Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Refuse Mandatory Work Activity

Ipswich Unemployed Action reveals how you could avoid the Mandatory Work Activity scheme due to eligibility issues where the The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 is unenforceable.Sister site the Work Programme Network (WPN) has released a template letter that you may use to refuse the Mandatory Work Activity scheme (MWAS), although Ipswich Unemployed Action must point out the following important notes:-

  • Benefit Sanctions for refusal of the scheme is 3 months.
  • Jobcentre Plus are beyond the law (or so they think) with full control, so if the regulations are indeed unlawful as strongly suggested, they can still decide to ignore such fact and apply sanctions to your benefit claim.
  • It is your benefit claim, and you sending in the letter, so you are responsible for such action, not us. We wouldn’t waste our time on this if it was a joke, also WPN is also working on the Work Programme loopholes etc.
  • You either go to the extremes or not bother! It is critical that such letter arrives to DWP HQ recorded delivery and that your MP receives a copy as a bare minimum. If possible instead of just sending a copy to your MP, also send a covering letter detailing your complaint which will help influence your MP to look into the situation.
  • It is largely a numbers game. If only a few people used this they will ignore it. If it becomes popular where every jobseeker placed on the scheme via the internet universe (that is everyone who is researching about it online who have to attend) then MPs will be forced to debate this, decision makers will be up to their eyeballs in receiving such and the scheme will collapse.
  • If you have children etc. don’t be irresponsible in deciding to take part – unless it’s on the news as being successful!


In a nutshell the dispute of why the regulations are thought to be unlawful and therefore unenforceable, is down to the eligibility criteria of the The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 secondary legislation which is made under the Jobseekers Act 1995 primary legislation – its parent if you like.

It is also partially about the discretion based selection process which isn’t at all mentioned within the Regulations in whole or part. There is no part formally specifying the criteria of how far the discretion extends, and guidance/policy which has no part in the law of the land have been developed subject to be changed – which had not been included as a Schedule etc. to the Regulations.

Section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995.

Section 17A clause (1) reads:-

Regulations may make provision for or in connection with imposing on claimants in prescribed circumstances a requirement to participate in schemes of any prescribed description that are designed to assist them to obtain employment

The first issue here is 17A(1) of Jobseekers Act 1995 requires such Regulations made under it of imposing such scheme on claimants under “prescribed circumstances” however, the criteria (that is discretion based and not defined under the Regulations) are so vague that there is no prescribed circumstances at all. Such criteria applies to all jobseekers generally.

A prescribed circumstance would be for example, where:-

  • A claimant has been unemployed for 6 months or more (i.e. unemployment length)
  • A claimant of Income Based Jobseekers Allowance (i.e. benefit type)
  • A claimant has been in receipt of a benefit sanction for not actively seeking employment (i.e. previously been sanctioned)
  • A claimant has a history of being repeatedly late (i.e. could be deemed as not being ready for work)
  • A claimant has not been on Flexible New Deal (i.e. secured a place due to not being on a previous scheme)

I wont go into parts where we debate whether it “assists” people to find employment as that would be fighting a losing battle.

legalities of secondary legislation

The second issue is, laws have to be fair, rational, legal and proper. In particular in this case, such regulations in addition to the above errors, are both unreasonable and a breach of natural justice. The Regulations are unreasonable and a breach of natural justice for a number of reasons.

One of the most obvious points to make is Jobcentre Plus has a history of sanction targets for its advisers and decision makers. It’s irrational that discretion based selection isn’t written down plainly in law, and decision maker bias (decision maker referring also to the adviser who refers such a claimant to such scheme in the first place) exists when such targets set are linked to their employment security. Or so alleged.

As there is no restrictions there is no “fairness” in the decision to stick someone on to this scheme and there is no distinction between selection by a grudge/dislike or upon a persons circumstances. Proportionality is also another issue in this scheme as all previous scheme had a 2 week benefit sanction for first offence, the 4 week Mandatory Work Activity holds a 3 month sanction as minimum, yet the 7 year Work Programme is expected to still have a 2 week sanction for first offence.

We hope the above summary explains the concept behind the letter more. If you don’t understand it, it’s probably best not to proceed.

The letter

At the time of writing this, there has been 29 likes on facebook for such letter.

Letter below:-

Refuse Mandatory Work Activity scheme

38 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I agree.

    It sounds to me that as this is a quasi-judicial sentence, then people have to respond in kind.

    After all the sanctions – withdrawal of all benefits – would make people homeless and without food.

    They have no right to punish people without some kind of proper legal procedure.

    Charge: being without work and refusing to perform duties the DWP decides. Something like existed in the Elizabethen times, and after, for ‘able-bodied paupers’ I think.

    The DWP should consult legislation about tread-mills and other forms of punishment for the idle or disobedient poor.

    Andrew Coates

    June 16, 2011 at 11:09 am

  2. “Section 17A clause (1) reads:-

    Regulations may make provision for or in connection with imposing on claimants in prescribed circumstances a requirement to participate in schemes of any prescribed description that are designed to assist them to obtain employment.”

    If any scheme is not designed to assist them to obtain employment then claimants can’t be made to partake in it.

    We do know that as far as some people are concerned such a scheme is designed to provide them with free or cheap labour. While other ‘providers’ who would send claimants to the ’employers’ believe that such schemes are designed to make them money. If the likelihood of an employment offer being made at the end of it is low then the scheme is not designed to assist claimants to obtain employment. As the person getting the free or cheap labour can just take on another person involved in the scheme afterwards the chances of a genuine employment offer at the end of it are probably non-existent.


    June 16, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    • The problem with that element (you are correct though) is they suggest that the scheme is to make people more “work ready” which in effect “assist[s] them to obtain employment” as they would argue that:-

      a) Someone without “work ethic” cannot secure employment

      b) Developing “work ethic” helps someone become more employable.

      Anyone working in the judiciary are likely to be so far out of touch with reality they clearly wouldn’t understand.

      This is all nonsense, at the end of the day, a good CV or application form, to get you an interview, and do well in the interview… get a job offer on probationary period… you do not need the work ethic etc. to get a job – more of a luck thing – although work ethic etc. will make it more likely to KEEP the job.

      This is the only reason why this part wasn’t included in the above. This is included in part, though. They thought they were clever as Section 17A is NOT available online (or should I say wasn’t before I published it).

      Work Programme

      June 16, 2011 at 5:18 pm

      • If you are working for someone for nothing all day, how do you have the time to get to the Job Centre, have the time to update your CV, fill in an application form, write spec letters, vist employers etc. etc.?


        June 16, 2011 at 5:57 pm

      • The stupid thing is that jobseekers have to sign on… including if out of hours to fit around their placement!!

        Work Programme

        June 16, 2011 at 9:09 pm

  3. Freepost Plus RRJR-JBZX-ARBU
    Jobcentre Plus
    Bury St Edmunds BDC
    Thorpe Road
    Nr99 1AD

    Work Programme

    June 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm

  4. MP says minimum wage a hindrance to disabled jobseekers

    A Conservative MP has suggested “vulnerable” jobseekers – including disabled people – should be allowed to work for less than the minimum wage.

    Backbencher Philip Davies said firms were likely to favour someone without disabilities if they had to pay everyone the same basic salary.

    He said politicians should “not stand in the way” of anyone willing to work for lower pay in such a situation.

    But mental health charity Mind said it was a “preposterous suggestion”.

    Mr Davies, the MP for Shipley, made the comments during a debate in the Commons over the minimum wage and employment opportunities.

    The minimum wage is currently £5.93 an hour for those over 21, £4.92 for those aged between 18 and 20 and £3.64 for 16 and 17 year olds.

    ‘Less of a risk’

    The MP claimed the most vulnerable, including those with learning disabilities and mental health problems, were disadvantaged in their search for work because they had to compete with candidates without disabilities and could not offer to accept lower pay.

    They were desperate to work but continually found the “door was being closed in their face”, he argued.

    More here.

    Crystal Balls

    June 17, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    • Will work for food g’vner.

      Andrew Coates

      June 17, 2011 at 3:00 pm

  5. I’ve had my marching orders from the jobcentre, I have to go in Monday to see about transferring on to the Work Programme.

    Average Joe

    June 18, 2011 at 9:38 am

    • I had my meeting this morning and it went pretty well, but the real kicker is that between now and whenever Seetec contact me to arrange a starting date I have visit the jobcentre every day as part of the new Compulsory Daily Attendance scheme.

      It doesn’t offer any new opportunities, it seems that they are just using it to try and catch people out who don’t stick to their weekly activities as listed on their jobsearch agreement.

      Average Joe

      June 20, 2011 at 4:06 pm

  6. Everyone should do their utmost to avoid these placements. But if claimants do find themselves coerced onto such schemes then before they do any work whatsoever they should demand the provider issues adequate training in Heath & Safety risks and protective clothing such as safety boots, overalls, gloves, hi-viz jackets etc.


    June 18, 2011 at 2:01 pm

  7. […] You can read more about this on Ipswich Unemployed Action’s website: Why Mandatory Work Activity is unenforceable! […]

  8. These are some of the Work Programme (not Mandatory Work Activity) “customer groups” – from here.

    WP JSA 18-24 – Required entry from 9 months of Pre-WP activity: JSA customers aged 18-24 who have undertaken 9 months Pre-WP activity.

    WP JSA 25+ – Required entry from 12 months of Pre-WP activity: JSA customers aged 25 and over who have undertaken 12 months Pre-WP activity.

    WP JSA NEET – Required entry from 3 months of Pre-WP activity: JSA customers aged 18 who were Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) for a 6 month period directly prior to or become NEET during their current claim to benefit Or 18 year olds who had previously claimed hardship payments when 16 or 17, and who have undertaken 3 months Pre-WP activity.

    WP JSA Claiming 22 of 24Mths – Required entry from 3 months of Pre-WP activity: JSA ‘Repeaters’ who are customers who had previously claimed benefit for 22 out of the last 24 months and have undertaken 3 months Pre-WP activity.

    More at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/work-programme-provider.shtml

    Crystal Balls

    June 20, 2011 at 9:42 am

  9. These are the sanction periods under the Work Programme – from here:

    “Customers, whose benefit has been sanctioned, can have certain periods of sanction reviewed by DWP:

    JSA 2 week sanction – cannot be reviewed

    JSA 4 week sanction – cannot be reviewed

    JSA 26 week sanction – can be reviewed see paragraphs 12 to 14

    ESA sanction – can be reviewed see paragraphs 15 -16”

    (I thought sactions could be longer under the WP, i.e. up to 3 years?)

    Crystal Balls

    June 20, 2011 at 10:01 am

  10. Three (3) years sanctions are mentioned in the Welfare Reform Bill (HL Bill 75), here:

    This is the legislation that ushers in the Universal Credit and also abolishes Jobseeker’s Allowance and other benefits:

    “Abolition of benefits

    (1) The following benefits are abolished—

    (a) income-based jobseeker’s allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995;

    (b) income-related employment and support allowance under Part 1 of the
    Welfare Reform Act 2007;

    (c) income support under section 124 of the Social Security Contributions
    and Benefits Act 1992;

    (d) housing benefit under section 130 of that Act;

    (e) council tax benefit under section 131 of that Act;

    (f) child tax credit and working tax credit under the Tax Credits Act 2002.”


    “(1) For section 19 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 there is substituted—
    “19 Higher-level sanctions

    (1) The amount of an award of a jobseeker’s allowance is to be reduced in accordance with this section in the event of a failure by the claimant
    which is sanctionable under this section.

    (2) It is a failure sanctionable under this section if a claimant—

    (a) through misconduct loses employment as an employed earner;

    (b) without a good reason voluntarily leaves such employment;

    (c) 10without a good reason refuses or fails to apply for, or accept if
    offered, a situation in any employment which an employment
    officer has informed him is vacant or about to become vacant;

    (d) without a good reason neglects to avail himself of a reasonable
    opportunity of employment;

    (e) without a good reason fails to participate in any scheme within
    section 17A(1) which is prescribed for the purposes of this

    (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), in such circumstances as may be
    prescribed, including in particular where a person has been dismissed
    by his employer by reason of redundancy within the meaning of section
    139(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 after volunteering or
    agreeing to be so dismissed, a person who might otherwise be treated
    as having left his employment voluntarily is to be treated as not having
    left voluntarily.

    (4) Regulations are to provide for—

    (a) the amount of a reduction under this section;

    (b) the period for which such a reduction has effect, not exceeding
    three years
    in relation to any failure sanctionable under this

    (5) Regulations under subsection (4)(b) may in particular provide for the
    period of a reduction to depend on either or both of the following—

    (a) the number of failures by the claimant sanctionable under this

    (b) the period between such failures.

    (6) Regulations may provide—

    (a) for cases in which no reduction is to be made under this section;

    (b) for a reduction under this section made in relation to an award
    that is terminated to be applied to any new award made within
    a prescribed period of the termination.

    (7) During any period for which the amount of a joint-claim jobseeker’s
    allowance is reduced under this section by virtue of a failure by one of
    the claimants which is sanctionable under this section, the allowance is
    payable to the other member of the couple.


    June 20, 2011 at 11:09 am

    • Interesting:-

      Abolition of benefits

      (1) The following benefits are abolished—

      (a) income-based jobseeker’s allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995; […].

      This isn’t a valid way of “[abolishing]” benefits. This means people will no longer be able to go to Jobcentre Plus to claim such benefits but the Jobseekers Act 1995 will remain “as is”.

      The reason why they did not revoke the entire Jobseekers Act 1995 is it still has some important parts in it such as Section 17A which creates both the Work Programme and Mandatory Work Activity etc.

      I think the conservatives are confused – abolishing JSA while announcing higher level of benefit sanctions? Of course this will all come down to different commencement dates.

      Surely the logical step is two Acts, one for Universal Credit to be passed first without commencement and a Welfare Reform Act to pull the existing benefits in its entirety?

      Work Programme

      June 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    • “vacant or about to become vacant” ?! How can a jobseeker be sanctioning for refusing a non-existent job?! This is just blooming ridiculous!


      June 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    • It is confused cos the baldy man has told his minions: “I want everyone on who is on benefits kicked off, write me a Bill – NOW!!” so the minions got to work backwards from what the baldy man is setting out to achieve.


      June 20, 2011 at 12:56 pm

  11. Link:

    Milly Tant

    June 20, 2011 at 11:11 am

  12. Jobseeker’s Allowance Work Programme Scheme Regulations 2011

    PART 3
    Failure to participate in the Scheme
    6. A person (“P”) is to be regarded as having failed to participate in the Scheme in accordance
    with these Regulations where P fails to comply with any requirement notified under regulation 4.
    Good cause
    7.—(1) A person (“P”) who fails to participate in the Scheme must show good cause for that
    failure within five working days of the date on which the Secretary of State notifies P of the
    (2) The Secretary of State must determine whether P has failed to take part in the Scheme and, if
    so, whether P has shown good cause for that failure in accordance with paragraph (1).
    (3) In deciding whether P has shown good cause for the failure, the Secretary of State must take
    account of that P’s circumstances, including in particular the person’s mental health.
    (4) In this regulation, “working day” means any day except for a Saturday, Sunday, Christmas
    Day, Good Friday or bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971(b) in
    England, Wales or Scotland.

    (a) See section 17A(10) of the Act for the meaning of the “jobseeking conditions”.
    (b) 1971 c. 80.

    Consequences of failure to participate in the Scheme
    8.—(1) Where the Secretary of State determines that a person (“P”) has failed to participate in
    the Scheme, and P has not shown good cause for the failure in accordance with regulation 7, the
    appropriate consequence for the purpose of section 17A of the Act is as follows.
    (2) In the case of a jobseeker’s allowance other than a joint-claim allowance, the appropriate
    consequence is that P’s allowance is not payable for the period specified in paragraph (4) or (5)
    (“the specified period”).
    (3) In the case of a joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance, the appropriate consequence is that P is to
    be treated as subject to sanctions for the purposes of section 20A of the Act (denial or reduction of
    a joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance) for the specified period.
    (4) The period is 13 weeks in a case which does not fall within paragraph (5).
    (5) The period is 26 weeks where—
    (a) on a previous occasion the Secretary of State determined that P’s jobseeker’s allowance
    was not payable or was payable at a lower rate because P failed without good cause to
    participate in the Scheme (“the first determination”); and
    (b) a subsequent determination is made not more than 12 months after the first date on which
    P’s jobseeker’s allowance was not payable or was payable at a lower rate following the
    first determination.
    (6) The specified period begins—
    (a) where, in accordance with regulation 26A(1) of the Social Security (Claims and
    Payments) Regulations 1987(a), P’s jobseeker’s allowance is paid otherwise than
    fortnightly in arrears, on the day following the end of the last benefit week in respect of
    which that allowance was paid; and
    (b) in any other case, on the first day of the benefit week following the date on which P’s
    jobseeker’s allowance is determined not to be payable or to be payable at a lower rate.
    (7) Paragraphs (4) and (5) are subject to paragraph (8) which applies where the Secretary of
    State notifies P in writing that P is no longer required to participate in the Scheme with effect from
    a day referred in the notice which falls within the specified period.

    (8) Where this paragraph applies, the specified period terminates at the end of—
    (a) one week beginning with the day referred to in the notice, or
    (b) the period beginning with the day on which the specified period begins and ending with
    the last day of the benefit week in which the requirement ceases to apply,
    whichever is longer.
    (9) In this regulation “benefit week” has the same meaning as in regulation 1(3)(b) of the
    Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations.



    June 20, 2011 at 11:58 am

  13. Correction: Quoted legislation above is the The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity) Regulations 2011


    June 20, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    • Yes, the sanctions under Mandatory Work Activity seem to be different to those under the Work Programme.

      Crystal Balls

      June 20, 2011 at 1:50 pm

  14. I am a youth worker in northumberland…lots of issues apart from this…but this is a biggie! My son has been summoned to appear before ingeous (govt. free (ahem!)recruitment service for long term unemployed? . We live out in the sticks in northumberland. Son wants my support…nothing wrong with that. Tomorrow morning we have to travel from Mickley village in Northumberland to a gateshead Ingeous office. Ok… I have to take time off work . We have to travel by walking half hour to train station, half hour by train to Newcastle (where they have an office that would be way more accessible to us as we don’t have a car) then metro to gateshead stadium (10 mins if we are lucky enough to make the conection) then a ten minute walk through unknown terrain to find Aidan House where they are based! They don’t make it easy! If my son had not been trying hard to find work I would not be helping him. Any ideas at this late stage of the best way to support him? I have of course googled maps to help us get there and looked at Ingeous website in some detail. Not entirely impressed. Whatever we can find out will be very helpful, not just for my son but for the other “NEETS” (how i hate that expression I can help with this too! Thank You!


    June 28, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    • Carol, are you sure you don’t mean Ingeus?

      We have some information here about them (from Work Programme’s research): http://www.intensiveactivity.com/Ipswich/ingeus

      They are one of the two contractors for the Work programme in Ipswich (the other is SEETEC which will also run the Mandatory Work Activity).

      We’ll be posting in more detail of our local experience very soon.

      In the meantime travel arrangements are a big problem here in Suffolk as well.

      The buses are a nightmare for anyone living outside a narrow band of towns (it can much longer to get to Ipswich from many places that it takes to get from Ipswich to London by train).

      There is also the way they give you travel costs back only at the end of the week, and every ticket has to be shown. Belive me the cost is not low (t can be over £30 a week for many rural journeys).

      This is an issue that ought to be brought up across the country.

      Andrew Coates

      June 29, 2011 at 9:31 am

  15. it appears that the work programme fall foul of the equality act 2010.

    given the nature of the contract where payments are made in relation to outcomes it looks to have fallen foul here.

    20 Duty to make adjustments(3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A’s
    puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to
    a relevant matter in
    comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to
    have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

    its up to the job centre to “avoid the disadvantage” by not referring to the provider.given that in many cases its a profit driven private company naturally its not unreasonable to assume the disabled person is at a disadvantage.

    also the question of “exiting” people on the grounds of disability,this might be difficult to prove with intent but to make room its not without suspicion also given the environment.

    (5) An employment service-provider (A) must not, in relation to the provision of an
    employment service, victimise a person (B)—
    (a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
    (b) by not providing the service to B;
    (c) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
    (d) by subjecting B to any other detriment.
    (6) A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to an

    this may be that those on employment work support groups on esa are voluntary and those on jsa are mandatory however this to is open to debate on discrimination too as both individuals are covered by the equality act.

    ken smith

    June 30, 2011 at 2:44 am

  16. Why is it that Serco are being used for Welfare to Work and Flexible New Deal, if you look on the back of a lot of prison vans it says Serco. If they are used to handling prisoners, no wonder they treat us like shoe scrapings! Actually prisoners are being treated better than us, we have become the social underclass, through no fault of our own.


    July 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    • Same with G4S, who have just taken over Birmingham Prison and have 3 of the work programme contracts. BBC story here:


      Crystal Balls

      July 1, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    • so much for installing confidence and self worth.

      serco because they are cheap giving the nod to the cash and the unrealistic targets.as disillusionment sets in then the individual is blamed for not having the right attitude,far easier and cheaper to blame the person rather the the cause.

      risk losing another generation to dependency states duncan smith.

      who created the first one and laid the foundation to the situation the country now faces today with no hope of recovery.
      no one wanted to invest as costs became a number on priority,companies wanted it all handed to them on a plate leaving a skills shortage and foreign labour stepped in to fill the gap

      then the tables were turned in the traditional conservative divisive fashion in the statements/media that everyone was a lazy scrounger living off you the hard working taxpayer despite this group being hit hard by government policy failure however stiring up resentment and hate was a convenient diversion from real causes.

      ken smith

      July 1, 2011 at 8:20 pm

  17. Its terrible.


    July 1, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Remember – Soon you may lose your job ! and the person replacing you may be a MWA Slave !!! They will work for free for the dwp and eventually take over all jobs- UNPAID and REAL ‘PAID’ work will be NO MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!
    27th august outside any Jobcentres from 7am.
    let your opinion be heard.

    Anne Ferrari

    July 16, 2011 at 8:14 am

  19. The link to the draft letter (http://www.workprogramme.org.uk/201106141494/mandatory-work-activity-unenforceable.html) is coming up as “website disabled.” I assume this isn’t your doing, or there would be a note above…

    Rod Millard

    July 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm

  20. How is all of this new legislation being passed? We have nothing but concensus politics in this country, gone are the days when there was real opposition to such injustice, perhaps the public should call for the withdrawal of ministers incomes paid out of the public purse and all of the quangos that go with them,like they are calling for the withdrawal of benefits for the sick and unemployed, because I cannot believe that the public is falling for all of this governments propoganda regarding workshy – they know there are no jobs. I can remember when the Thatcher govt was in power and government grants were given to tory donators to start up businesses in areas of high unemployment and when the grants ran out so did they, leaving the workforce in many cases owed wages.


    August 20, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    • Wendy, there is no use for ex-industrial workers such as shipbuilders and steelworkers. And as we all know farmers don’t keep pets. When their dogs are of no use – they shoot them!

      Ex-shipbulder (25 years)

      August 21, 2012 at 11:55 am

  21. The present government is populated by well heeled, public school oiks who only know that the ordinary British people are to be avoided or contained because that’s what Matron and the school faculty taught them. The ordinary plebs are not to be mixed with. They are the lower ranks and are ALL scroungers. There are indeed scroungers in this country and a very small percentage are on the dole. A much larger, pro rata percentage are in parasitical government departments – often Heads of such departments who are intent on trying to destroy anyone who hasn’t had the opportunity and foresight to thieve from the public purse and who through no fault of their own, find themselves victims of the policies that the posh, incompetent, indecent ministers have bungled through parliament. They’re all busy trying to diddle and blame the people they work for. The present government is populated by ignorant scroungers. When you stand back and look what “civilisation” has become…..The present government ensures it’s a bad joke.

    Robert C

    October 15, 2012 at 7:21 pm

  22. I’m on the mandatory work programme and out of eight appointments made for me, they (Scientiam and Ingeus – 2 Parasitical companies trying to make bucks out of the unemployed) have bungled 4. In a little over 12 months, no-one from these companies had looked at my c.v. I was told I had to attend a health and safety course and when I said I’d recently qualified as a Domestic Energy Assessor and had a Diploma that included higher level H&S as a recent qualification, I was told that my qualifications were irrelevant as “new Fire Extinguishers had been made since then”. The health and safety course, along with all the other courses were seemingly run by the same two women. The same two women that bungled my first appointment (the other wasn’t aware I was “ordered” to do her course so she rebooked me for a Sunday appointment in March – turns out she meant April ..and a different day! These are process clerks with no interest in occupational assistance. They process you according to your value to them. £400 quid if your young, able and could ordinarily be easily placed; 000’s if you’re older and longer term unemployed – harder to place ordinarily – without recession. I’ve watched them go from licking their lips to holding a “hangdog”, drudge-like persona as reality has kicked in….They thought they knew better and could deal mercilessly with these “scroungers”. Well they did and it’s made no difference even if a few have learned that it is not the unemployed who are the scroungers, but their very own bosses and colleagues! Too few yet have learned that.

    Robert C

    October 15, 2012 at 8:07 pm

  23. So George Osborne thinks that people on Jobseeker’s Allowance should have to “earn” their benefits by cleaning up litter and the like?

    What he fails to mention is that private sector companies like SEETEC will be paid up to £800 for each person partaking in this new scheme.

    If the Chancellor truly wants to help find unemployed people work, then might I suggest giving them a job and using the £800 to pay them a liveable wage. This would actually have the effect of reducing the cost to the taxpayer, instead of spending millions more with little, if any, reduction in the numbers claiming unemployment benefits.


    September 30, 2013 at 8:13 pm

  24. […] There is also a campaign to get people to refuse to take part (https://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/refuse-mandatory-work-activity/) […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: