they're just making it harder for the people to abuse the system, do you not feel equally as disgusted as most working people at the level of abuse of benefits we have witnessed over the last decade?? You only get the 6-month ban if you mess up, you'll have food from charities and a roof over your head and while of course I would like to see everyone rich and happy and minimise peoples suffering I think that you need to have a bloody tough system to get people back on work.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Well obviously not. It is not hyperbole. It is happening. People with very bad conditions which leave them in a lot of pain from doing the simplest things are being found fit to work.

    One common example is being asked for walk a little bit. It doesn't matter how much pain that person is in, if they can do it, then its a "yes" tick. No consideration for the condition, or the pain doing that small walk has caused.

    You may not believe me. If you don't, then just use google.

    The fact is that the people conducting the assesments are just "box tickets" and are ignoring the advice of real medical profesionals. There is no wonder why so many appeals against ATOS's decisions are being successful.

    As for people pretending to be sick - you do realise the number of people, and amount of money wasted on that, is tiny compared to the genuine claiments?

    That is exactly what happened to my dad if you read a few posts up when I said he had to appeal and during the appeal they said if he wanted money he had to sign on but if he signed on he couldnt appeal as to sign on you agree you are fit to work! madness!

    They were 2 hours behind schedule and my dad was last medical of the day and my dad found out they just ticked boxes to say he was fit for work and basically every answer was one that said he was fit for work etc.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    As I said - it says a lot that in some areas 70% of the appeals are won. A figure that high does suggest some problem with the initial assessment system.
    Most recent national statistics show that of cases that go to a hearing i.e. are not withdrawn or struck out for failure to proceed 36% succeed. However, you are correct that there are local distortions due to quality of decision-making. The ESA success rate overall is well below the old Incapacity Benefit success rate.

    As for walking:
    1 - What classes as "severe discomfort"? To me, constant pain when walking would probably class as that.
    Not all pain amounts to severe discomfort. This has to be measured subjectively. But for example someone who walks round a supermarket with their partner is unlikely to be walking in severe discomfort. The partner could walk round alone and it is unlikely that someone would walk unnecessarily whilst in severe discomfort.

    2 - Again, it isn't just about walking. It is about everything else that they test also.
    Of course it is.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drbluebox)
    That is exactly what happened to my dad if you read a few posts up when I said he had to appeal and during the appeal they said if he wanted money he had to sign on but if he signed on he couldnt appeal as to sign on you agree you are fit to work! madness!
    From my experience that does not sound like the sort of comment that a tribunal chairman would make.

    Furthermore, it is expressly provided in Regulations that claiming JSA pending an ESA appeal does not prejudice that appeal although it is rarely necessary to do that because except in the case of repeat ESA claimants, ESA continues to be paid pending the outcome of the appeal.



    They were 2 hours behind schedule and my dad was last medical of the day and my dad found out they just ticked boxes to say he was fit for work and basically every answer was one that said he was fit for work etc.
    Perhaps that was because he was in fit to work.

    EDIT I see that in fact he won his appeal
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goose1990)
    You really think that the welfare bill isn't a significant part of expenditure?? They're not trying to stop any genuine claimants, they're just making it harder for the people to abuse the system, do you not feel equally as disgusted as most working people at the level of abuse of benefits we have witnessed over the last decade?? You only get the 6-month ban if you mess up, you'll have food from charities and a roof over your head and while of course I would like to see everyone rich and happy and minimise peoples suffering I think that you need to have a bloody tough system to get people back on work.
    Well, I think people would like to see some figures now, so let me see.

    http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd...ge=fraud_error

    For 2009/10, it is estimated that 2.2 per cent, or £3.3bn, of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error. In value terms overpayments have risen from £2.9bn (revised) to £3.3bn, due to the increase in benefit expenditure.
    From this, simple maths will give us (£3.3bn/2.2)*100 or £150 bn forked out on benefits annually.

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1163

    The number of households in which no adult has ever worked has almost doubled between 1997 and 2010.
    In some of these households, all adults are aged between 16 to 24 and in full-time education, known as ‘student’ households. Excluding these leaves 269,000 households that have never worked.

    In relation to all households in the UK, the percentage who have never worked is around 1.7 per cent in 2010, up from 1.0 per cent in 1997.
    and

    Around 552,000 adults live in the households that have never worked, with a third of these in student households, not wanting to work because of their study.

    Of the remaining 374,000 adults:

    * 68 per cent are not seeking a job and would not like to work

    * 16 per cent are not seeking a job and would like to work

    * 13 per cent are unemployed, therefore looking for and available to work
    Well, that's just fantastic. More than 300,000 wasters in families that have never worked, who are surely breeding the next quarter of a million wasters (the number of people under 16 in households that have never worked.

    Compare that to the total number of people claiming JSA (and remember there will be people on JSA who are not seeking a job and would not like to work, but others in their household do work) and those figures are pretty shocking.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Not surprised. When I left the Department last year, they were just introducing sanction targets to my team. So glad I was going.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    From my experience that does not sound like the sort of comment that a tribunal chairman would make.

    Furthermore, it is expressly provided in Regulations that claiming JSA pending an ESA appeal does not prejudice that appeal although it is rarely necessary to do that because except in the case of repeat ESA claimants, ESA continues to be paid pending the outcome of the appeal.

    This wasnt the tribunal, it was the social that said this to him, this was about 14 months ago though so before the changes.



    Perhaps that was because he was in fit to work.

    EDIT I see that in fact he won his appeal
    Yeah as they never did an actual medical, they ticked boxes when he wasnt present and my dad answered no questions, they got fined as they were making medicals up to get paid.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Well, I think people would like to see some figures now, so let me see.

    http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd...ge=fraud_error

    One does need to be quite cynical about these figures.

    First all the DWP always tries to run together fraud and error as if it is the same thing.

    Secondly, the DWP decides whether any particular overpayment is due to fraud, customer error or official error. The DWP tends to favour its own interests in deciding into which class to put any overpayment.

    Thirdly even after allowing for that bias, of the £3.3bn of overpayments, £1bn is recorded as its error, £1.2bn as customer error and £1.1bn as fraud.

    Bearing in mind that the DWP has designed a system in which customers can make honest mistakes amounting to £1.2bn and where its own "expert" staff make make another £1bn of error, I hope you would agree that the system is not fit for purpose.

    Although the £1bn of fraud is a staggering sum, the DWP always uses the "fraud and error" figure to cover up its own incompetence.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It’s not exactly news that the JobCentre are worthless. They’ve been doing a fantastic job of throwing public money down the swanny to subsidise the lazy for donkey’s years now. It’s very true that JobCentre aren’t helping people into sustainable employment, but I question whether they ever did. Almost everyone I know whose had to go on JSA for one reason or another has found work through private employment agencies.

    One of the principal reasons is that JobCentre’s hand is forced when it comes to the kinds of employment and the calibre of candidates they have available. As they cater for such a wide range of differing skills, qualities and experience, they cannot specialise in certain areas, which means that organisations that need specialist employment (most organisations of any merit these days) won’t use them as they don’t have any specialised knowledge of the differing job markets. A simple administrative role in a car dealership, for instance, is completely different to a simple administrative role in a planning office. JCP employees don’t have the specialist training needed to actually do any kind of in-depth analysis or monitoring of job market requirements and therefore they are essentially superfluous in all but the most straightforward cases.

    If the story is true and members of the JobCentre organisation are being actively encouraged to deceive people into breaking regulations, then that is totally unacceptable. However, in the traditional Guardian namby-pamby style, they gloss over the changes in sanction regulations as if they’re part of some great conspiracy too. I think it’s wholly fair that people who arrive late, for instance, are subject to these sanctions. Arrive late at a job interview and you won’t get it; arrive late for work once too many times and you loose your job. It’s not as if simple timekeeping isn’t a valuable skill, or for that matter one that’s easy to master.

    As for the legality, they've had "fail quotas" in the driving test for decades now. Many organisations who are undergoing cut-backs try to penalise members who have poorer records in order to push them out or to find excuses to sack them. It's not right under any circumstances but it's not uncommon either.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drbluebox)
    Yeah as they never did an actual medical, they ticked boxes when he wasnt present and my dad answered no questions, they got fined as they were making medicals up to get paid.
    Run that passed me again. You are saying he never actually attended the medical assessment but the medical assessment was nevertheless carried out?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Run that passed me again. You are saying he never actually attended the medical assessment but the medical assessment was nevertheless carried out?
    He was sent home as he was last person to be seen in day and they were 2 hours behind schedule and staff wanted to leave.

    Well my dad said the extent of the interview was asking his name and details then getting told he would be called in for another appointment.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 4, 2011
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.