How are those with mental health problems treated by Atos?

With complaints about the failed Atos work capability assessment flooding in, Alan White and Kate Belgrave look at some of them.

Atos. Photograph: Getty Images

Tony Lea, who runs the Cornish benefit advice charity Bufferzone, wants to tell us about Jane. She suffered abuse from the age of 13. She never went to school and she can’t read or write. She’s 33 years old and has tried to kill herself before.

In February this year, the outsourcing company Atos carried out her Employment and Support Allowance Work Capability Assessment (WCA). She didn’t score any points on the mental health ability descriptors, and was placed in the ESA Work Related Activity Group – the group for claimants that the DWP considers to be capable of work at some point.

She was assigned a career adviser by a company called Prospects, which is contracted to find jobs for the unemployed under the Government’s Work Programme. Jane told this adviser that she had mental health problems. The adviser called her a liar and sanctioned her benefits. By June, Jane had got a job. She was in the job for three days before she tried to commit suicide by overdose.

On 2nd July, Tony told the Prospects career adviser not to contact her, and asked a mental health crisis team to carry out an immediate assessment. On the 29th of that month she tried to take an overdose again. Tony says this was because Prospects sent her a letter. She’d been receiving them for months, asking why she hadn’t been in contact with them. She can’t read and didn’t want them read it out to her, so she’d been storing them in a drawer: 18 of them in total. She recognised the company’s logo on the top, and that tipped her over the edge.

Tony made an official complaint. The DWP said it would not investigate the matter because Prospects has its own internal complaints procedure. On 5th August another Prospects worker phoned Jane. Tony believes “we’d have been looking at another suicide attempt,” had another mental health team not visited her.

When we contacted them, Prospects issued the following statement:

“Prospects strongly refutes the allegations made by Bufferzone which purportedly relate to one of our customers on the Work Programme in South West. 

"Prospects takes its responsibilities to its customers and staff seriously. We have robust policies on safeguarding and data protection in place to ensure their privacy and safety is always maintained. With this in mind, it would be inappropriate for Prospects to comment on individual any cases. 

"Prospects is currently helping more than 18,000 long term unemployed people in the South West to return to work through its innovative ASCENT model of delivery. Prospects works with customers to help them overcome barriers to employment through bespoke support and training to increase confidence and develop skills.”

***

You can see why there is such concern about the way that the WCA deals with people who have mental health conditions - and concern about the DWP’s commitment to a real overhaul. Here’s a reason to question that commitment: the Upper Tribunal recently ruled that the current WCA process is unreasonable to people with mental health conditions. That ruling came after an action against the DWP was brought by the Mental Health Resistance Network. Two claimants argued that Atos work capability assessments discriminated against people with mental health conditions. The courts agreed.

That decision would have put the onus on the DWP to source medical information for people with mental health conditions right at the start of their ESA applications. Unfortunately, the DWP is fighting that decision tooth and nail - and was recently granted leave to appeal it. "We already request claimants supply any evidence they feel will be relevant to the assessment in the ESA50 questionnaire," the department said in an email. The fact that the change could improve the experience for people who must go through the appalling work capability process appears to be neither here nor there.

Neither is the fact that sourcing people’s medical information at the start of their WCAs might improve things as far as the public purse goes – people found eligible for ESA from the start would not need to take their case through the wildly oversubscribed and costly appeals process. You’d also think the fact that the minister for employment, Mark Hoban, has been forced to admit there are problems with the assessments and the written reports that Atos produces (“an unacceptable reduction in the quality”) would give the DWP reason to pause when looking to overturn decisions which could dramatically improve the information available to Atos assessors. (Hoban has also brought in his former employers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, “to provide independent advice in relation to strengthening quality assurance processes across all its health and disability assessments.” Ahem).

Which brings us to the growing problems that people have getting medical evidence. Tony tells us about Clive. Clive’s in his forties. His mother lives at his home and has palliative care provided by Clive and another carer. Tony managed to get him referred to a mental health team and then to an agency called Outlook South West following a suicide attempt. He’s got a tribunal to overturn his WCA next week. Outlook South West told him it would cost £70 for them to provide a letter outlining his mental health problems. But as Tony says: “People like Clive have to live on £71 a week. If they have to pay that, what do they live on? I feel so strongly about this. It has to be highlighted.”

And then Tony tells us about Claire. She has a history of depression and suicide attempts. The WCA said there was nothing to go on regarding her mental illness. But the mental health team and Tony told Atos and the DWP not to contact her because they strongly believed she had a paranoid schizophrenia condition.

When her case went to tribunal, Claire only had medical evidence that was over ten years old, because her GP refused to provide evidence. The DWP supplied no evidence to back up its case that she was in good mental health. The tribunal chair was deeply unimpressed with the stress to which she was being subjected, and demanded medical evidence from both the department and her GP. Now she faces another tribunal in six weeks’ time.

Tony will most likely win the tribunal. Last year he attended 104 tribunals with nine losses: a 93 per cent success rate. His overall rate of success is 98 per cent. As he says: “Atos are so bad they make my job easy.”

***

This whole scene is a catastrophe. The implosions are everywhere. A few weeks ago, disability benefit claimants and campaigners were shocked to read that GPs in south east Wales had been told by the Bro Taf local medical committee to stop providing support information for disability benefit claimants appealing “fit to work” decisions, because the work was an “abuse of resources”. We spoke to the Bro Taf LMC, which sent this statement (and they said they’d be issuing another one this week, so we’ll look out for that) to say that their problem was not with providing medical evidence for claims, but for the “increasing number of appeals [which] has resulted in more GP appointments being taken up to deal with such requests.”

None of which helps claimants and we’re looking for a legal view on that withholding of support information. Public Interest Lawyers’ Tessa Gregory says: "It can’t be right that claimants are left without vital medical evidence from their GPs to support them in their appeals against Atos assessments which are notoriously unfair. We are considering the position of both the DWP and the Local Medical Committee carefully to see whether a legal challenge can be brought to ensure that claimants get the assistance they require."
The WCA’s systemic failures are causing complete havoc.

Only a day before the Bro Taf story appeared, industry magazine Pulse reported that “GPs were struggling to cope with a 21 per cent rise in requests to verify work capability since January [2013]” – saying that figures obtained by Pulse “showed the number of requests to verify claimants’ ability to work have increased by over a fifth since the beginning of this year.”

Note the anger in the comments on that story, with people arguing that they're doing the extra work for social security “reform”, while Atos makes the profit - “ATOS collects the money. GPs do the work. Welcome to the Tory vision of privatisation.”

As far as charging for medical information is concerned: it's not new for GPs and consultants to charge (there's a list of some charges here) – but the problem in the case of disability benefits is that cost could be pricing people out of vital information they need to support their claims and leave them with absolutely nowhere to go. What happens then? Around the country, people are being asked to pay £20, £30, £50 and more for medical evidence (you can see in the comments here that even last year, people were being charged upwards of £100 for support information and saying they couldn’t afford to pay it).

The Citizens Advice Bureau saw all this a mile off: they raised the issue of cost back in their January 2012 investigation (called Right First Time) into the accuracy (or otherwise) of ESA reports. The CAB observed then that: "In many cases, NHS doctors will charge an average of £30 (we have evidence of consultants charging £200 an hour) for medical evidence and few people on low incomes can afford to pay this much out of an income of £67.50 ESA (assessment phase rate) per week." That was over 18 months ago. As the number of appeals skyrocketed, this problem could only grow.

And it’s grown into a right disaster. When the Bro Taf story broke, the disability campaigner Sue Marsh wrote about Mark Hoban’s attempts to shift responsibility for the ever-burgeoning appeal rate: as she said here, Hoban has implied that the high rate of ESA appeals is at least in part because people don’t have enough medical evidence:

“DWP ministers have blamed the staggering 43 per cent ESA (Employment and Support Allowance) appeal rate on claimants not requesting and submitting enough medical evidence. As Mark Hoban claimed, “What’s happening too often is people are suggesting to claimants ‘oh, just leave the medical evidence until the appeal’ – there’s a shared responsibility here.”

In theory, within the claim process, Atos is expected to request evidence from a claimant’s doctor when the claimant is likely to be placed in the Support Group. For the year up to October 2012, Atos only requested such evidence (as an ESA113 form) in 27.2 per cent of all ESA referrals; 23.8 per cent of these were not returned by GPs.” The DWP would have us believe that extra sourcing of information is a robust part of the WCA process: when we asked why it was trying to overturn the Upper Tribunal decision on mental health claimants, the department said: “Atos healthcare professionals will continue to seek further medical evidence in accordance with the Department’s guidelines.” Doesn’t sound like that’s going too well.

Sue Marsh tells us that Hoban needs to sort it out. “The ESA50 clearly suggests that a claimant sends in medical evidence from a consultant or GP that knows them best. If those medical professionals are now withholding that vital support and Mr Hoban insists that it is necessary for an accurate WCA decision, he MUST act immediately to make sure that medical professionals cannot refuse to provide this evidence and that they are not allowed to charge punitive fees for obtaining it."

All Bufferzone client names have been changed

New Statesman

Cameron: dumping his support for sexually abused kids?

David Cameron outside Downing Street. Picture courtesy: Guardian

Politicians like journalists can be  creatures of the moment. Flitting from issue to issue – today will be the decision on implementing Leveson  on press regulation – they sometimes forget the bigger picture in the adrenalin rush of a crisis or a story.

Eleven years ago David Cameron, then a backbencher sat alongside Tom Watson, Labour MP, as a member of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. Together the two MPs signed up to a report on historical child abuse. One of the key recommendations of the report ( for those who want to read it all, the link is http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/83602.htm ) was that when the police ” trawl” for abuse victims and witnesses  those who are interviewed should get support from day one.

The recommendation states: “complainants should be offered appropriate victim support services, such as
counselling, from an early stage of their involvement in the investigation.”

Now 11 years later the police seem to be working overtime investigating historic child abuse cases. Operation Fernbridge – the police investigation into sexual abuse of children in the care of Richmond Council and their links to Elm Guest House in Barnes – has at least 16 potential children in its sights. The aftermath of the Savile inquiry could bring  many others into its scope and the don’t forget  Operation Fairbank investigating other child abuse  allegations and at least 30 investigations into child grooming across Britain. The scale of abuse is obviously much higher than people realise.

Officially the police and it now appears Downing Street believe all these former kids, some now in their 40s, are getting support. But evidence from two people who can be expected to be important witnesses in any trial involving the Richmond scandal suggests otherwise.

Details were published yesterday in the Sunday People and on the Exaro website. You can read the article in the People here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vip-child-sex-ring-victims-1768956)  and the harrowing view of two witnesses here (http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4897/witnesses-in-operation-fernbridge-plead-for-support-service) .

Suffice to say they are both highly critical. One, Sam, not his real name , says the help he was given : “as “inadequate, ill-conceived and suffered from a complete failure to understand what they (the authorities) were doing.”

He doesn’t blame the police who appear to have been sensitive in interviewing him but just left him with a list of referral agencies to fend for himself.The other is also having to find his own care while his GP prescribes sleeping pills.

I put this direct to Downing Street – including sending Mr Cameron’s office a heart-rending quote from one of them – and reminded him of what he signed up to 11 years ago.

The reply was :”Sexual abuse is a devastating crime and the Government is committed to ensuring that every victim has access to the specialist support they need. This is why the Ministry of justice is providing £10.5million in Government funding over three years to provide services to support victims of these heinous crimes.

“The Government funds 78 Rape Support Centres across England and Wales. These provide confidential and expert support, advice and counselling for victims of these heinous crimes. More centres are in the process of being established and expected to open soon.

“The Government is committed to providing a justice system that protects, supports and reaches the highest possible standards of care for victims. There are a number of measures which already exist to protect vulnerable and special victims, including rape and sexual abuse victims, throughout their involvement with the CJS, and a number of reforms are under  way to improve the system further.”

 The rape crisis centres are not dealing with these partcular Fernbridge cases or any historic childhood sex abuse and therefore Downing Street is misleading people by suggesting that all this money is going to help victims of child sexual abuse.

 No answer was given to my main point – did David Cameron  support what he had signed up to 11 years ago. And the suggestion is that this support is not there on the ground nor is it co-ordinated.

 

 This is stupid, short-sighted and frankly callous. Tom Watson, who has been approached by some of the witnesses who suffered child sexual abuse about lack of support, believes Cameron should use his power to make sure this is properly implemented and people have support from day one.

 

For a successful prosecution of people who committed these heinous crimes some 30 years ago, the government must ensure that the people who complained and will be witnesses are properly supported. It is no good  having witnesses in the court who can’t sleep, feel sick or can’t cope.

 

Shame on you Mr Cameron if  you sign up to reports and don’t do anything about it when you are in power yourself.

David Hencke

What is forced labour?

What is the problem?

Forced labour is any work or services which people are forced to do against their will under the threat of some form punishment.  Almost all slavery practices, including trafficking in people and bonded labour, contain some element of forced labour.

Forced labour affects millions of men, women and children around the world and is most frequently found in labour intensive and/or under-regulated industries, such as:

• Agriculture and fishing 
• Domestic work
• Construction, mining, quarrying and brick kilns 
• Manufacturing, processing and packaging
• Prostitution and sexual exploitation
• Market trading and illegal activities

 

How big is the problem?

The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that there are at least 20.9 million people in forced labour worldwide. The figure means that, at any given point in time, around three out of every 1,000 persons worldwide are suffering in forced labour.
Some more detailed ILO's statistic:

• 18.7 million (90%) people are in forced labour in the private economy, exploited by individuals or enterprises. Out of these, 4.5 million (22%) are in forced sexual exploitation, and 14.2 million (68%) in forced labour exploitation in activities such as agriculture, construction, domestic work and manufacturing.
• Women and girls represent the greater share of forced labour victims 11.4 million (55%), as compared to 9.5 million (45%) men and boys.
• Adults are more affected than children 74% (15.4 million) of victims fall in the age group of 18 years and above, whereas children are 26% of the total (or 5.5 million child victims).
• 2.2 million (10%) work in state-imposed forms of forced labour, for example in prisons under conditions which violate ILO standards, or in work imposed by the state military or by rebel armed forces.

Why is there a problem?

In around 10 per cent of cases the State or the military is directly responsible for the use of forced labour. Notable examples where this takes place are Burma, North Korea and China.  However, in the vast majority of cases forced labour is used by private individuals who are seeking to make profits from the exploitation of other people.

Victims of forced labour are frequently from minority or marginalised groups who face institutionalised discrimination and live on the margins of society where they are vulnerable to slavery practices. Forced labour is usually obtained as a result of trapping the individual in debt bondage or by restricting their freedom of movement.  In other cases violence, threats and intimidation are used and/or there is an absence of effective State protection.

Where is the problem?

Forced labour is a global problem, although some regions have larger numbers of people affected than others.  The regional distribution of forced labour is:

• Asia and Pacific: 11.7 million (56%)
• Africa: 3.7 million (18%)
• Latin America and the Caribbean: 1.8 million (9%)
• The Developed Economies (US, Canada, Australia, European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Japan): 1.5 million (7%)
• Central, Southeast and Eastern Europe (non EU) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CSEE): 1.6 million (7%)
• Middle East: 600,000 (3%)

Laws

The ILO defines forced labour as: “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of a penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily”. 

This definition is set out in the ILO’s Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).  This Convention has been ratified by over 170 states and obliges governments to “suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period”.

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prohibits the use of forced labour (Article 8) and has been ratified by more than 160 states. 

China is the only country in the world which has not ratified either of these international standards.  However, many countries have not passed specific laws defining and prohibiting forced labour with adequate punishments for those responsible.  Where these laws exist they are often not enforced properly.


Read more...

Yesterday's Labour Workfare Masssacre

Reblogged from Diary of a Benefit Scrounger

 

This morning, like the night after Agincourt, lefties like me scan the bloody, burnt out social media #workfare battlefield in the hope of finding twitching Labour corpses. There are none. Like the French 600 years before, a few generals at the top of the pile made the fateful decision to crush the weak and exhausted. Like the French, they were shown exactly why that's often not a very good idea at all. 

In the three years since Labour have been in opposition, nothing has described their fate better than the welfare debate. With minds stuck in an ideology forged around a gleaming new millennium, welfare was a comforting Blairite hawk to offset the freer doves of education, international aid and health. 

Tough on povety, tough on the causes of poverty. It suited Purnell, and Murphy and Cooper as they forged their credentials as "centrists" and who knows? Future leaders? 

So the argument goes : "It's a no brainer. The public think everyone on welfare is scrounging. (Except them) The tougher we are on welfare, the more people in the "Middle" and the "Shires" and the "City" breathe easy at night. (As long as it's not pensioners and it doesn't affect them.) Combining a little social justice elsewhere, with a good dose of judgement and steel in welfare = the chance of a majority. 75% of the public support workfare. Therefore, supporting the government on this is a chance to show we are still tough on poverty, tough on the causes of poverty. The Daily Mail fall gasping at our feet, they raise a glass in the gentleman's clubs, and no-one will listen to the screams of the anguished or weak, well, because they're anguished and weak."

Some around the shadow cabinet now look uncomfortable, shift in their seats. This is at least progress. Some mention the change in the welfare narrative lately. Opinion polls shifting, disability becoming toxic for the Tories, the increased media interest and above all, that behemoth of opinion formers - social media. But the hawks give the doves a little slap about and logic prevails. 75% of everyone or about 1% of the active, gobby probably-gave-up-on-us-anyway-leftie-activist-Face-Tweeps??? 

As has happened so often before, but had been happening less lately, the hawks won the welfare Agincourt, and they took to the commons. 

We on Twitter and Facebook steeled ourselves. Defeat had been heavily trailed on the blogs and had met with the grim opposition of the archer who knows he may be amongst small and ragged numbers, but he has all the arrows and the mighty have none. 

And so it proved. If the Daily Mail or the BBC even noticed Labour's unprincipled stand yesterday, designed to get them picked for the election team, there is little evidence today on a quick dodge of budget fever. 

But on Social Media? 

Oh Agincourt,

"Those few, those happy few those band of brothers. 

For those yesterday who shed their blood may have been a brother. 

Be he ne'er so vile, election day may have gentled his condition and Englishmen abed may have held their front doors wide as any speaks, that canvassed late, upon election day!!!"

For the return of precisely zero centre ground, floating voting, Mail readers, Labour managed to enrage and alienate 10s of 1000s of active, passionate, left of centre, engaged, knowledgeable, informed, opinion formers who are read by journalists and opposition alike - not to mention their own families and friends. 

Life has changed since 2000. Politics has changed. The economy has changed beyond all recognition. Living standards have fallen. Corruption seems to stalk everywhere now that gossamer veneer of "success" has floated away. 

But most of all, "media" has changed. Numbers of papers sold are plummeting, news figures freefall by their side. 

And every day, social media takes over. Sure, not the majority, but the vanguard. And they are the ones who care and think and devise and solve and organise. Just like any world paradigm change, it is the few who lead you to safety not the many. 

Every time Labour remembers that, they are rewarded with just a little touch of Harry in the night - Murdoch and Leveson, Gas giants and Loan sharks their names in our mouths bitterly remembered. 

We appreciate their company, there in the breach. 

But every time they take what they know is the wrong decision on principle, the response is swift and horrific. 

I won't pain myself more by sifting through the "I'll never vote Labour again" tweets or sifting through the debris of torn up membership cards and broken hearts. 

But Labour squandered so much more yesterday on a battle they could never win, and all the while they go on frittering away principles and viable voters on the wind of a cruel popularity it cannot win, our cause be not just.

 

 

Chris Spivey on Ian Duncan Smith [Contains strong language]

Fuck Off Smiffy.

Okay, lets talk common sense.

Ian Smith – because that’s who the cunt really is - couldn’t cut it as the Tory party leader and as such was made to suffer the humiliation of being told to “fuck off out of it” – thus condemning  him as being a totally useless cunt.

Never the less, you only have to look at Smiffy to know that he has delusions of grandeur (hence the made up double barrelled surname and fake CV) and an ego the size of the National Debt – thus making him a useless, lying cunt who is full of shit.

Throughout his time as an inept politician he has done fuck all for us, yet taken, and continues to take, a big, extremely undeserved, public funded wage, as well as claiming equally undeserved, fantastically inflated expenses – thus making him a drain on society. In turn, that fact makes him a useless, lying, bullshitting, cunt, who is a gross liability.

In accepting his over inflated, totally undeserved, public funded wage and expenses, he becomes guilty of fraud. Even more so when you realise that the ponce was claiming a big wage for his wife who did fuck all else other than bring the Smiffy kids up – thus making him a corrupt, criminal, useless, lying, bullshitting, cunt, who is a gross liability.

Enter multi millionaire Dave ‘the rave‘ Cameron, a mush with an extremely secretive and shady past, whom it transpires has the blatantly obvious mandate of leading the country into chaos and civil unrest.

What better way to do it than employ a corrupt, criminal, useless, lying, bullshitting, cunt, who is a gross liability and full of resentment in the knowledge that he is perceived as a joke – a sick joke at that.

The fact that the Cunt Cameron would employ such an obnoxious, pointless dog turd is a good measure of our Prime Ministers integrity. The fact that the Nation has allowed him to do so – and carried on doing so –  is a good measure of their stupidity.

So, is Idiot Dickhead Smiffy value for money? Lets start with ATOS, since Dickhead Smiff aims to shave £2.5 Billion of the ESA bill. Here is what Edinburgh Against Poverty say:

Despite a fraud rate of just 1%, plus £16 billion in unclaimed benefits, the Government are determined to toss 500,000 people who currently rely on sickness benefits into the bleakest labour market in a generation and to cut already meagre disability benefits to starvation levels.

Straight away, that £16 Billion unclaimed benefits figure jumps out at you and slaps you round the chops. So, in reality, the government ought to think themselves lucky. Remember, Benefit is an ENTITLEMENT.

ENTITLEMENT: something that you have a right to do or have, or the right to do or have something. (Cambridge On-line Dictionary)

  So, notwithstanding that the government will pay ATOS a minimum of £50,000,000 just to pass these people unfit, those people will then go on JSA. Course, they may then go on the Work Program eventually. ATOS is getting £500 Million Quid for running that little scam.

Since ESA fraud is estimated to cost the government  £250 Million, it isn’t hard to see the false economy there. Neither is that taking into account the untold misery that these cunts are imposing on those poor people.

Neither does the Work Program work. This from the Guardian:

Number geeks point out that, as stunningly bad as the Work Programme figures are, they are actually slightly worse than they look. Between 1 June 2011 and the end of July this year 877,800 people were referred to the Work Programme and only 31,240 people got jobs and stayed there long enough (three or six months) for the relevant company to get paid. This is 3.4%; the Department for Work and Pensions’ lowest expectation was 5%. But if they had done this evaluation in the regular way – June to May, rather than June to July – the figure would drop even lower: 2.5%. [...] Working Links, proud holder of Work Programme contracts worth £307,752,305, put out a press release a few weeks ago saying they’d found 40 people jobs in McDonald’s. It’s not exactly specialist knowledge, is it? “Psst, I know this low-profile employer that never advertises, but just might give you a trial … Ronald McDonald.” READ MORE

  Add to that the cost of the court cases, the changing of the law needed to keep it going, and the potential lawsuits for medical negligence and what you are left with is a massive failure by anyone’s standards in terms of both cost and human suffering…. The useless, self serving, nonce cunt, pasty faced imbeciles are meant to serve our interests not implement our destruction.

Then there is the Universal Credits that IDS is publicly crowing about, while no doubt privately shitting himself since he knows that the scheme is going to be as successful as the novel he wrote.

The Universal Credit scheme (UCS)  has already cost over £2 Billion to set up according to the major study undertaken by the Institution of Fiscal Studies (IFS). However, the IFS also say this:

Of course, moving from the current system of benefits and tax credits to a single benefit will require major administrative and IT changes. It is beyond the scope of this note to assess the risk involved.

So if the IFS cannot predict the risks involved, then you just know that we are fucked.

The IFS then goes on to say that the  UCS will cost a predicted £1.7 Billion to run once it is properly in place, but cannot even begin to predict how much the running costs will be in the transitional period… Way to go
IBS IDS.

According to the IFS the UCS will have this effect:

A total of 2.5 million working-age families will gain and, in the long run, 1.4 million working-age families will lose, and 2.5 million working-age families will see no change in their disposable income because their entitlements to Universal Credit will match their current entitlements to means-tested benefits and tax credits.

Therefore, there is a difference being made to 3.9 million families with a plus minus ratio of 1.1 million. Course, the plus and the minus benefits are unknown, but will obviously be more drastic to the minus ratio and negligible to the plus ratio. This will no doubt cancel out any savings, while at the same time plunge another 1.4 million families into deeper poverty.

So, once again a massive failure by anyone’s standards in terms of both cost and human suffering … Fucking useless, evil imbeciles. I fucking detest the solidified farts.

As for the bedroom tax. The cost of setting that up will also be in the £ billions. That’s on top of the £ Millions in police costs to marshal the mass protests. To be honest, I cannot see it being workable. I can think of at least one scam to avoid it, if ya know the right people.

In any case, there is much back peddling by the government on who will now have to pay, which the Daily Mirror describe as “Total Chaos”  and estimates has cost us an unnecessary £36 million.

I repeat; Cost us – not them… US!

Where the fuck is the accountability? Imagine if you or I cost our employers that amount of money through our incompetence?

And, to top it all, those on benefits will now have to pay something towards their Council Tax bill.

Now, what I haven’t seen anyone mention yet is that when you get notification of your benefit entitlement it states something along the lines of ; The Amount Of Money The Law Says You Need To Live On. That amount of money is then stated in X amount of pounds.

Therefore, that X amount of pounds is the minimum you are allowed to receive by law and will have been calculated on the number of things people have to pay out for in everyday life I.E. Food, and bills. However, that amount of money will not have taken into account money for Council Tax, since it is safe to assume that anyone on benefits who has rent to pay will also be claiming Housing & Council Tax benefit.

So, to my way of thinking, unless the government add more money to JSA, Income Support and ESA, they are breaking the law and violating your human rights  by now making those on benefits pay towards their Council Tax. After all, those people will now be living on less than what the law says you need to live on.

To my mind, the same applies to those having their benefits sanctioned. Never the less, are those who have been sanctioned still eligible to pay the council tax for those weeks that they were given no money?

The very fact that some fucking jobs-worth cretin who was no doubt bullied at school has the power to decide who gets to eat and who doesn’t is sick, sick, fucking sick. I’d burn the fucking Job Centre down, I would and say sanction that you cunt.

My position remains the same. People, if you roll over and pay these thing, you are mugs who are contributing to your own downfall… Wise up.

It is also up to you people to fight for and protect, those in society who cannot do it themselves. Nay, it is your duty as human beings… Your government, whom were elected by your naivity are not going to do it, so the task falls down to you… And remember! You have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

As for Iain Dickhead Smiffy boy! Lets kill the cunt.

Chris Spivey

Contact workfare exploiter Salvation Army – Day 2 Workfare Week of Action

Salvation Army International and UK HQs were paid a surprise visit to launch the week of action. [Photo: Sinister Pics]

Join the online day of action on Tuesday 19th March and tell workfare exploiters The Salvation Army exactly what the public think about their use of forced labour.

The Salvation Army released an astonishing statement recently which seems to suggest they will force people on sickness or disability benefits into unpaid work.

In a series of answers to questions asked on social media, the charity are unrepentant about their use of workfare. Responding to a question asking how they “can morally take sick and disabled people and force them to work?” the charity reply that they believe in “emancipation through employment” – a chillingly familiar phrase.

The Salvation Army have shown they are happy to act as Iain Duncan Smith’s workfare foot soldiers and yesterday their fight for the right to use unpaid workers was aggressive. The response to a peaceful protest at their UK head office was heavy handed, leaving one person temporarily arrested (until the police realised the accusation was entirely fabricated) after being falsely accused of assault.

Salvation Army need to be shown just how many people object to their use of forced unpaid labour. Join in the online day of action and tell them what you think!

Salvation Army UK can be contacted on facebook and on Twitter:
Tweet to @salvationarmyuk
Boycott Workfare

The myth of the “welfare scrounger”

A little noticed piece of DWP research shows that four out of five claimants spent at least three quarters of the past four years off unemployment benefit.

BY IAN MULHEIRN PUBLISHED 15 MARCH 2013 14:58

A man stands outside the Jobcentre Plus on January 18, 2012 in Trowbridge, England. Photograph: Getty Images.

In its effort to save money on the working age welfare bill, the government has used some bold imagery. The Chancellor is fond of saying, 

“where is the fairness…for the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits?”

And the Prime Minister has talked of the benefits bill

“sky-rocketing”

while

“generations languish on the dole and dependency”.

The benefit scrounger is the bogeyman of British politics, stalking the corridors of Westminster.

In the real world, it’s pretty hard to find families that have never worked, let alone generations of people on the dole.

But as well as being political cover for the public spending squeeze, this rhetoric reflects an apparent hardening of public attitudes.

The British Social Attitudes survey shows that in 2011 54 per cent of people thought that if benefits were lower people would “learn to stand on their own two feet”, more than double the 26 per cent who felt that way just 20 years earlier. It appears that the idea of dependency is almost synonymous with the dole in many people’s minds. As a result, moves to erode benefits, through things like the 1 per cent up-rating plan, garner widespread public support.

Into this rhetorical maelstrom, was last week released a fascinating – and little noticed -piece of research by the Department for Work and Pensions on the benefit histories of dole recipients.

It’s a precious piece of evidence in an argument that tends to be fuelled by anecdote, prejudice and fear (on all sides). And it rather undermines the picture that our welfare system is awash with people taking advantage of its ‘something for nothing’ deal.

The analysis looks at the benefit claims history, going back four years, of people who made a claim for unemployment benefit in 2010-11.

For a sample group of 32-33 year olds who claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) in 2010-11, 40 per cent of them had not made a claim before in that period.

Sixty three per cent had spent no more than six months of the previous four years on JSA.

And almost four out of five claimants had spent at least three quarters of the past four years off the dole.

The idea that these claimants are ‘trapped’ in a ‘dependency culture’ is absurd.

What all this implies is that the overwhelming majority of people who claim unemployment benefit each year spend at least three-quarters of their time in work.

And for 40 per cent of claimants, the need to claim JSA clearly comes as quite a shock since they have no recent history of having done so before.
But you would never tell that from the tone of the debate.

Only a small minority of adults – 11 per cent of claimants in 2010-11 – have a history of spending more than half of recent years on the dole.

The government is right to want to take action to help that 11 per cent achieve sustainable employment rather than spending half their time on the dole. But when four out of five claimants draw benefits for an unemployment spell that is obviously an unfortunate aberration, it’s clear that the excoriating rhetoric isn’t based in reality.

If all claimants are to be labelled ‘scroungers’, then today’s striver is tomorrow’s scrounger – and that could be any of us.

It’s worth remembering that the next time we hear a welfare squeeze being justified by a pervasive ‘culture of dependency’.

The New Statesman 

True Face of the Salvation Army – Workfare Protest Marred By False Arrest and Staff Aggression

There were shocking scenes at the South London offices of workfare exploiters the Salvation Army today as employees of the charity manhandled anti-workfare protesters, tried to seize personal property and then physically prevented them from leaving the building.

Astonishingly one person who managed to escape from the premises  before staff blockaded protesters inside was falsely accused of assault and then arrested.

The UK offices of the charity were visited by campaigners today as part of the National Week of Action Against Workfare.  Salvation Army are one of the largest charities left who use forced labour – under threat of benefit sanctions -  to staff their charity shops.  Most decent charities have pulled out in disgust at the exploitative nature of the scheme. The Salvation Army have no such principles and recently appeared to admit that they are even happy to use those on sickness or disability benefits as forced unpaid workers.
Today’s action began at the charity’s plush International Headquarters in the City of London.  A workfare army visited the charity holding a sermon extolling the benefits of forced labour in their reception area.  Meanwhile several people went downstairs to the cafe run by the charity and handed out leaflets.

Many people were shocked at the organisation’s open use of workfare, and thanked the protesters for making them aware of it.  The protest (pictured above) was good-natured and non-violent throughout and eventually a Major from the charity agreed to speak to those present.

The Major claimed that as the international headquarters for the charity, they were not responsible for the actions of the UK section of the Salvation Army.  When it was pointed out that protesters were there to show what was being done in the organisation’s name, he agreed that he was happy for the protest to remain in the building until they closed for the day.

He also suggested that campaigners should visit the UK Headquarters in Elephant & Castle who have the ultimate say of the charity’s use of workfare.  Not wanting to disobey an order from a Major that’s exactly what those present decided to do.

On arrival at the charity’s Elephant & Castle offices it was clear that a very different side of this supposedly Christian organisation would be on display.

At first several staff – who may have been security but never identified themselves as such – refused to allow protesters into the building.  In what appeared to be a change of heart they then relented and opened the doors to allow people inside.

Once inside another workfare sermon began and then some of those present began to sing hymns.  This seemed to particularly annoy the charity’s staff who called the police.  The mood quickly turned ugly as the Salvation Army’s bully boys began shouting at protesters that they were blocking fire exists and would be arrested – a claim which was clearly nonsense as there was easy access in and out of the building.

Despite not only having been told to visit by the organisation’s International Headquarters, and allowed onto the premises, they then began accusing people of trespass and demanding that people should give them their mobile phones and cameras.

Shocked at the aggresive response to a completely peaceful and non threatening action, a decision was made by the protesters to leave.  Sadly only one person made it out of the building as the Salvation Army thugs blocked the door and attempted to grab hold of people to physically prevent anyone from leaving.
As this took place the police arrived and one Salvation Army staff member began insisting the person who had escaped from the building had assaulted him, leading to the individual being arrested.  A stand off ensued as those inside were finally freed – the charity presumably deciding that kidnapping people in full view of the police was a step too far even for their shady operation.

Police were heard discussing amongst themselves that they had witnessed people being trapped inside by Salvation Army employees.  After tense negotiations it appeared even the police didn’t believe the charity’s wild claims and the individual accused of assault was de-arrested and allowed to leave.

After the good-natured protest earlier in the day this shocking sequence of events showed the true nature of this charity’s response to criticism.  Physical force, false allegations and abuse replaced the fake cheery PR front that the charity have attempted to portray when criticised for using workfare.

It seems that the Salvation Army are determined to silence any criticism of their dirty little workfare exploitation.  A day of online action in response to these events has now been called by Boycott Workfare tomorrow (Tues 18th March).

The Salvation Army are on twitter @salvationarmyuk
They can be found on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/salvationarmyuk

Spread the word and let’s tell the Salvation Army exactly what the public thinks of their workfare exploitation and attempted use of force and false allegations to silence criticism.

(watch this space for more contact info)

Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

The Void

Protesters Gather at the Courts to Save the Independent Living Fund

Around 70 people gathered at a well attended protest outside the Royal Court of Justice today to demand a halt to the close of the Independent Living Fund (ILF).

The ILF is used to support the most severely disabled people live independent lives.  In what the Government claim is reform and everyone else knows means cuts, funding will be devolved to local councils. This funding will not be ring-fenced meaning that the money may well be spent plugging the gap in Town Hall budgets due to the already savage cuts.

Campaigners warn that disabled people could be forced back into institutions due to the closure of the fund as councils seek to cut costs..

Today’s protest, which saw speakers from Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), Inclusion London and the PCS Union, came as six people challenged the closure of the fund in the high court.  The case, which is ongoing, will argue that the closure of the fund will breach the United Nations Convention for the Rights of People with Disabilities which provides the right to independent living and the right to an adequate standard of living and protection.

Lawyers will argue that the consultation into the closure of the fund was illegal due to a failure to provide adequate information about the changes.  The court will also hear that there has not been an adequate assessment of the impact of the closure of the ILF on disabled people’s ability to live and work independently.

For more information about the closure of the ILF and the personal testimonies of those affected visit: http://www.dpac.uk.net/blog/

The Void

Liam Byrne : “Sanctions are vital to give back-to-work programmes their bite”

Yesterday in parliament Liam Byrne said to Iain Duncan-Smith “Sanctions are vital to give back-to-work programmes their bite”. Not only does Byrne believe in forced labour he thinks it should be enforced by withdrawal of benefits. Byrne has also used the strivers v shirkers rhetoric that sought to divide the poorest sectors of society and have them fighting one another.

Byrne is Labour’s  Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, their very own Iain Duncan-Smith.  Byrne “worked for the multi-national consulting firm, Accenture and merchant bankers, N M Rothschild & Sons, before co-founding a venture backed technology company, e-Government Solutions Group, in 2000 before entering parliament.”

It’s not clear what qualification and life experiences Byrne has that makes  him suitable to be head of Labours welfare department.  Baron Freud who is head of the present governments welfare reform also has an investment banking background. I wrote elsewhere that this was like putting the fox in charge of the chicken shack.

Neither Freud or Byrne have any idea at all of what they are doing to ordinary people: Money people who survey the wasteland they are creating from the ivory towers of ignorance  and ideology. Byrne likes to be interviewed beside photographs of Tony Blair. Maybe this indicates the share a common set of values and work within the same moral universe that turns black into white and deception becomes just another word for truth.

That the Labour Party has such a person in charge of its welfare policies shows that it is bust completely. In some way I dislike Iain Duncan-Smith less than Byrne because he is doing what you would expect from a party that represents money. Byrne is just another name to add the list that is headed “Blair” – the list of those who have betrayed ordinary people for mere money or power.

Welfare Sorrows

Letter from Iain Duncan Smith:ATOS/DWP are doing a great job

DPAC's Website goes down - shortly after publishing a letter from Iain Duncan Smith

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internet Explorer is unable to update this password-protected feed.

Update your username and password

DPAC

Update 08 March 2013

http://www.dpac.uk.net/2013/03/letter-from-iain-duncan-smithatosdwp-are-doing-a-great-job/

Error 404 - Not Found

Sorry, the page that you are looking for does not exist.

===========================================================

05 March 2013, 23:17:26

Letter from Iain Duncan Smith:ATOS/DWP are doing a great job

05 March 2013, 23:17:26 | admin2

We’ve been passed a letter from Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) to an individual’s local MP.  That individual has asked us to publish the letter because surprise, surprise IDS  is defending Atos and says they are doing a great job- we know that the reality is very different. We know the misery and distress that Atos is causing and we know that [...]

Comments (0)

Open Letter to Salvation Army by former Member

An Open Letter to the Salvation Army

July 8, 2012 by Liz Ely

Dear Salvation Army

My name is Liz, I grew up in the Salvation Army – so did my dad and his dad, and my mum and her mum. I became a Junior Solider at 7, and a band member at 8. You taught me how to play the trombone, and to speak out about what I believe in.

Although the Salvation Army is no longer part of my weekly life (we part ways over a few issues and reconciliation seems unlikely for me), I still feel a connection to the organization. Despite condemning your homophobic actions around Section 28, I have always felt proud to have a link to the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is my single biggest connection to my wider family history; I have an uncle who is a minister, and frankly there are more Salvationists than non-Salvationists in my family by a long way.

I felt proud to be part of a church that takes Christianity seriously and actively through service – I also felt proud to be part of an organisation in which women have always had a more equal footing than in other churches. Most of all I felt proud to be part of an organisation which worked to help the poor, and indeed was set up for that very purpose.

It is in that spirit that I am writing this open letter, to share my disappointment in your continued involvement in the government’s work programme. I am asking you to reconsider and withdraw your support for this government scheme, which degrades workers and the unemployed alike.

The work programme promises ‘work experience’ for those out of work for long periods, which seems like offering a helping hand. The reality is that if people do not wish to comply with the programme they can lose the meagre amount of money that they have to live on. There is very little evidence that the scheme helps people into work – in fact it is likely that the work experience positions are replacing paid jobs in the retail sector. I understand that Salvation Army charity shops are run by volunteers, so any work experience placements you accept are unlikely to replace paid work; however, by supporting the scheme you give it credibility. By supporting this scheme you support a government who would make someone homeless for their refusal to work for free, a government threatening to withdraw housing support for young adults. In my view this goes fundamentally against the mission of The Salvation Army.

My experience of this scheme is also personal, my partner is unemployed and has been for a long time. He has in the past been forced to volunteer in a different charity shop, an experience that was profoundly negative, damaging his self-esteem and addressing none of the barriers he faces to get into work. He is not a ‘job snob’, he is applying for hotel porter jobs despite being educated to degree level. The fact of the matter is that in some areas there are up to 35 people for each job vacancy.

I have always respected the Salvation Army as having a practical approach, but if there are no jobs, then why place the blame on the unemployed? Why spend time giving them skills in retail, when there is a scarcity of full time retail jobs? My partner is now in the unfortunate position of being forced into more of this ‘work experience’, with Salvation Army Charity shops as one of the possible places he could end up working against his will. I am not against work experience, or offering support to the jobless – but all work experience should be voluntary, supported and properly remunerated.

I am asking you to consider the work programme from a Christian perspective, and ask your self what Jesus’ approach might be in this situation. Would Jesus support people like Emma Harrison, founder of A4E, an organisation that forces the unemployed to volunteer in your shops? Would he be happy that she earns millions of pounds from forcing others to work for free?

Would Jesus support a government of millionaires who bail out bankers whilst blaming the unemployed for a crisis created by the greed of the wealthy?

I grew up learning that Jesus evicted market sellers from the temple, and went against the leaders and profiteers of his day. Through your involvement in this scheme you are propping up the market sellers, and supporting the profiteers who Jesus forcefully removed.

I am calling on you to follow the lead of other charities like Oxfam and withdraw from this scheme.
I would ask that others, in particular Christians and Salvation Army members consider the issue and write their own letters.

Yours faithfully.

Liz Ely

Former Junior Solider, Singing Company and YP band member Castleford Corps – 1986 -2002ish

Bright Green

Unum bragged about ‘driving government thinking’ on incapacity benefit reform

An insurance company set to make huge financial gains from incapacity benefit (IB) reform bragged about “driving” the government towards those reforms, evidence obtained by Disability News Service (DNS) has revealed.

The US insurance giant Unum has repeatedly denied attempting to influence IB reform over the last two decades, despite mounting evidence that it has done so.

Unum is the largest provider of “income protection insurance” (IPI) in the UK, and tougher welfare rules – including replacing incapacity benefit with employment and support allowance (ESA) – are likely to persuade more people to take out IPI, boosting the company’s profits.

Unum even launched a major media campaign in 2011 just as the coalition began a three-year programme to reassess about 1.5 million existing IB claimants through the new, stricter test, the work capability assessment (WCA).

Now DNS has secured a copy of a Unum document on the assessment of “incapacity”, which was published in 2005.

The document was written by Michael O’Donnell, then the company’s chief medical officer and now in the same role at Atos Healthcare, which carries out WCAs on behalf of the government.
O’Donnell says in the document that Unum has “always been at the leading edge of disability assessment and management”.

He adds: “We know that our views and understanding are not yet in the mainstream of doctors’ thinking, but Government Policy is moving in the same direction, to a large extent being driven by our thinking and that of our close associates, both in the UK and overseas.”

Unum has admitted there has been widespread criticism of its past actions in the US, mainly over its refusal to pay out on large numbers of genuine insurance claims by disabled people, a record mentioned in last month’s Commons debate on Atos and the WCA.

But Unum has also faced criticism in the UK. In a parliamentary debate in 1999, MPs accused the company of refusing to pay out on valid insurance claims from disabled people who had lost their jobs due to ill-health or disability.

Unum continues to dismiss claims that it pushed the government to introduce the ESA/WCA system.

In 2011, John Letizia, Unum’s head of public affairs, told Disability News Service (DNS): “At no time have we influenced the government on the design of the reforms to the welfare state or on the level of benefits that claimants receive.”

And in the same year, at the Conservative Party conference, Unum’s chief executive, Jack McGarry, said: “We haven’t tried to influence the welfare agenda around reducing welfare or making it harder to claim. To my knowledge we have not done that.”

This week, Letizia told DNS again that Unum had not attempted to influence the government’s welfare reform agenda.

He said: “We will never ever deny that there were discussions between Unum and the previous government and there continue to be [with the coalition].”

But he added: “In all the discussions going back over the last five years on welfare reform Unum made absolutely no attempt to influence government policy on the welfare debate, on the ESA or WCA or personal independence payment or disability living allowance, in setting the government agenda.”

After DNS shared the document with Letizia, he declined to comment further.

Mo Stewart, the disabled activist who has done most to highlight concerns about Unum, said the new evidence was “very significant”, and called for an independent inquiry into the role of the company in influencing UK welfare reform, particularly when it had such a “disturbing past history”.

She said: “This entire situation confirms the dangers of a government that confuses its priorities, and places the welfare budget as a much higher priority than the needs of its own chronically sick and disabled people.”

She added: “The WCA is a replica of the assessment system used by Unum to resist funding insurance claimants.

“It is a bogus, dangerous assessment and, with this evidence, it is now time that this DWP medical tyranny was ended.”

A DWP spokesman said: “The WCA was designed from the outset with the involvement of a wide range of experts and disability representative groups and has been subject to rigorous independent review.”

14 February 2013

Disability News Service

Man jailed for street attack on disabled woman

Bradford Crown Court

Published on Thursday 14 February 2013 14:01

A Mixenden man who carried out a drunken street attack on a disabled woman has been jailed for four-and-a-half years today.

Last October 45-year-old Janesse Mousea, who uses a walking stick, was captured on CCTV footage hobbling towards a cash machine in Old Cock Yard, Halifax, late a night minutes before she was confronted by angry Gavin Husband.

The drunken 29-year-old had earlier tried to get money from the same ATM himself, but when he returned to confront his victim he demanded the cash she had just withdrawn.

A jury at Bradford Crown Court was shown shocking CCTV footage of Husband hitting the complainant and wrestling her onto the ground where he then knelt over her and bit her nose.

In a statement read during Husband’s trial the victim described how he was shouting “where’s my money” as she tried to fight him off with her walking stick.

She said Husband was holding her down on the ground as he bit her nose and forced his fingers into her mouth.

The victim said she was terrified, struggling for breath and screaming for help.

The CCTV footage showed police officers rushing to the area to grab Husband and pull him off his victim.
Husband, of Sunnybank Road, Mixenden, accepted he had assaulted the complainant, but denied it had been an attempted robbery.

After less than an hour of deliberation today, the jury found him guilty of attempted robbery and Recorder Toby Wynn imposed an immediate prison sentence.

The court heard that the victim had suffered nightmares in the wake of the attack and also had on-going dental problems.

Barrister Nicholas Askins, for Husband, said his client had written a letter of apology to her which had been handed to the prosecution.

Recorder Wynn described the attack as “an utterly despicable act” and said it was aggravated by the time of night and the vulnerability of the victim.

The judge said a prison term of seven years could be justified, but he was going to be more merciful bearing in mind that it would be Husband’s first substantial jail term.

“I accept that the following day when you were in custody and you were shown that DVD footage you were genuinely remorseful and ashamed of yourself and so you should be,” added the judge.

Source

Video the UK Govt wants banned

There’s No Pay At The Y-M-C-A!*

“By all means, pay companies incentives to employ young people, but do not take advantage of the vulnerable by using them as free labour.”

The above quote is from Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu and one of a growing number of  voices in the Church condemning this Government’s obsession with unpaid labour.

Unfortunately the Bishop is also the president of workfare riddled YMCA, as has just been revealed by @boycottworkfare.

YMCA are involved in the Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) programme – four weeks full time unpaid work for organisations with a ‘community benefit’.  This scheme is the teeth of the workfare regime, used solely as punishment for those who refuse ‘voluntary’ workfare or are judged to be not trying to hard enough to find work.  The evidence shows that MWA does not help people find a job, and it is not intended to.  Under current rules it is not possible to volunteer for MWA.

The YMCA (@YMCA_England) have remained silent about their use of unpaid workers ever since the workfare row broke out.  Dr John Sentamu can be found on twitter (@JohnSentamu).     Perhaps he will have the grace to tell the truth about how his own charity takes “advantage of the vulnerable by using them as free labour”.

*I really wish I could claim credit for the above headline, but that goes to @wolvopingu

Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

The Void

The Salvation Army and #Workfare Controversy

To be upfront, I didn’t know what the issue was with the government Workfare scheme. I’ve not really been interested in this until this morning, when I read Johnny Void’s provocatively entitled post: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness (unless thou is the Salvation Army fibbing about workfare).

Void’s post alleges the Salvation Army continuous to use Workfare workers and he links to a rather grim story in the Daily Record (Scotland). Void also links to a Jobcentre referral to Mandatory Work Activity letter (dated 17th Jan) which clearly cites the venue as an Salvation Army shop.

I spoke briefly with Void and he Tweeted:

@echurchblog and this about scheme Salvation Army are using: johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/wor…
— johnnyvoid (@johnnyvoid) January 19, 2013

So, where to start with finding out about Workfare; Wikipedia of course:

Workfare in the United Kingdom refers to government workfare policies whereby individuals must undertake work in return for their benefit payments or risk losing them. Workfare policies are politically controversial. Supporters argue that such policies help people move off of welfare and into employment (See welfare-to-work) whereas critics argue that they are analogous to slavery and counterproductive in decreasing unemployment.

OK, where too next, Twitter of course, and the link given by a couple of folk was on the Boycott Workfare website, which I’ll let you read, but I will cite their raison d’etre:

Boycott Workfare is a UK-wide campaign to end forced unpaid work for people who receive welfare. Workfare profits the rich by providing free labour, whilst threatening the poor by taking away welfare rights if people refuse to work without a living wage. We are a grassroots campaign, formed in 2010 by people with experience of workfare and those concerned about its impact. We expose and take action against companies and organisations profiting from workfare; encourage organisations to pledge to boycott it; and actively inform people of their rights.

Bernadette Meaden kindly linked to Public Interest Lawyers who are challenging the government’s Workfare program in the courts on behalf of their clients.

BoycottWelfare Tweeted me directly:

@echurchblog What’s wrong with charity #workfare? boycottworkfare.org/?p=1573 @salvationarmyuk
— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

The Boycott Workfare link is well worth reading; it very clearly sets out their objections to Charity Workfare. Here’s a quote:

By colluding with the government to increase the number of benefit sanctions charities are pushing vulnerable people further into poverty and destitution. Oxfam have refused to take part in workfare because they say it is incompatible with the goal of reducing poverty in the UK. When homelessness charity SHP left the Work Programme earlier this year they warned that sanctions were pushing vulnerable individuals further into poverty and leaving them with little option but to beg and steal. The increase in benefit sanctions is one of the reasons that we are seeing an increase in the use of food banks.

OK, so where are we?

Workfare is a highly controversial and contentious issue, so much so, that some big highstreet names and charities have very publicly suspended their involvement in the Workfare program.

The evidence suggests that the Salvation Army are involved in the scheme at some level, so what is the Sally Army’s formal response:

There is no mandatory voluntary work for the three sub contracts we deliver within the Work Programme. Anyone who volunteers their services to us does so in the knowledge that their benefits will not be affected.

We do not have any national agreements in place to provide mandatory 4-week work placements, but on a local level we are aware that our trading company has been approached by independent welfare to work providers which have been offering short-term work experience, locally, in some of our retail shops. We must stress that no placements are in place of paid work and we trust the decision of our local representatives to provide valuable professional experience.

We don’t take people in short-term placements for work that would otherwise be paid as we believe in empowering the person who is volunteering, by treating them with the respect that everyone in society is due. We believe strongly that every person has worth, irrespective of what they can offer society and it is our desire to help all who are willing to work, irrespective of their starting point. For some, the route to employment can be a long one with several milestones on the way.

Working in stages back into the workplace helps to build confidence as a lack of confidence is one of the overriding barriers to work. We believe that it is important that people on long term benefits ‘test’ themselves in the workplace, to gain work experience without any threat of losing benefit or having to start the process again.

It is sensible to partner with the private and voluntary sector to provide many of the programmes, not because the work will be done ‘on the cheap’ but because better value will be achieved by the flexibility of our sector to tailor programmes to individual need and achieve better results. We have the expertise and broad working base to help achieve effective outcomes.

How does this read to you? For me, I am left with absolutely no idea whether the Salvation Army participates in the Workfare scheme or not.

Whether you be for, or against, Workfare, it would strike me the prudent move as a Christian organisation, with such an morally explosive issue, would be to withdraw from the scheme and publicly state as much. Otherwise, you might just find yourself on the receiving end of responses such as this:

@echurchblog oh and Deuteronomy 24:15 and Jeremiah 22:13
— johnnyvoid (@johnnyvoid) January 19, 2013

I have Tweeted the Salvation Army direct:

@salvationarmyuk Hi, can you confirm if your organisation participates in the government #Workfare scheme?
— eChurch Blog (@eChurchBlog) January 19, 2013

I’ll let you know if I receive a response.
UPDATE: Three Tweets received from BoycottWorkfare which really cast the Salvation Army in a poor light in regard to this issue:

@echurchblog Note that until this week the @salvationarmyuk were telling people that they weren’t involved in #workfare at all.
— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013 

@echurchblog It was only when the MWA referral letter was posted that @salvationarmyuk deleted the claim not to be involved from their site.
— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

@echurchblog Cache of earlier @salvationarmyuk claims here: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache…
— BoycottWorkfare (@boycottworkfare) January 19, 2013

Oh dear!

Source