Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Universal Credit: MPs Say, Not Such a Brilliant Wheeze After all.

with 58 comments

Iain Duncan Smith Reacts to Criticism.

We are really getting into reading Welfare Weekly at the moment.

This is their latest:

Commenting on the publication of the latest Universal Credit progress report, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Margaret Hodge said:

“The Department for Work and Pensions has spent £700 million on Universal Credit since the programme began in 2010.

“However, very little progress has been achieved on the front line. Fewer than 18,000 people were claiming Universal Credit by October 2014, out of around seven million expected in the longer term – just 0.3% of the eligible population.

We hope the Department’s expectation that this number will rise significantly by February 2016 proves to be accurate.

“As the Department has justified this spending on the promise of benefits in the future – such as from higher employment – rather than on the actual delivery of benefits to date, we simply cannot judge the value for money of this expenditure at this stage.

“The IT infrastructure for Universal Credit continues to be of particular concern. The Department has spent £344 million with suppliers developing its ‘live’ service systems for claimants who have straightforward initial claims which do not involve all 6 benefits, yet it expects to re-use just £34 million worth of this IT in the longer term.

(NOTE as we all know thanks to Ipswich Unemployed Action posters)

“The live systems are technically limited and expensive to operate because they require manual intervention. The Department is developing and testing a new digital service, which it intends will deliver Universal Credit to all types of claimant in the long term.

“In the meantime it has adopted a ‘twin-track approach’ – running the two separate systems in parallel. This is complicated and expensive. The Department believes this will bring forward the anticipated benefits of the programme but it must ensure it does not allow the mixed, two-track approach to continue for longer than is required.

“Both the Department and HM Treasury now regard the live service as the programme’s de facto contingency, even though the Major Projects Authority told us last year that it doubted those systems were capable of handling the full range of claimants.

“The Department ‘reset’ the programme in early 2013 following a Major Projects Authority review which expressed serious concerns about the programme lacking detailed plans, and it has now put Universal Credit on a sounder footing. Since the reset, however, the Department has already fallen a further six months behind schedule for developing the digital service.

“The Office for Budget Responsibility already assumes a further six month delay to the digital service in its independent estimates, and the Major Projects Authority recently gave the programme an amber-red rating.

More on Welfare Weekly site.

Latest Progress Report on Universal Credit here.

I for one am really really not looking forward to this change.

Plus Crapita have got their oar in….


58 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on sdbast.


    February 25, 2015 at 12:38 pm

  2. Vote for CLASS WAR!!

    February 25, 2015 at 4:15 pm

  3. I notice one thing more.

    We were told some time before Christmas that signing on in future would be with an electrical/digital pad, and that we had to bring identity with us for this to begin.

    The pads are there, all sparkling new.

    But not in operation – around 3 months after they first appeared.

    Now if they can’t even get this stuff working…..

    Andrew Coates

    February 25, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    • They’ll be on ebay before long.

      Another Fine Mess

      February 25, 2015 at 7:09 pm

      • And what are you going to do with a digital signing pad? Give it to your old gran for Chrimbo?

        Santa Claus

        February 26, 2015 at 3:46 am

  4. More than 500 students who enrolled in a private college that offered free grants under a government-sponsored scheme have been told they have to repay the money or face action from bailiffs.

    The Student Loans Company (SLC) has demanded that thousands of pounds of maintenance grants awarded two years ago to students at the ICE Academy, a private independent college with campuses across the UK, be recovered despite officials recognising they were victims of a bureaucratic fiasco. SLC has already sent 80 cases to debt collectors.



    February 25, 2015 at 7:48 pm

  5. Sanctions against employment and support allowance (ESA) claimants in the work-related activity group have hit a new record high, according to DWP figures released today.

    In September 2014, the most recent month for which statistics are available, 3,828 ESA claimants were hit with a sanction. The total for the preceding month was 3,096.

    3,453 of the September sanctions were for alleged failure to participate in work-related activity, the remainder for failure to attend a mandatory interview.

    The DWP continue to refuse to supply any explanation as to why ‘new regime’ sanctions have more than trebled from 1,091 in December 2012 to their current level.



    February 25, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    • i cant wait to be put on the wra group n see what they have to say when i have done all the stuff hey sent me 2 over the last 5 years only to become un employable by private providers over that time with no help at all and parked and binned for the hole 5 years of all of it yet providers still got there fees for fraud from the tax payers to deliver no help at all.

      tbh i cant see the jcp sending me to any providers on esa as none will have me at there offices and have complaints against all of them and will not sign any contracts anyway.

      enig was you sent to any providers on esa n what rubbish did they try to peddle out.

      super ted

      February 25, 2015 at 8:57 pm

      • (b) Frequently has uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace. 15 points

        the jcp sent me letters about that happens every 2 weeks ill take the letters to show um.

        broken arm as well i cant lose and ibs cannon in reserve as back up 😉

        super ted

        February 25, 2015 at 9:05 pm

      • When I was on ESA I seen my health adviser twice in the 7 months on ESA, the letters I received regarding both didn’t state it was mandatory to go, but I went anyway, (with all my favourite docs!) my health adviser though did ask me if I was interested in helping those who were looking for employment, in March, when the JC becomes digital!.


        February 25, 2015 at 9:13 pm

      • Super Ted

        I have some news for you, ESA to JSA & Atos!” will write it all out later.


        February 25, 2015 at 9:18 pm

      • just 2 times lol sounds about right got 5 weeks yet till my q n a form from atos is due back.

        my health adviser though did ask me if I was interested in helping those who were looking for employment, in March, when the JC becomes digital

        id rather go brake my other arm instead 😉

        super ted

        February 25, 2015 at 9:26 pm

      • A few weeks ago I was given a note by my doc stating that I was fit for work! “limited” (RA) so I handed the note into the JC, the next day I made a new claim for JSA, while claiming I was asked by an adviser if my claim for JSA was because of an essesment, to that I said no, because it wasn’t, my first intereveiw at the JC (on JSA) I was asked to sign a doc which stated ” Is your claim for JSA because of an assesment” I noticed that the answer they had put was “yes” so I didn’t sign it and asked for another doc, so I could put “no” (the truth) they didn’t like it! a few days later I received a letter from Atos for the obvious, so I phoned Atos and told them I was fit for work, so the assesment could be cancelled, I was told the assesment couldn’t be cancelled unless I made a new claim for JSA, (I recorded the convisation) a few days later I receive another letter from Atos, a new date for an assesment.
        I then received a letter from the Benefits centre asking me why I hadent been to the assesment, so I wrote a letter telling them why, as above. I also told them I had recorded the convisation betweem Atos and myself.
        I have been on JSA for 3 weeks now, already signed on 3 times, (every week yawn!) a few days ago I recieve another letter from the benefits centre which states,

        “Your claim for employment and support allowance” We have looked at your claim again following a recent change, we can not pay you an allowance from…. this is because you have claimed another benefit. – obviously, it then states, .

        “We will send you a seperate letter explaining the full reasons why you have failed the work capability assessment”

        A new letter, benefits centre, “we have looked at your backdated claim and decided that you have satisfied the labour market conditions for JSA”

        “We have also decided that you have shown good cause for the delay in making your claim” -what delay!


        February 25, 2015 at 10:20 pm

      • When I went from JSA to ESA, all I done was hand in a note from the doc, I didn’t have to fill in any forms, but going back to JSA it’s a new claim, though much less questions than the usual new claim.

        I went to the council, just to make sure HB carried on as before, I was told It was, yesterday I received a letter from the council, “jobseekers allowance starting” with two days difference from the start of JSA and HB.- more cash saved.


        February 25, 2015 at 10:51 pm

  6. MPs criticise DWP’s refusal to publish Universal Credit reports.

    As the Department for Work and Pensions continues its long and costly legal battle to stop four Universal Credit reports being published, the all-party Public Accounts Committee says a lack of openness “remains within the Department”.

    The DWP is refusing to release four Universal Credit reports requested under FOI.

    Three of the reports from 2012 – the risks register, issues register and milestone schedule – were requested by programme and project management professional John Slater. I requested a project assessment review of the Universal Credit programme, as carried out by the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority.

    When questioned by Margaret Hodge, chair of the PAC, Robert Devereux, the DWP’s Permanent Secretary, suggested that his officials did not publish the reports because similar reports in other departments were also unpublished.

    Meanwhile the DWP is pouring public money into various legal appeals related to its refusal to publish the reports. The DWP’s lawyers argue that publishing the four reports would have a “chilling effect”. They say officials need continued confidentiality to be candid about risks and problems.



    February 25, 2015 at 8:40 pm

  7. A small number of customers are receiving unsolicited phone calls from companies offering to repair or upgrade their computer. These callers turn out to be fraudsters who install software which allows them to take over the customers computer and have access to Internet Banking.


    February 25, 2015 at 11:03 pm

  8. No new statistics on poverty and inequality will be published before the general election, making informed assessment about the coalition cuts impossible.

    In a conference on poverty statistics at the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) last week, throughout the day, one thematic gripe emerged: timeliness for data on poverty. One particularly sophisticated and definitive dataset, the Office for National Statistics’ Households Below Average Income (HBAI) publication will not be released until after the election.

    The fact that the most up-to-date figures on HBAI will not be available before the election is concerning. Not only does it hamper the ongoing analysis that thinktanks, academics and charities do with the data, it means that the general election in May will be fought on out-of-date information, and the public will be asked to cast votes without knowing the effects of the coalition’s far-reaching welfare reforms.



    February 25, 2015 at 11:12 pm

  9. The pompous Victorian buildings of Forfar Sheriff Court were considerably enlivened today by the banners of protestors come to support SUWN activist, Tony Cox, who was arrested while helping a vulnerable claimant at Arbroath buroo last month. Folk had come from across Angus and as far as Edinburgh, where there were also protestors outside local jobcentres. As we waited outside we heard speeches from John McArdle of Black Triangle (Tony had been representing a dyslexic client and Black Triangle has been at the forefront of protesting DWP attacks on disabled rights), Mike Taylor of DAWS, Morag Lennie, Sarah Glynn and Tony himself. The banners outside the court also showed support from Angus and Mearns RIC and Class War, and we read out a list of support that included messages from Greece, France and Australia, as well as groups across the UK. (A video of the demo will be following shortly.)

    This was just the initial hearing, so quite brief. Tony will have to appear in court again in June. But we can report that the sheriff saw no need for the extra bail condition requested by the procurator fiscal, so he is free to go into Arbroath buroo.



    February 26, 2015 at 10:36 am

  10. Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.


    February 26, 2015 at 10:59 am

  11. …The Department has spent £344 million with suppliers developing its ‘live’ service systems for claimants who have straightforward initial claims which do not involve all 6 benefits, yet it expects to re-use just £34 million worth of this IT in the longer term …

    The Greens lost their surefire vote winner policy of replacing the entire cruel benefits regime with a universal and automatic
    (no form filling, no assessments, no Jobcentre sanctions, no Jobcentre interviews h0ours long with no toilets or a drink of water, no workfare slavery as no work programmes)
    – not requiring you to be actively seeking work, in or out of work
    for all 18 til retirement age,
    because The Greens could not cost where the £280 billion cost of Citizen Income.

    You might care to contact The Greens’ Leader Ms Bennett
    who can inform MP Ms Caroline Lucas,
    the 1 Green MP in parliament
    who ended the policy during an interview on BBC Radio 4,
    to give The Greens the good news, that ending the IT project alone for Universal Credit would more than produce fund savings to fully fund the Citizen Income.

    Do that and the 1 million 60-64 only on some kind of welfare that also face nil state pension for life from next year (only pension provision for huge numbers of low waged)
    might regain the possibly lost Greens’ policy of a Full Citizen State Pension for all, irregardless of National Insurance contribution / credit history.

    With these policies there are more than enough marginal seats The Greens could win hands down, by people in this Vote or Starve election.

    This is not about voting, but putting an X in a box on 7 May to provide:
    – food for the kids and yourself and your granny
    – ending fuel poverty
    – getting any state pension for your nan
    see more at:


    February 26, 2015 at 12:05 pm


    My work coach has told me the next time I come in she wants me to access my email account at the Jobcentre and print off some of the job applications I’ve made and some of the replies I’ve received.

    Can they make me do this?

    And can they give me a Jobseekers’ Direction or sanction me if I refuse to comply?

    Parker Pyne

    February 26, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    • I evidence my job search in writing, by the way. Always have done. It’s never been a problem before.

      Parker Pyne

      February 26, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    • You don’t have to, you only need show your job search evidence on paper as you do now, there is a doc with regards to this.


      February 26, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    • Parker,

      1. I just give them the Job reference [not that they can do anything with it – to check if you have applied for jobs they’d have to get your written permission to approach the prospective employer – its data about “You” covered by the data protection act, they need your express permission.

      2. The date of the Application.

      3. The Title.

      4. General area of prospective employer.

      Thats it. A senior officer [SEO] had to shut up after I fronted him about why he wanted more info.


      February 26, 2015 at 1:51 pm

      • I always put a privacy clause on all my applications.

        Parker Pyne

        February 26, 2015 at 2:18 pm

      • Me too.

        jj joop

        February 26, 2015 at 3:05 pm

      • I see from what I have read, certain people are under the apprehension that an advisor dropping such an issue is acting inappropriately.

        While guidelines do stipulate a claimant presents evidence as they see fit and on what medium they see fit, it does not imply a claimant shouldn’t do what they can to be as concise as possible.

        You see even though I also plant DPA controls on my data, it does not mean DWP cant approach an agency or employer I have applied to without my consent (part 4 of the DPA, sections 1,4 and 5).

        What it does mean however if accused of it 3 times and found innocent 3 times on a to often regular basis that on the third I can then instigate criminal action against DWP on the grounds of harassment.

        Dependant on how the claimant handles the situation and DWP respond, dictates where and where the process ends and a result is gained by one of the parties mentioned.

        I still insist claimants don’t allow access to any job website or email address or even have to be compelled to use DWPs choice of medium and or concise interpretation of evidence but I do urge claimants to supply enough concise evidence to allow DWP to not be able to dispute it (ie, date of application, vacancy, agency/employer as supplied by ad be it internet or otherwise).

        Now whether I write this on a bit of paper or get out of the website a print of application/s, the data must be the same.

        We know by far and large job websites don’t advertise addresses (send CV via encryption) and if an agency certainly not the potential employer so an advisor cannot insist on more if more isn’t given. At this juncture it is not the claimant but the advisor or DWP that has to prove there is more which they wont as they use and visit the same self sites so cannot claim otherwise.

        As long as you give them the data mentioned they cannot state they don’t have enough to go on as it is NOT the place of the claimant to do DWPs work for them which is cheekily what there trying to do in effect however inappropriate that may be.

        If pursued by the claimant any DWP jobseeker direction and or sanction arriving from it or in place of it applied regarding access or producing printouts would collapse in tribunal and benefits and back payment would resume.

        Now even though written evidence is more than permissible if done as prescribed I would still suggest printouts even though I myself have proved they can be easily forged as the only true evidence is if DWP actually contact said agency/employers.

        As you can imagine if they did that with 900,000 claimants or soon millions when UC is fully rolled out, it would cost them considerably a lot of time and money or as I like to put it,

        If you want it, work for it just like they suggest to me when they refer to ministers claims that claimants should treat receiving benefit and looking for work as a fulltime job.

        Your paid benefit in receipt of being available and actively seeking work and not doing,



        February 27, 2015 at 9:51 am

      • I put all details of jobs I have applied for on a4, I do this for my own benefit, because I keep them all for reference, I show all details to an adviser, this is no problem for me, because I have applied for them all, so if they ever check out all the jobs I have applied for, they can.

        Meanwhile it seems, there is talk of – how to get away with not applying for a job. .


        February 27, 2015 at 8:56 pm

      • gaia:

        You said sometime ago in a previous posting that you put a privacy notice on all your applications. I do the same. Have the Jobcentre ever contacted employers/agencies to find out if you actually applied for a vacancy? And likewise, has an employer/agency ever grassed you up for not returning their phone calls/emails when you applied to them? I’ve never had that problem myself.

        jj joop

        February 28, 2015 at 7:28 am

      • Gaia will no doubt reply to your message JJ.

        I however know that a lot of people have been sent to Worthing for help in finding work, but the reality is the people are being watched while they are looking for jobs, to make sure they are applying for jobs, two of those people who have been sent there I know of, both these people don’t answer their phones. which is why they have been sent there. so this tells you something JJ.

        Thinking about “a privacy notice,” how does anyone know if this privacy notice is actually ignored, these days.


        February 28, 2015 at 9:16 am

      • The agencies don’t show much interest even when you ring them to apply for a vacancy. So I can’t imagine them being bothered working with JC in checking among the 100s of deleted applications that one was from a certain name.

        Another Fine Mess

        February 28, 2015 at 4:00 pm

      • Hi jj joop

        I haven’t witnessed it at my local office but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t or isn’t happening.

        If you know of a case and are asking for logical reasoning that complies with the law then here goes.

        An agency or potential employer cant grass you up as hotlines are for fraud and not for people to report that they think someone has broken there conditionality.

        If this did ever happen where they contacted DWP, they would still be in breach of ICO regulations as breaking your conditionality is NOT a crime in the legal sense of the word so as such cannot be claimed as an exemption under law.

        So if DWP did announce it, they have basically tipped you off of a ICO breach from said agency/potential employer so not only does it land this agency/potential employer in hot water with compensation coming your way not to mention any sanction applied or attempt will be on very shaky legal ground and easy to crush if you know what your on with.

        So once done once to often will soon see these agencies/potential employers put off from ever calling DWP as the cost in fines along with punishment will grossly outweigh anything DWP could offer, not to mention saving money would go right out of the window when considering welfare reform.

        As for the other way around, exemption part 4, section 29, points 4 and 5 stipulate assessment, collection and crime in regards to claiming or misusing public funds and none of these constitute as legal grounds for either DWP to confront said agency/potential employer or the latter to communicate data in response back, meaning if it was done on the basis of breaking or the suspicion of conditionality, then both parties would be in breach of ICO regulations as breaking ones conditionality is not a criminally noted offence.

        Lastly to answer enigmas question, anyone is free to ignore any law they like but must expect to get punished under it when found out.

        Hope this answers everything but do feel free to post me again if you seek further clarification on a few points.


        February 28, 2015 at 8:56 pm

      • gaia:

        Thanks for that. I record all my JCP interviews for legal and training purposes. And any job interviews as well. I’ve never had the Jobcentre tell me they’ve had a complaint from a prospective employer that I failed to get back in touch with them after an initial application.

        If they did, I would almost certainly inform the ICO as I always put a privacy notice on all my emails; not just those to employers.

        I have a particularly odious work coach (who doesn’t) and I’m always left with an impression that she’s trying to trip me up. Although she’ll just tell herself that she’s just doing her job. Like they all do. Just obeying the orders.

        Hmm…now where have I had that before.

        jj joop

        March 1, 2015 at 11:42 am

      • Your always welcome jj joop and remember DWP can only act on the evidence a claimant summits so for instance if say a claimant enters into evidence that they found a vacancy on UJM and applied such and such a date, that , that is the evidence they have to work with, This means in that case,

        Did or did not the claimant actually apply to this job upon seeing it and entering it into evidence,

        And not what happened there after when we consider suspicion of fraud, so even after talking to the employer, they can only bring up this one point.

        Don’t get me wrong, DWP will always try an expand something but as long as the claimant doesn’t enter into the discussion as its not what they wrote, nor enters such later as evidence then the discussion itself is over because the claimant had fulfilled there agreement as regards supplying evidence.

        For DWP to act in the manner you prescribed in your first post would tantamount to an evasion of privacy which contravenes the human rights act not to mention would in effect be setting up what’s known as entrapment.

        Claimants need to realise that while supplying evidence is a part of conditionality, the actual act from DWP of checking up on someone’s evidence is for the purposes of DETECTION of crime whether or not DWP call the police and or apply a sanction.

        Lastly if it was known that DWP were routinely sanctioning people for fraud by hiding under the guise of breaking conditionality, it would make this tory government again look like liars when they promised to be tough on benefit fraud.

        Just remember that claimants agree to the condition of supplying evidence and not a condition to prove it to be true or false.


        March 2, 2015 at 10:01 am

  13. Parker:

    Obi posted this last week:

    Latest Guidance:

    From: Operations FOI Requests

    Department for Work and Pensions

    13 August 2014

    My Work Plan Booklet Guidance Queries and Help.

    9. My Work Plan booklet. However, this booklet is not a mandatory product for demonstrating evidence of work search and claimants have the right to demonstrate what they have done to look for work through whichever means they deem suitable and most effective.


    Copy and paste it and it give it to your coachy. Failing that, email the whole fucking document to her. And if she asks you, more than twice, to access your email account and print off any emails, just tell the old prostitute that her behaviour constitutes harassment and that you want to speak to her supervisor.

    But keep calm at all times. They love it when you lose it because then they can sanction you for threatening behaviour, etc. And don’t call her an old prostitute either.

    jj joop

    February 26, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    • “Keep calm” !!

      No swearing permitted, sanctioned!


      February 26, 2015 at 1:40 pm

  14. Thanks for that guys. I was aware of paragraph 9 in the My Work Plan Booklet Guidance, I just wasn’t too sure about having to access my email account at the Jobcentre.

    Parker Pyne

    February 26, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    • Parker:

      I get this shit from my coachy from time to time. She’ll ask for access to my UJ account and she’ll ask me to print off emails for her. I remind her of paragraph 9 and she backs off. I shouldn’t have to do this. They know we don’t have to give them access to our UJ accounts or print off emails. They know we can evidence our job search in a way that we deem to be suitable and effective. But they do love to chip away at us.

      You can also tell her that you have a client-based email account, i.e. one that can only be accessed from your home PC.

      jj joop

      February 26, 2015 at 2:35 pm

      • You know JJ, you don’t even have to have a UJM account.


        February 26, 2015 at 8:19 pm

      • enigma:

        Yeah, I know. I only agreed to create one just to keep my coachy sweet.

        jj joop

        February 27, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    • Parker:

      On the subject of personal email account access, this just came up today on FOI requests to the DWP. Stick it under your coachy’s nose next time you go in.


      jj joop

      February 27, 2015 at 5:34 pm

      • they can give you a jsd to open a ujm account but you do not have to give them access to it or use it to look for work.

        super ted

        February 27, 2015 at 5:43 pm

      • super ted:

        Yes, I know. But they keep pestering me for access, I have told them several times over the past twelve months that I won’t give them my log-in details. Apparently, it’s so that we can do a job search together. Bollocks.

        To paraphrase Colonel Kilgore (Apocalypse Now): Fucking animals. Will these people never give up!

        jj joop

        February 27, 2015 at 8:23 pm

      • Every adviser in the local JC has seen me at some point, they all know that I know the truth, of their mandatory nonsense, since last summer they all stopped talking of UJM, 35 hour JS, how many jobs to apply for, my work plan, all I get since then is, how are you, how is your job search going, that’s it.

        It depends on how your present yourself.


        February 27, 2015 at 8:48 pm

      • I got a JSD to create an account on UJM ages ago, in the form of a letter which included a warning as usual, “appointment in the JC, to create an account on UJM” I went, took the supervisors name and left.


        February 27, 2015 at 9:04 pm

      • was the same at my jcp been round most of the staff so they know not to even bother with any off it now but they still trying it on with others that i over hear when i was there.

        think i not had a adviser ask me about ujm for about a year now andd i was in and out faster than ever last 8 months signing.

        super ted

        February 27, 2015 at 10:20 pm

  15. Ipswich demo: SCRAP THE WCA – MAXIMUS OUT
    2 March at 13:00
    Medical Assessment Centre, St Felix House, Silent Street,Ipswich, Suffolk, IP1 1TF

    Andrew Coates

    February 26, 2015 at 5:30 pm

  16. The great zero hours recovery:


    Oh, and here’s one to look out for this coming Monday, 2nd March. Channel 4’s Dispatches reports on sanctions – “Britain’s Benefits Crackdown”:



    February 26, 2015 at 6:44 pm

    • People shouldn’t believe the stats on anything. I for one don’t.

      Meanwhile the DWP is pouring public money into various legal appeals related to its refusal to publish the reports. The DWP’s lawyers argue that publishing the four reports would have a “chilling effect”. They say officials need continued confidentiality to be candid about risks and problems.


      No new statistics on poverty and inequality will be published before the general election, making informed assessment about the coalition cuts impossible.


      So is the number of people on zero hours correct.

      Or is the numbers of people already on UC correct.

      And cha 4’s dispatches on sanctions. will they have a number of sanctions, if they do it won’t be correct, as above.


      February 26, 2015 at 8:09 pm

      • Whats interesting is that ministers and heads of departments always claim the data is out of date, that figures they have suggest the opposite, so this would imply would it not that there is a real time or near real time system available.

        So one has to ask if so then why don’t they produce such evidence in papered form for you, I or the media ?

        Usually I find from experience people who make claims yet never provide recordable and accessible proof are detracting from the truth.

        I also affirm the media know this only to well and are very far from stupid so in there own selfish self interests DONT ask the right questions and or ask for proof when certain individuals make claims without evidence being at hand.

        I have also heard ministers have a status quo with the media that they wont be interviewed unless they know prior what they are going to be asked by far and large.

        Ministers, the prime minister and even the heads of departments DONT face people who know exactly what to ask because it would demonstrate not only that they all to often deceive the public which has been proven time and time again and I can just use the last 2 governments as examples for that but because also there more interested in there own career than ALL the public they profess to serve.

        When you teach a class of students, so as to get the best results you teach at a level equal to the weakest link so in practice a politician should serve its public from the bottom up and not top down.

        I would even goes as far as cite every time a party makes a pledge for election that in actuality they are usually committing in my opinion a wilful act of fraud that while I cant have them prosecuted for, can receive commendation for outing there all to often use of manipulating the English language to serve to mislead the public in an immoral and unforgivable way so as to get around the process of a democracy to deliver there own brand of dictatorship.

        Lets me please leave you with this thought

        “How is a democracy not a dictatorship when your always on the side that loses” ?


        February 27, 2015 at 11:30 am

  17. What’s next.

    A Swedish office block is offering to chip its employees in the latest technological advance.

    Stockholm-based office complex Epicentre is offering all of its employees the chance to have an RFID, radio-frequency identification, under the skin of their hands.

    The chips, roughly the size of a grain of rice, allow users to scan into their building, open doors, swap contact details and use the photocopier.

    “Payment is one area or for healthcare reason. You can communicate with your doctor, and can get data on what you eat and your physical status.

    “We want to be able to understand this technology before big corporates and big government come to us and say everyone should get chipped – the tax authority chip, the Google or Facebook chip,” Mr Sjoblad adds.



    February 27, 2015 at 8:31 pm


    The above is a quote from Magna Carta.

    More recently, about 20 years ago in fact, a senior English Judge registered his concerns in the national media about the power Civil Servants had in imposing sanctions on benefit claimants – a power which rivalled the courts.

    Nowadays, the level of sanctions can exceed the maximum fines handed out by the courts, so the position is much worse than it was 20 years ago.

    And don’t forget, benefit sanctions are imposed at the whimsical stroke of a pen – WITHOUT TRIAL!

    It’s an extremely controversial matter when Civil Servants have greater power than the courts.


    February 28, 2015 at 10:16 am

    • They the creators don’t even know if it works but still having human beings put on it. who will no doubt suffer.


      February 28, 2015 at 11:03 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: