Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy Opposes Mandatory use of Psychological Therapies in workfare programmes

Iain Duncan Smith Adviser tries out Therapy for Jobseekers.

Thanks to Enigma:

The BACP (British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy) issued this statement this week.


This, however, still stands:

Campaign against introduction of psychological therapies into Job Centres




* A pilot project to bring CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) into Job Centres starts at Streatham Job Centre Plus in June 2015.

* In the same month, Lambeth “Living Well Hub” for Community Mental Health Services is due to open in the same building.

*Mental Health Resistance Network is unhappy with these developments which are part of the government’s brutal “back to work” agenda.

*Mental Health Resistance Network has called a demonstration which will march on Streatham Job Centre on Friday 26th June.

*Mental Health Resistance Network is circulating an open letter to relevant individuals, charities and professional organisations stating our position and asking them to join us in our condemnation for these developments.


The text of the open letter is as follows:

Mental Health Resistance Network is organising a demonstration to take place at Streatham Job Centre Plus on Friday 26th June 2015, protesting against the opening there of Lambeth’s principal community mental  health centre  (“Living Well Network Hub”) the following Monday.

Streatham Job Centre also, from June 2015, hosts the first pilot of the DWP’s scheme to provide psychological therapies – specifically Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) – at Job Centres for people suspected of having mental health problems. This is the first of ten pilot schemes in advance of a national project planned to begin in January 2016.

We are calling on you/ your organisation to state your position on these issues, and we hope join us in our condemnation of these developments.

As mental health service users, we are extremely unhappy with these developments. We deplore the government’s brutal “back to work” agenda, which is a front for cutting disabled welfare benefits for the most vulnerable. Mental health service users are understandably terrified of Job Centres and the threat of losing their benefits through Sanctions, or degrading and unfit-for-purpose Work Capability Assessments. With the main point of access to Community Mental Health services in Lambeth on the 3rd floor of a Job Centre, many of us will feel too frightened to ask for the help and services we need, and lose contact with services altogether.

Mental health service users are already reporting higher levels of fear, anxiety and anguish as a result of the increasingly difficult welfare benefits system, which is linked to an increasing rate of suicides. This situation will be exacerbated by the new developments.

We should not be put under pressure to look for work unless we feel capable. The competitive, profit-driven and exploitative nature of the modern workplace is not suitable for people whose mental health is fragile. But the location of the Network Hub at Streatham Job Centre put us under such pressure if we try to use mental health services.

Experts agree that CBT does not work for everyone; that psychological therapies are ineffective if they are forced on people; and that they need to take place in safe, unthreatening environments. We do not think making people have CBT at Job Centres will make anyone magically “fit for work.” We are concerned that people will be Sanctioned (i.e. have their benefits stopped) if they do not co-operate with this “therapy” either out of principle or because they are not well enough. “BACK TO WORK THERAPY” IS NO THERAPY AT ALL!

Additionally, we are concerned that this amounts to an extension of the coercive powers of the 1983 Mental Health Act amended 2007. Whereas at present people can only be forced into “treatment” under in-patient Sections of this Act or by Community Treatment Orders, making welfare benefits and by extension housing conditional on agreeing to psychological treatment broadens the principle of compulsion.

We condemn the involvement of  IAPTS in this attempt to make people undergo “therapy” at Job Centres, which we believe goes against professional ethics. We are also unhappy that psychiatrists, occupational therapists, nurses, social workers and other mental health professionals are also expected to work at Streatham Job Centre, again compromising their professional ethics, and we call on individual staff and collective agencies representing them to publicly oppose this development.

For more information contact:


96 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Two pdf’s which I re-posted because of the relevance. both pdf’s are interesting.

    Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.
    British Association for Behavioural & Cognitive

    You must get informed consent to give treatment.

    Click to access BABCP-Standards-of-Conduct-Performance-and-Ethics.pdf

    Improving Access to Psychological Therapies

    For some patients more than one course of treatment may be appropriate. The patient should be given enough information to make an informed choice about which treatment best meets their needs. The treatment plan should be mutually agreed between the practitioner and the patient.

    Click to access data-set-v15.pdf


    June 19, 2015 at 4:44 pm

  2. What is the LEGAL position of the coerced recipients of Jobcentre CBT?

    As I’m given to understand it, comments from BACP are mere opinions without any legal weight and substance.

    Similarly, although the comments from the “Mental Health Resistance Network” are equitable, they don’t carry any LEGAL weight.

    Correct me if I’m wrong.

    I’m extremely uneasy about the idea of psychological “treatment” without fully informed and freely given consent, especially when it becomes a condition for benefit receipt. No true professional practitioner would have anything to do with an arrangement like that – and I don’t see what the DWP could legally do in cases where consent is withheld.

    But, of course, like many other DWP schemes, people will be hoodwinked by threat of benefit sanctions and many will just cave in and accept it all.

    God help them!


    June 19, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    • Who realistically (and legally) regulates the Jobcentre CBT practitioners?

      Good question!


      June 19, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    • As I understand it Unless you have been Sectioned under the Mental Health Act, and been assessed by at least two doctors, no medical treatment of anykind can be forced onto an idividual – as the charltons would be being paid by DWP for the application of said so called “Treatment”, this would fall under the following:

      Definitions of Harassment in Discrimination Law
      EQUALITY ACT 2010

      OR more plainly:

      Bullying [continuing Harrassment] is conduct that cannot be objectively justified by a reasonable code of conduct, and whose likely or actual cumulative effect is to threaten, undermine, constrain, humiliate or harm another person or their property, reputation, self-esteem, self-confidence or ability to perform. Tim Field Foundation 2015

      The above link is most most informative – you must think in terms of yourself as a person in the street and not as an employee as that is the main thrust of the informaton on the page but is still applicable to ordinary members of the public.

      And finally due to the “being paid” aspect:

      Fraud Act 2006, “Threats and Menaces” i.e. making a demand that you patricipate or your money will be stopped [just saw a nice solicitors page where it goes into the legal jargon, THIS is covered – oh oh dearie me]

      So in short – DEMAND in writing from anyone/organization that tries this on – include the entire hieracy [line mangement/decision maker at DWP] involved [the outside firm/dwp] etc – warn them of the consequences of continuing their actions unless they can present to you the relevant advice on the relevant laws that what they are doing is not:

      a] crminal
      b] civil, which can lead to a claim for damagesdue to their delibrate behaviour and affect on yourself.

      So all I can say to DWP is – please please please – bring it on


      June 19, 2015 at 5:36 pm

      • Nice piece there Gazza, nice indeed.

        My understanding is that medically they cant skirt your consent unless you are proven of unsound mind.

        This said though and DWP, especially tory ministers to date are certainly no strangers to using this card, there’s also, in the interests of the public and national security.

        What I still have to discern as yet though and maybe someone here can clarify, is this only aimed at claimants declaring mental illness or is it every claimant ?

        Also as even though I asked here no one replied, is it purely treatment or are we talking diagnoses as well.

        What if under your doctor you already had CBT and it didn’t work, Whats the point a second time ?

        Getting back to law, namely fraud, category blackmail, the same principle applies in that can a person demonstrate gain ?

        I say this as the money a claimant receives isn’t DWP nor government monies (sorry just got to laugh and roll my eyes there), its the taxpayer publics or so I suspect they would argue. This if entertained would mean technically its not fraud otherwise how comes no one to date whos been sanctioned unfairly and had it reversed has seen no one from DWP get arrested on said charge or seen EU justice make this argument.

        Its a grey area as even though I said what I said above how can you not consider the notion that is sovereignty and what it implies. Its a headache that’s for sure.


        June 19, 2015 at 7:38 pm

      • gaia ,

        My reading of it [having seen the legal explanation] just the act of making the demand is a big no no [Threat], stopping Benifits [Menaces] – the fact that they are also being paid is when the fraud occurs [gain].

        Put that with the “Nope” you’re not my doctor and and “I in no way autherise you to treat me for a non-existant condition” and it gets sticky fast.

        The sickening part? My guess as to who its targetted? DWP will try it on with everyone – the mentally ill at first, then staff will be told to target those they think they can bully into accepting this rubbish.

        DWP management will steer clear of me I suspect – they’ve already had indications I will bypass lower level staff and go for them direct. Then again I am sure some Manager to reach a particular target (Why hasn’t this one been put on Workfare – he should have been on it three years ago) will be along soon enough.


        June 19, 2015 at 8:15 pm

      • Forgot to say – If you do have Mental Issues, simply write out a avidavit stating that a named person [name them – freind/family/doctor/solicitor] will decide with you if you wish to take up this ‘Kind Offer” of treatment – until that time you’ll have to decline as it might actually cause your condition to deteroiate. “Would they sign a Personal Indenity for damages?” Request verbally and in writing the detailed research background papers which you can consult with your ‘Named’ advisor & doctor.


        June 19, 2015 at 8:23 pm

      • It would be interesting to see them step towards diagnosis as effectively they are setting up a clinic which is a much sticker affair than what I see they are currently proposing.

        Getting back to criminal law your find like say theft for instance some gain has to factor inorder for the charge to be levelled and actioned so looking at threats don’t you feel its more apt to level a charge of abuse being that its easier to prove than fraud ?


        June 19, 2015 at 9:06 pm

      • gaia

        I agree bringing Harrassment is much much easier than as I suggest might be the case in regards to fraud.

        But in doing so that it also builds further evidence for Threats/Menaces… It is a sticky area. But I want to emphasis to everyone – do the Harrassment first then contemplate the rest.

        Can get the papers from any magistrates court and costs £25 for Harrassment – that would be money well spent, and indicate that any further action that incurs costs will be recouped via the courts. We all know DWP is averse to paying out money…. Be beautiful if it came to it to watching the baliffs go in…




        June 19, 2015 at 9:15 pm

      • Oh also of concern is why is DWP so insistent it has to be GPs and the likes they hire, what are they implying in regards to the current mental health services.

        This all seems a very costly way of administering health all in the aid of getting people back to work. I mean this government has sworn to reduce public spending but naturally if and once they succeed I would imagine the public would be looking to pay less tax again as a result.
        Do you think its possible that as we all know healthcare cant help but cost more annually, so as to make healthcare look affordable while not reducing taxes further that they are attempting to effectively move services like mental health into welfare ?

        I cant put my finger on this but I cant help but feel government plans are way more bigger than merely punishing claimants on this venture especially when you consider obesity and drug and alcohol treatment. I think if they could what with all I just said along with all the scrounger, workshy bull could peddle mental health along with the others in a way that would reduce public support and thus allow them to be as savage as they are on benefit claimants and welfare expenditure in general currently.


        June 19, 2015 at 9:32 pm

      • Ive got to go now Gazza but thanks for the chat, have a nice weekend and I will look at any replies you leave first thing tomorrow morning.


        June 19, 2015 at 9:38 pm

      • Jobseekers are by definition of sound mind and body otherwise they would be on other (higher levels of) benefits. The DWP can’t have their cake and eat it. It’s a “Catch 22” for the DWP: jobseekers are either mentally ill and therefore shouldn’t be on JSA or they are not mentally ill and therefore entitled only to JSA. Psychological torture and mental abuse under the guise of ‘therapy’ is an abuse of a jobseekers Human Rights under the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights.

        Legal Eagle

        June 20, 2015 at 2:40 am

      • Legal Eagle,

        Spot on. Checkmate methinks.


        regarding your points about the ultimate aim of all of this – I think you are quite right, how we get there will be telling.

        As for the outcome of reaching that point – think Romania and what happened there. It’ll be even uglier here if it ends up like that in the UK.

        So far the ConCons have used their idelogical fixatendness to stumble from one policy to another – think of a drunk who is going from one pub to another, ordering what he thinks is his favourite beer/tipel but actually at each point is given something else. When he encounters a drink he doesn’t like he stumbles off to a new place. He knows generally where he’s going just not a clue how he gets/got there.

        When the ConCons etc start to actively restict education [I am looking at what’s going on with GSCE’s with great suspicion], the availability of credit to those who need it non ConCon business/ordinary folk, restrict access to the law [already done via virtual scraping of legal aid], you know they are moving to get a lockon to everything for themselves only, and those they choose to allow to prosper.

        In those circumstances I can see things falling apart in a big way – the big question is when?

        If there is another Bank shock, say the shadow bank debts in China start unraveling, or god forbid Earthquake that devestates Tokyo/Califormia or some other important world location, we will be in big big trouble. If/When the money dries up….


        June 20, 2015 at 12:53 pm

      • We have heard and seen the words “self sufficient and independent” more and more as time goes by, millions/billions of people around the world will suffer for we know the same things are happening everywhere, how long have we got until we no longer exist.


        June 20, 2015 at 11:02 pm

      • We will see scenes of Warsaw, there already is on a huge scale only the true scale of it is not known by many.


        June 21, 2015 at 8:51 am

      • The huge scale of course – every village, town and city in the world.


        June 21, 2015 at 9:04 am

  3. Reblogged this on sdbast.


    June 19, 2015 at 5:25 pm

  4. […] Sourced through Scoop.it from: intensiveactivity.wordpress.com […]

  5. […] Sourced through Scoop.it from: intensiveactivity.wordpress.com […]

  6. OT: DWP Guards and them ‘Handling you or another person’

    Oh another thing if a DWP guard approaches you and manhandles you they are commiting Assault/Harrassment and are acting under Colliusion with DWP Staff/Management in doing so – also by allowing it DWP are themselves chargable for Assault – take your pick.

    Why do I say this? ONLY on duty Police Officers are covered by the Law to manhandles others in the performance of their duties.

    A person can only be detained using “Citizes Arrest” if they re suspected/believed to have carried out a Criminal Act – Sorry but Civil doesn’t cut it [like raised voice/shouting].

    As an example – See case of ex-Met Officer Ali Dizaei.


    June 19, 2015 at 6:23 pm

    • Citizen’s Arrest is a minefield; for example under Scots law:

      “While no statutory provision for citizen’s arrest exists in Scots Law, there is a common law position that anyone committing an offence can be arrested using minimum force if necessary with consideration to what is reasonable in the relevant circumstances. The offence must be a serious one and not merely for a breach of the peace. The person exercising the power must have witnessed the offence occurring therefore they cannot act upon information from another person. An arrest is applicable reliant on situation.”

      Legal Expert

      June 20, 2015 at 2:25 am

    • Legal,

      Quite right – just pointing out to others there is no need to feel fear from the DWP Bruisers… Shouting is not a criminal offense so ergo – no touching or ordering by them or others…


      June 20, 2015 at 12:55 pm


    Some commentators on here might recall the DWPs fake psychometric test and the DWPs subsequent denials.

    Some might remember the case where a person was sent to a psychologist for wanting to record an interview.

    Have a further look here:


    These cases have already happened. It will be interesting to see what other categories of claimant will be “sent” to a Jobcentre psychologist from now on!


    June 20, 2015 at 9:16 am

    • Note, in the case of the person sent to a psychologist for wanting to record an interview, the psychologist subsequently contacted the person and invited the person to attend for interview – but insisted that the interview COULD NOT BE RECORDED (by the “patient”)!

      Needless to say, it won’t be too long before a Jobcentre psychologist’s interview is posted on You Tube by a clever “patient” – if that’s the word!!!


      June 20, 2015 at 9:22 am

    • I wish I was signing on and they tried that with me as this CBT test is nothing more than leading a person in a particular direction by designing the questions to box the subject in, which if a person was truly dissident or in denial, wouldn’t have any effect on them.

      Its one thing to be unhappy, its quite another to be dissident or in denial.

      If one thinks about it, its only natural a dissident person would say no to treatment so the very act of sanctioning them or withdrawing benefits is an act of punishing someone for being ill in the first place.

      How can it not be brain washing then if to proceeded ?


      June 20, 2015 at 10:04 am

      • Oh before I forgot, an advisor once told me I was being to amicable and she found it disconcerting.

        Speaks volumes don’t you think ?


        June 20, 2015 at 10:06 am

      • Yes, the ‘dissidents’… the claimants whom, you know, the ones who do really whacky, stuff such as exercise their right to privacy under the Data Protection Act… do really crazy stuff like deny the DWP access to snoop on their job-seeking activities are truly bonkers (by DWP) definition. This does indeed beg the question, why are the DWP proposing to further punish via sanctions for further ‘dissident’ behaviour, exhibited in the form of ‘refusing treatment’. Furthermore, why are these lunatics on (the meagre rate of) JSA in the first place; why aren’t they on (the much higher) rates of disability benefits?

        DWP is BONKERS!!

        June 20, 2015 at 12:24 pm

      • These ‘dissidents’ have, you know… whisper it… ‘unconventional ideas’ 😉

        Dissy Dent

        June 21, 2015 at 11:16 am

      • Dissy, they view those “able to think for themselves” as the ultimate affront to their aims/wishes


        June 21, 2015 at 3:51 pm

  8. Here is an interesting piece on “informed consent” and Data Protection.

    Quote: “It seems beyond question – and supported straight from the “horse’s mouth” of the Cabinet Office, although undoubtedly unintentionally – that the DWP and therefore the government have been acting in clear, direct contravention of UK data protection laws and probably UK/EU ‘informed consent’ laws by imposing this trial on unknowing, vulnerable benefit claimants”.



    June 20, 2015 at 11:32 am

  9. How the fuck can living constantly under the threat of sanctions which lead to starvation, homelessness and outright destitution be conducive to good mental health. Get to fuck DWP!

    Living Under the Shadow of a Sanction

    June 20, 2015 at 11:55 am

  10. Moreover how can actual sanctions and the attendant starvation, homeless and outright destitution be good for mental health. The DWP’s faux concern for the mental health of claimants isn’t fooling anyone. This is nothing but psychological torture, designed solely to drive claimants over the edge into suicide and off the ‘welfare bill’

    Living Under the Shadow of a Sanction

    June 20, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    • Yes, it’s just yet another target driven plan. there will be more of course.


      June 21, 2015 at 9:17 am

      • Yes, the ‘therapists’ will be working to ‘targets’ and will be expected to achieve ‘outcomes’ i.e. “off-flow” in Jobcentre speak, and will receive a juicy bonus for doing so. Nowt but another devious and underhand method of driving down the ‘claimant count’…..

        Underburdened Donkey

        June 21, 2015 at 9:36 am

  11. On a slightly lighter note, I always thought that CBT stood for cock ball torture. Titter!

    Parker Pyne

    June 20, 2015 at 2:52 pm

  12. If IAPT doesn’t work how long before the cat o’ nine tails is introduced to jobcentres… then the gallows…

    Captain Salty

    June 20, 2015 at 5:37 pm

  13. Happy Summer Solstice everyone 🙂

    The Hippy Chick at StonedHenge :)

    June 21, 2015 at 9:25 am

  14. Starvation = death

    Are we all ready to admit that our government is wilfully going about the practice of committing murder with impunity yet, that its absence of abundance thus far is only the result of foodbanks and the will of the few that still believe compassion is the only hope for mankind’s quest for harmony ?

    That claiming benefits is nothing more than an, accused man awaiting trial without bars and prison wardens?

    There coming again very soon except this time it will be twice as painful, twice as unrelenting.

    Are to still willing to sit at the foot of the big man, scraping over crumbs (benefits) all in the belief you matter, that things will change and that humanities heart will save you ?

    Even if you find work you will not find solace as they seek to attack the low earning, do you not see the room slowly filling up, your air being removed, how no matter how far you move, they doggedly pursue ?

    People protest against CBT yet are willing to run the gauntlet that is sanctions.

    What are you worth to yourself, how are you advertising it, why is it no one hears you ?


    June 21, 2015 at 10:31 am

    • “willing to run the gauntlet that is sanctions” ffs gaia, willing lol, yeah, sure, do we have a choice? And anyway, what’s your ‘solution’ gaia, oh forgot, you don’t have one!

      Earth Maiden

      June 21, 2015 at 11:41 am

      • We do have a choice with all that’s going on, it’s up to you and each and every person, – each to their own choice so the solution is what you think it is. if you can’t think of a solution then you need others to think for you.


        June 21, 2015 at 2:55 pm

  15. Andrew Coates

    June 21, 2015 at 11:21 am

    • What the fuck is George Galloway and his ‘battle bus’ up to? Thought George lost his seat?


      June 21, 2015 at 11:34 am

      • He lost his seat on the coach, and the People’s Republic of Ipswich nationalised, without compensation, the bus!

        Andrew Coates

        June 21, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    • If only million’s of people were able to attend these protests, but then I think that day is coming.


      June 21, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    • I here you enigma, a 0.39% isn’t going to raise those tory eyebrows.

      Ive worked out as best as its possible but a turnout of 15.5% will cause sweat beads on a tory scalp. The question is how do you get that many people to come as if you could, the government couldn’t even police it and say it all took place in London would bring the entire city to a halt not to mention that’s more than the entire population that actually live there.

      It would be like owning the city like a bitch I kid you not.


      June 21, 2015 at 9:09 pm

  16. Section 2 of The Fraud Act 2006 ” Fraud by false representation”

    Section 4 ” Fraud by abuse of postion ”

    Section 5 ” Gain and loss”

    ” Loss includes a loss by not getting what one might get,as well as a loss with parting with what has.”


    June 21, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    • pauly,

      Thanks for nailing the Fraud angle – dead on. The Loss bit makes me laugh – not that DWP will/would be laughing.

      If any little shit there come with this to anyone I know – and I will be telling them to let me know – it will be time for one or two letters to interesting places to go out methinks. And phrased in such a way no one up the chain of command can wriggle out by saying they “Didn’t Know”…


      June 21, 2015 at 1:15 pm

  17. True, Gazza.

    It’s a disgrace that some claimants will be forced to drag the DWP through the courts of law in order to obtain benefits they have been legally entitled to receive all along.

    At least the bastards at Tory Central and DWP HQ have now shown their hand. Never mind about informed consent or protections under The Human Rights Act, just con claimants with pscho-babble from “professionals” and if claimants refuse to co-operate in the requisite manner sanction them.


    June 21, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    • The interesting point as far as I am concerned is those who will be encourging this behaviour outside of DWP – don’t they know they can be done for encouraging Illegal behaviour? Even better is the question what did their lawyers tell them? Why are they ignoring them – this is basic basic law stuff


      June 21, 2015 at 3:49 pm

  18. Why politicians make bad decisions


    I accidently came across this on a conservative website none the less. Im not saying it carries any weight as I haven’t other evidence to test the theory but none the less it makes interesting reading.


    June 21, 2015 at 9:27 pm

    • No one prepared to put their name to the article!
      In other words, they are clueless, not crooked.
      Nah, both.

      Another Fine Mess

      June 22, 2015 at 12:35 am

      • Thought some might like it so just had to post it.


        June 22, 2015 at 9:40 am

      • Me too!


        June 22, 2015 at 10:05 am

  19. Limmy

    June 21, 2015 at 9:53 pm

    • She has made sure that I have lost my standing with the children.


      June 21, 2015 at 10:01 pm

  20. Tobanem

    June 22, 2015 at 8:03 am

    • …And if the heart attack victim in the above report goes switches from JSA to ESA, the stress of repeated assessments will probably finish the job off by killing him altogether!

      There was another case further back where an ESA claimant in his late fifties with a stent in his heart was visibly ill during his Atos Work Capability Assessment. The man was breathless, weak and struggled to get through the ordeal. The next day he had a heart attack, and, while fighting for his life in hospital, received the dreaded brown envelope telling him he was fit for work! It’s a wonder the shock of such inanity did not kill him there and then!!!


      June 22, 2015 at 8:16 am

      • Wasn’t there one where a guy died and so couldn’t attend, so they sanctioned him ?


        June 22, 2015 at 10:14 am

      • “gaia”

        Probably! Numerous cases have already happened where people who have been found fit for work die shortly afterwards!!!

        There was even a case where someone was called in for assessment 4 months after dying!!!


        June 22, 2015 at 10:29 am

      • Legalised murder don’t you think ?


        June 22, 2015 at 10:32 am

      • Fit for work and sudden death are not necessarily related, and it could be said that it is slightly disingenuous to conflate the two. Lots of people who are fit for work in that they are going out to work die suddenly too. People die suddenly whether they ‘are fit to work’ or not.

        Doctor and the Medics

        June 22, 2015 at 12:07 pm

      • FAO “Doctor and the Medics”

        Yes, apparently healthy people can die suddenly. Sudden Death Syndrome I believe it’s called.

        But it is more than coincidence or natural causes when ILL people are found fit for work and then die shortly afterwards.

        The original object of the Work Capability Assessment was to “cleanse” one million claimants from the register, so you won’t kid me these premature benefit entitlement deaths are down to natural causes.

        Moreover, doctors are there to essentially diagnose and treat disease, not to act as the cat’s-paw of the state by finding ill people fit for work – which doesn’t exist in sufficient quantity anyway!

        You will also be aware that the government is currently trying to conceal the true benefit death figures from the public.


        June 22, 2015 at 12:37 pm

  21. He will argue the UK needs a welfare system that encourages well-paid work


    He talks about this merry go round but if I didn’t know better, would say it has nothing to do with oh I don’t know, getting employers to pay more for starters.

    Maybe its me but it seems hes implying that its not the employers fault but ours, funny because as I remember it, its his civil servants threatening us with sanctions if we don’t take crappy paid jobs. Maybe im wrong, maybe im crazy dude, maybe im mental and need treatment ?

    What drugs is this PM on or what.


    June 22, 2015 at 9:48 am

    • Ok, ive heard a little more so here goes.

      You have to work 30 plus hours to be able to make a claim for tax credit. Ive never heard of a 30 hour job so its liable to be 37.5 hours. You pay tax and NI, not a lot but you pay it.

      They take this and then have to give it back in the form of tax credits because they set the NAT MIN to LOW and haven’t raised the allowance before tax sufficiently.

      Now they still want to pay what will soon be if not already a private business to process this and hand it back at the same pay rate they are before the cut in the credit.

      You now have less money so must work or find work around 45 plus hours weekly.

      So basically its a STEALTH TAX and a means to force the average working week from the excepted 37.5 hours to 45 without actually saying it all because your employer doesn’t pay a living wage. So even more basically its effectively taking back the increased allowance they gave when they raised it to or will 10’600.

      So looking at this from the workers point of view if we include capitalism, it would actually pay to work less, not more.

      I have to think they have realised conditions on low earners claiming tax credit wouldn’t work and would actually cost welfare more so exactly what the experts said it would do as if they started sanctioning this 10.6 million group you can well imagine what would happen next when we talk support against welfare cuts.

      I reckon the tories hate the fact they cant raise taxes and NI because they made a pledge so are scrambling to find a level that will lower public expenditure which we know had no effect last time round.

      The joke is housing benefit expenditure went up because of tory policy on right to buy so one action had a negative effect on the other just like sanctioning had on healthcare and the criminal system. Tax credit and housing benefit cuts will do precisely the same thing.

      Sorry Osborne but that deficit surplus you would like to see in 5 years is looking more a pipe dream than a reality while you abstain from raising tax and NI overall for everyone proving while we are still better off than the labour manifesto, the uks financial standing hasn’t and wont change besides the fact you wont be able to hide the decline or flatline this time.


      June 22, 2015 at 11:26 am

      • Tories are also hoping if they get all the bums in employment seats as so to speak that this will force employers to raise wages because the labor market wont have the bodies and thus turning the what is currently an employers market to a employees market.

        Well if export doesn’t raise, even if they could get everyone into work, employers couldn’t pay more unless they take a hit in there profits, something highly unlikely especially where most companies rely on investors so are obligated to hand over profits.

        Cameron speech is about to start everyone.


        June 22, 2015 at 11:39 am

  22. “Welfare reform is fundamentally about opportunity and changing lives, supporting families to move from dependence to independence – a vital point, because without social mobility there can be no social justice.”

    “Here we have a chancellor that is frightening people basically … just waving around this idea of huge cuts drastic cuts, without spelling out where they are going to come from.



    June 22, 2015 at 10:43 am

    • £220bn welfare budget

      So putting pensions back into welfare expenditure to create an illusion, well Mr Duncan Smith, would you like to make a further comment ?


      June 22, 2015 at 11:33 am

      • … and about a shilling and sixpence of that £220bn goes to Jobseekers Allowance…


        June 22, 2015 at 12:00 pm

  23. Camerons comment is incorrect in regards to GCSE results, firstly they fudged the figures by changing the system that calculates it.

    Kids failing GCSEs first time is still as high as it was and actually got a little worse. That’s why kids have to repeat GCSEs up to the age of 19 if they fail them. Kids in college are already complaining these retakes effect there trade courses and when polled actually said they consider the trade courses more important so will often let GCSE retakes slip from there concerns.


    June 22, 2015 at 11:47 am

  24. Isnt it about time a law was introduced to cap the profit businesses can keep and what they can hand out to investors ?

    I wonder why that hasn’t happened ?


    June 22, 2015 at 11:50 am

  25. £16’000 before one pays taxes would reduce welfare expenditure.


    June 22, 2015 at 11:51 am

  26. Now I know why social inclusion and protection haven’t been reduced.


    June 22, 2015 at 11:55 am

  27. They will in all likelihood start issuing jobseekers directions to people to attend this regardless of the legality knowing people will comply through a heavily worded piece of paper through both fear and unaware of their legal position.Stereotyping unemployed people as having problems by the state is both wrong and reprehensible,what next something is wrong because your not a Conservative voter or thinker?

    The uk is sliding down the road of an intolerant,racist,and into totalitarianism.



    June 22, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    • I would have thought that if somebody has mental health issues then pressure on them to follow this ‘therapy’ is putting vulnerable people in a very difficult position.

      Andrew Coates

      June 22, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    • Ken, life is like a box of chocolates,

      Oh my god, there right, im losing it.

      You know now I’ve said that, Lucy will come after me, scare with tales that its all the work of the illuminati she will.

      Oh my god, spell check doesn’t recognise the word, she’s right, its an ideological conspiracy.


      June 23, 2015 at 7:26 am

      • Oh dear Gaia, it’s only you who believe in the Illuminati, not me. Is this really all that you have got?

        Tip: Get thee to a dictionary and look up “ideology”

        In your desperation to be “right” at every juncture Gaia, all you do is reveal yourself to be a complete tit.

        Good day 🙂


        July 7, 2015 at 4:24 pm

  28. OT But if anybody else on ESA is wondering what EESA stands for. It is the payment you get PRIOR to you assessment. It will change to ESA once you have had your assessment and been placed in either the supported group or work activity group. EESA stays at JSA Levels. ESA increases through time. {Lets see what happens in the budget next week though}


    June 22, 2015 at 1:21 pm

  29. Emergency budget on the 8 July

    I saw a report on the news last night that the government intends to have an emergency budget next month, which will focus on benefit reform (cuts), apparently. Osborne will be looking to save £12 billion. This doesn’t sound like good news for anyone on benefits. IDS previously wanted to cut JSA for anyone who had been unemployed for more than two years but was blocked by Clegg. I wonder if he’ll try it on again this time.

    Parker Pyne

    June 23, 2015 at 6:15 am

    • Im surprized they haven’t as they had the balls to say people who had been sanctions had found work as a result of it.

      Knowing the tories the plan is still have everyone pay taxes and NI but make all welfare a loan.


      June 23, 2015 at 7:04 am

      • gaia:

        If they do cut JSA for everyone who has been out of work for more than a year then there will be a run on the food banks that will make previous runs on the banks look like a day out the seaside.

        jj joop

        June 23, 2015 at 7:50 am

      • The tories would love that jj joop, watching the foodbanks run out of food.


        June 23, 2015 at 8:23 am

      • In any case JSA is not paid at a high enough rate to survive on long-term; it is meant to tide you over from losing one job on the Friday and starting a new one on the Monday. Part of the rationale behind ‘longer-term’ benefits such as pensions, disability benefits being paid at a higher rate is the recognition that these people will never work again, so therefore they need more money to provide for longer-term expenses, not a short-term tide-me-over “emergency” payment. Ergo, if anything rather than decrease JSA as the length of claim increases, the rate of JSA should be increased as the length of claim increases.

        Clay Mant

        June 23, 2015 at 11:26 am

    • Statistically, once you have been on JSA for two years you are more likely to retire or die than get a job!

      Clay Mant

      June 23, 2015 at 11:17 am

  30. People-smuggling: ‘100 Britons’ jailed in France in past year


    Put that in your pipe and smoke it Tories, blaming immigrants for our woes when all along it was our own people practicing good capitalism.


    June 23, 2015 at 7:30 am

    • It will be even funnier if it turns out we are also involved in the easts migration to.

      Perhaps we should offer CBT to the tories, they must be getting quite depressed having there words thrown back in there faces.

      I don’t know, you just cant lie like you use to these days can yeh.


      June 23, 2015 at 7:33 am

  31. Young becoming hostages to handheld devices, says charity


    Just the young then,

    Whats the bets this charity put this on twitter and facebook to ?


    June 23, 2015 at 7:41 am

    • Maybe its me but the only people who sound sane these days are the unemployed ?


      June 23, 2015 at 7:42 am

    • It’s not just the young who have become hostages to these pernicious devices. I use an old school Nokia 1100, and that’s how it will remain for as long as I can get a replacement battery.

      jj joop

      June 23, 2015 at 7:53 am

      • I call it intravenously linked or breast feed myself.


        June 23, 2015 at 8:26 am

      • I bet though our government wont call apple a bunch of terrorists will they ?


        June 23, 2015 at 8:27 am

  32. Offending rates among children in care investigated


    While 10-17 year olds in care have a higher chance of being convicted or subject to a final warning or reprimand than other children, the trust says nearly two-thirds of them are in care because they have suffered abuse or neglect (take note DWP).

    Only 2% are taken into care primarily because of their own socially unacceptable behaviour, according to government figures from 2014

    Woops, that’s not going to do DWPs new plans any good.


    June 23, 2015 at 7:47 am

    • Seriously, no ones got anything to say about this article in reference to DWP ?


      June 23, 2015 at 8:34 am

  33. And in parting

    Skinny jeans given health warning


    This will set back women a 100 years,

    how will they ever get a man if they cant show there cameltoe.


    June 23, 2015 at 7:49 am

  34. I can drive a person insane just by talking to them 👿 👿 😀 😀

    Dr Hannibal Lecter (Jobcentre Psychologist)

    June 24, 2015 at 5:25 pm


    The Scream

    June 25, 2015 at 6:06 pm


    The Scream

    June 25, 2015 at 6:14 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: