Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Benefit Sanctions Don’t Work: National Audit Office.

with 174 comments

Image result for sanctions dwp

“Sanctions on benefits have a high opportunity cost, not only for those who are dependent on those benefits if sanctions are applied, but for the efficient use of public resources. “We acknowledge the department’s effort to reduce its error rate on sanctions, but we think there is more to do in terms of reducing them further, and in reducing the notable differences in sanctions applications between comparable localities.”

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 30 November 2016 *

The New Statesman has just tweeted on this report,

Damning proof that the government has no evidence benefits sanctions work ALISON GARNHAM

Anyone remember evidence-based policymaking? For the DWP, it appears from today’s National Audit Office (NAO) report on sanctions, it is at best a dim and distant memory.

When the Department made substantial changes to sanction rules in 2012 – marking a step-change in their scope and severity – it could not quantify the financial impact of the changes, and it said it could not predict whether the changes would create savings. Since then, it has made no attempt to track the actual costs and benefits of the changes.

As one reads through the NAO’s report, it becomes increasingly clear how their task – to assess the value for money of sanctions policy – is thwarted at every turn by lack of evidence. The words “the Department does not know”, and mentions of data that the Department does not analyse or collect, recur throughout. The government is evidently operating blind, on an issue that could scarcely be more important: the decision actively to remove from already-poor individuals and households the basic means of their subsistence.

Disturbingly, there are several indications that this ignorance is wilful. The DWP has administrative data on individual benefit histories, sanctions and employment, and data on local sanction rates and performance, but it chooses not to use this body of evidence to evaluate the impacts of sanctions. The government, via the Economic and Social Research Council, has funded a £2m research project from 2013 to 2018 to understand the role and impact of conditionality in social security. In 2015, the DWP advised its Work Programme providers not to take part in focus groups for the project. And, in March 2015, the Work and Pensions Committee called on the DWP to commission “a broad independent review of benefit conditionality and sanctions, to investigate whether sanctions are being applied appropriately, fairly and proportionately”. After taking seven months to respond, the Department refused.

What we do know beyond doubt is that sanctions cause immense hardship to those who are subjected to them. This is in a sense a question of simple logic – take away a person’s primary, meagre source of sustenance, and they will suffer. Indeed, that is the Department’s stated intention: its own guidance to decision makers acknowledges that ‘it would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health’ if left without income for two weeks (JSA sanctions start at twice this duration). Decision makers assessing potential hardship payments should be looking only at those who would “suffer a greater decline in health than a normal healthy adult” [original emphasis]. But it is also reflected in a range of direct evidence, not least of which is the link between sanctions and food bank use: research by Child Poverty Action Group and others found that between 19 and 29 per cent of visits to the food banks we studied were caused by sanctions.

If that’s bad enough, there’s this.

Meanwhile, for Work Programme providers, on average, higher use of sanctions is associated with lower performance in terms of employment outcomes. Though this does not prove causality – it could be, for example, that weak Work Programme providers may use sanctions more because they are ineffective with their other approaches – it may suggest that differences in deterrence effects of sanctions are weaker than other factors explaining performance. Again, no evidence in favour of sanctions here.

Read the full article at the New Statesman.

The Guardian says,

Sanctions on welfare payments which have allegedly caused thousands of claimants to fall into hardship and depression are being handed out without evidence that they actually work, Whitehall’s official spending watchdog has found.

The Department for Work and Pensions is also failing to monitor thousands of people whose benefits are being cut or withheld while many are being pushed outside the benefits system, said the National Audit Office.

Auditors concluded there has been a failure to measure whether the government is saving money while the application of the sanctions regime varies across the country and from job centre to job centre.

The report, issued on Wednesday, has been seized upon by critics of the government’s sanctions regime who say it is punitive, wasteful and not aimed at finding people work.

The findings could cause difficulties for Damian Green, the welfare secretary, who insisted this week that the sanctions contributed to a fairer society and were an important part of the benefits system.

Labour MP Meg Hillier, who chairs the public accounts committee, said: “Benefit sanctions punish some of the poorest people in the country. But despite the anxiety and misery they cause, it seems to be pot luck who gets sanctioned.

“While studies suggest sanctions do encourage some people back into work, other people stop claiming but do not start working and the Department for Work and Pensions has no record of them. If vulnerable people fall through the safety net, what happens to them?”

More than 1 million unemployed benefits claimants have to meet certain conditions, such as showing they are looking for work, to receive jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, universal credit and income support.

Almost a quarter of claimants (24%) between 2010 and 2015 received a sanction, the report said. A four-week penalty can mean a claimant over-25 losing £300.

In 2015, 800,000 claimants were referred to the DWP for possible sanctions, the report said. Of those, half were then sanctioned across at least one of four benefits.

National Audit Office. Benefit Sanctions.

Press Release.

The Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) is not doing enough to find out how sanctions affect people on benefits, according to today’s report from the National Audit Office.

A benefit sanction is a penalty imposed on a claimant meaning a loss of income when someone does not meet conditions like attending jobcentre appointments. Sanctions are not rare: 24% of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants received at least one between 2010 and 2015. Use of sanctions varies substantially, with some Work Programme providers referring twice as many people for sanctions as other providers in the same area.

Today’s report finds that jobcentres’ monthly sanction referral rate for Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants rose to 11% in March 2011 then fell to 3% in December 2015. There are many reasons for this variation but it cannot be fully explained by changes in claimant behaviour. The NAO concludes it is likely that management focus and local work coach discretion have had a substantial influence on whether or not people are sanctioned.

Today’s report recommends that the Department for Work & Pensions carries out a wide-ranging review of benefit sanctions, particularly as it introduces further changes to labour market support such as Universal Credit. The DWP has commissioned independent reviews and taken steps to improve processes but rejected previous calls for a wider review. The NAO finds that the previous government increased the scope and severity of sanctions in 2012, and recognised that these changes would affect claimants’ behaviour in ways that were difficult to predict.

The NAO report finds that the Department is meeting target timescales for most sanction decisions but is missing its Universal Credit targets. In August 2016, 42% of decisions about Universal Credit sanctions took longer than 28 working days.

International studies show people who receive sanctions are more likely to get work, but the effect can be short-lived, lead to lower wages and increase the number of people moving off benefits into inactivity. The DWP has not used its own data to evaluate the impact of sanctions in the UK. The NAO undertook preliminary analysis of the impact of Work Programme sanctions on employment, inactivity and earnings. The results show the Department should do more to understand these sanctions outcomes.

Sanctions have costs, for people who receive them and for the government. The Department does not track the costs and benefits of sanctions, but estimates that it spends £30-50 million a year applying sanctions, and around £200 million monitoring the conditions it sets for claimants. The NAO estimates the Department withheld £132 million from claimants due to sanctions in 2015, and paid them £35 million in hardship payments. The overall impact of sanctions on wider public spending is unknown.

From, “Key Findings”:

10. Designing sanctions 10 How people respond to sanctions is uncertain. The Department expects most claimants will not be sanctioned and that the deterrence effect of sanctions will encourage them to comply with conditions. However, the Department has limited evidence on how people respond to the possibility of receiving a sanction, or how large this deterrent effect is in practice. Direct effects on people who receive sanctions will also be important; we found 24% of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants receive a sanction at some point (paragraphs 1.8 to 1.10 and Figures 4 and 5).

11 The previous government increased the scope and severity of sanctions. The 2012 reforms expanded the range of claimants subject to conditions and increased the maximum length of Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions from 26 to 156 weeks. When it made the changes the Department recognised that they would affect claimants’ behaviour in ways that were difficult to predict (paragraphs 1.11 to 1.13 and Figure 6.

12 The Department’s changes to employment support have introduced risks for its use of sanctions. The Department has changed its employment support and approach to sanctions in response to identified problems. For example it has put more emphasis on one-to-one relationships between staff and claimants to encourage more appropriate conditions. Changes introduce new risks. While greater flexibility for jobcentre staff to tailor conditions can make them more appropriate, it also increases the risk of inconsistency in how sanctions are used (paragraphs 1.14 to 1.18 and Figure 7).

21 The Department does not track the costs and benefits of sanctions. Potential benefits include increased and faster entry into employment leading to lower benefit spending and higher tax revenues. Possible wider costs include the direct impact on people who get sanctioned, such as financial hardship or depression. Supporting them may lead to higher public spending in areas such as local authority funded welfare support. The Department does not know these wider costs and benefits (paragraphs 3.14 to 3.20 and Figure 23).

Unfortunately the recommendations are far from satisfactory.


24 As the Department introduces further changes to labour market support, we recommend it carries out a wide-ranging review of sanctions.

In particular: a The Department should support better understanding of the impact of sanctions. It should use its data – including real time information on earnings – to track the direct and indirect impact of sanctions on the likelihood, duration and quality of employment, including for those with barriers to work. It should adopt an open and collaborative approach to working with academic researchers and third-party organisations.

b The Department should assess the wider cost of sanctions to central and local government. It should track how sanctions affect demand for publicly funded services.

c The Department should use information to continuously improve its approach to sanctions. The Department has mechanisms for learning and improvement. It should expand its use of feedback from each stage of the sanctions process to fix recurring problems that lead to unnecessary referrals and overturned decisions.

d The Department should improve both internal management information and published statistics about sanction processes, variation and trends. It should demonstrate that it has satisfied the UK Statistics Authority that it has met all recommendations on its published statistics.

e The Department should model future demand for Universal Credit decisions. A large decision backlog already exists. The Department needs to understand likely growth in demand and decision-makers’ capacity to meet it.

f The Department should explore ways to reduce variation in referrals from providers. The Department needs to better manage variation as it develops new programmes such as the Work and Health Programme.

Get Rid of the Sanctions Regime!


Written by Andrew Coates

November 30, 2016 at 4:08 pm

174 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. What a Surprise I must say…

    How long before it’s repackaged and shoved back down our throats – the new and improved work programme with added Sanction Incentives… er, sorry “help”, or the new and improved help the Ill to die via Sanctions, er sorry “Professional Help”…. I just keep remembering the past which with this lots behaviour show they hate the poor, Idiot Darth Smith/GidIdiot et al springs to mind.


    November 30, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    • A classic case of seeming to appear reasonable about a completely unreasonable first principle: that the DWP employees have the a wide degree of power to shove people into destitution.

      Andrew Coates

      November 30, 2016 at 5:51 pm

  2. The benefits sanctions system has always been about punishment and discipline of the unemployed.
    It doesn’t help people to starve them into submission, or to make them homeless.
    No amount of DWP spin can disguise the ugly reality of a policy designed to force compliance on a section of society seen as workshy ‘skivers’ who don’t want to work.
    People who need to be taken by the scruff of the neck and given a damn good shaking, in the Tory view.
    That’s why the penalties are so cruel and unjust, for even the most minor breaches of the rules, such as being 10 mins late signing-on.
    Always with the underlying hope that people will get sick of all the hassle, and just sign-off and go away.
    Or as IDS would say, ‘social justice’.

    Jeff Smith

    November 30, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    • “£18,000 a year state pension for all pensioners, being 60 per cent of the average wage which is about £30,000 a year (2016). Paid from 60 for men and women, as well as to all current pensioners.”

      lol £346.15 a week state pension – not in this millennium or the next lol

      And oh look, not that old, deceptive trick of quoting the average. As any statistician average means nothing when it comes to wages. We want the mode not the mean (average). The average (mean) can be skewed by ‘outliers’ such as banker’s salaries. The mode is where most of the data points (wages) in the sample falls i..e what MOST people earn and it nowhere near £18,000.

      Carol Vorderman

      December 7, 2016 at 2:29 am

    • And the other old deceptive trick of showing the old buddy sat at her one bar fire**, and oh look, she is too poor to turn it on. Pension Credit is £155.60* which is the MINIMUM any pensioner can have in their pocket without even considering private pensions etc. A lot of pensioners are RICH! They have money, property, holiday homes in Barbados gold-plated pensions etc.

      *compare and contrast with Jobseeker’s Allowance (subject to arbitrary sanction) a mere £73.10 (£57.90 for 18 to 24 year old) a week which the unemployed are expected to live on!

      **the same picture the council use when they send their horseshit demands when we all know the vast bulk of council tax goes on council junkets and gold-plated pensions for fat cat councilors.

      Carol Vorderman

      December 7, 2016 at 2:39 am

  3. Its all about simply punishing people exactly Jeff.Substantial sums of money are being inappropriately spent on programmes that simply are not going to make the slightest difference.Organisations that should not be involved in controversial behavior due to professional standards for example are taking the governments line.There is some terrible attitudes being taken where the person sitting next to them from outside is simply left alone

    They made the decision to mandate customers to all job programmes regardless of their suitability. They did this by applying a benefit direction on the customer to make them attend. The purpose was to increase the opportunity to sanction a customer, should they fail any part of the direction.

    “let’s set them up from day 1”


    Jobseekers directions that were supposed to be a last resort were thrown around like confetti and may well still be.

    Sanctions don’t work because also that they have been issued unlawfully/breach of procedure they cannot correct a problem there and then to rectify someones problem. At that point is when things clam up at the DWP.

    One thing that does come from this is where the Tories are there is division where there is Unemployed there is solidarity.


    November 30, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    • It’s also about saving money I fear. Deny enough claimants two week, four week, twelve weeks or thirty-six weeks of benefit and you make a very considerable saving in social security spending. This was the main reason for such a long waiting period to get Universal Credit, which, don’t forget, unlike a salary, is never recouped when you leave UC for paid employment: what you fail to get at the beginning isn’t paid to you in arrears if/when you come off Universal Credit as wages would be paid to you in arrears if you were on a monthly salary and were made redundant or left to work elsewhere.

      Rotten, rotten, rotten to the core.

      The people who made this mess should be taken out and shot.


      December 1, 2016 at 9:31 am

      • Leave work today, claim universal credit, start work 7 weeks later, you won’t get paid a penny universal credit. The se(7)en week at least “waiting period” is a benefit stoppage in disguise. Bastards!


        December 1, 2016 at 9:48 am

      • Yep. It’s like a five to ten week sanction as a punishment for having to apply for Universal Credit!


        December 1, 2016 at 11:13 am

      • “Rotten, rotten, rotten to the core.

        The people who made this mess should be taken out and shot”.

        Good quote, from Jammer.

        This is what Jammer had in mind:

        Ultimate Sanction

        December 1, 2016 at 6:19 pm

  4. they can mandate you to attend but time and again i have proven that you do not have to sign the providers contract and thus stop them getting there fee and make it impossible to sanction you as well as they can not process ur personal information with out you signing it under the data protection act.


    November 30, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    • under the data protection act.

      They just ignore that Superted.Most of the time there isn’t any paperwork they just dump people onto these programmes.

      While everyone is being told it now looks like its 70 until retirement. The army takes a different view even in non combat roles and appears to operate an age policy and exempt form the equality law.If the army takes this view regarding age this sets a stereotypical view elsewhere also.

      the armed forces and the police, prison or
      emergency services to recruit or maintain in employment persons who do not have the
      required capacity to carry out the range of functions that they may be called upon to perform



      You should be:

      Regular Army age: 16.6 – 32.11 years
      Army Reserve age: 17.9 – 49.11 years

      The sooner you apply, the sooner you’ll be on your way to becoming a better you.


      November 30, 2016 at 7:53 pm

      • Ken

        Can you name these schemes and programmes after 98 that didn’t require legal consent that weren’t inhouse (done by them with no funding) DWP schemes with no provider involved as ive never seen one and ive been defending people long before the conservatives got in office. I remember even the new deal when it was first introduced back in 98 required providers to gain legal consent so im quite interested in your statement especially considering how funding works in this country as even DWP command providers have to issue such when claiming payments for results.

        And while your at it why do you state the obvious that DWP will ignore stuff when we all already know that as we have all been there at one point you know or have you forgotten that glaring fact too.

        Just because DWP think there being clever does not mean they get away with it if the claimant is prepared to take it full term to get overturned. If DWP sanction a person for not signing a legally binding contract, they have broken the law and the civil service code.If DWP ignore your data rights, they have broken the law and the civil service code, If DWP knowingly deceive a member of the public, they have broken the law and the civil service code and on and on it goes.

        At the end of the day, if your willing to be bullied and abused then that is your choice and your choice alone as it is everyone else’s and no amount of attempted scaremongering is going to change it as when these people are already sanctioned or had there claims closed they have absolutely nothing to lose in pursuing justice so who are you to deny them that.


        December 1, 2016 at 2:08 am

      • Oh Ken

        Are you saying superted is lying then ?


        December 1, 2016 at 2:10 am

      • And another thing, how is knowing how to kill people a BETTER YOU.

        How is risking your life while killing others under false pretenses a BETTER YOU.

        Do you not understand why the east hates the west time and time again as i suggest you go check history and facts as we haven’t always just dealt with terrorists which isnt as old as us setting up and murdering eastern leaders via arming and training rebels, That when we have got what we wanted we abandon the rebels who oh my gosh get rebranded as terrorists.

        I use too be gullible Ken, wore a uniform not only as an adult but also as a cadet but i learn’t the only one you can trust is your sergeant as everyone above is clueless including our ministers who throw other peoples children into harm all for there selfish gains.


        December 1, 2016 at 2:34 am

      • For the military among us, Route Irish* a Ken Loach film about ‘contractors’ working in Iraq is a good watch. The Wind that Shakes the Barley is good too. Available for free via file-sharing 🙂

        *Code for the most dangerous road in the world – the 12km stretch between Baghdad International Airport and the ‘Green Zone’



        Mrs Sussex

        December 1, 2016 at 10:49 am

      • over the last ten years so say that i can remember when this site was called the work programme ?i have always had to sign a contract with regards to providers and so called courses as they have to get my sig to get there funding one way or the other and i have always refused but said i was willing to take part and every singe time i was asked to leave and every time they tried and fail to sanction me as all they can do is say i never attended to try get me sanctioned and as i keep proof of everything i have all ways one them.

        the jcp can put its mandatory on what ever they like as it means nothing to me and just a scare tactic to try to fool you to enter in to a contract with a provider so they get there funding and then say you turn up 10 mins late then they tell the jcp and a sanction will follow been there done that and no more.

        i have not been on the work programme as i refused to sign even tho on the jcp im down as a completer and in the 2 years i had 6 sanctions for non attendance but because i never signed anything i won every single one of them even stating to the dwp I HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH THIS COMPANY and still one.

        tho half of them had the wrong dates on the letters they said i failed to attend and was sent out the day b4 i got the letter and was for a meeting 3-4 weeks in the past.

        i told the dwp that i do not own a time machine and i won all of them as well.

        i was also sent on mwa to a so called charity shop and i was not even asked to sign anything as i gave the holy shit on there fb page and as soon as i walked in the place was set aside a taken in the back room on my own and was asked to leave and even gave me 10 quid to do one and not talk to any of there stock.

        and yes again i got a sanction for non attendance and won that as well.

        and now the last place i was sent this week gave me the ultimate weapon as put it in writing as i would not leave until i got it or said phone the police to have me removed an hour later got the letter saying i failed to participate because i will not sign the enrolment form and does not consider me a learner.

        that is an out right lie as i said i will participate but i will not sign anything on the first day and on the second was thrown out the room buy the course teacher as i told him i will not sign it as i do not have to under law and got the foi request on my phone to show him this and would not even look at it wonder why lol.

        while i was in reception and she comes back with the letter i said could i have an interview with you and record it on my phone and said no under the data protection act so said thats funny as that is what i was doing buy not signing there sfa contract and said you soon run and hide behind the law when it suits you pmsl and even said that I WAS RIGHT that i did not have to sign anything and walked off.

        so if you refuse to sign the main reason they do not want you there is they cant get there hands on the money its as simple as that.


        December 1, 2016 at 2:46 pm

  5. i think the last time i went on one where i never had to sign anything bar at front desk was like 2006 with a4e, never had to do anything bar sit there and use the puters until it was time to go home.

    i had a free bus pass back then as well if i remember right from the jcp lol


    November 30, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    • For the military among us

      You wont find any here their may be a march into the Jobcentre.No capability assessments there though just under 50 your on the scrapheap.


      December 2, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    • good old a4e I went there a few times, it was more like a playgroup or drop into centre for some of us on the old new deal.


      January 3, 2017 at 12:18 pm

  6. Iain Duncan Smith once claimed that 75% of people sanctioned said that their punishments helped them “stay focused and get on”. There obviously is no basis for this ridiculous claim and nobody seems to know where it came from.


    This is the problem when policy is dreamt up and implemented by the insane, liars and incompetents.

    I mean, honestly folks, how crazy must IDS actually be to have spun so daft a lie in the first place.

    And then there were the made up sanctionees, Sarah and Zac, who both claimed to have benefited from sanctions and the threat of sanctions. Trouble is neither of them were real! They had been made up by the DWP in an attempt to big up and put a positive spin of the draconian sanctions regime.


    Now you know when government departments start openly falsifying and trying to deceive the general public there’s something truly rotten at the heart of an administration. I have never seen the like or thought I would live long enough to witness such deplorable behaviour in politicians or the civil service. You, literally, could not make it up!


    December 1, 2016 at 9:25 am

    • Nice post and very true jammer but its all coming to a head now even there own party ministers are calling them out on it like the concentrix scandal,the rent arrears leading to landlords not renting to the unemployed and disabled/ill or even working claimants dew unacceptable waits for UC, growing numbers of homelessness and i could quite easily wear my fingers out naming all of them. Even now it appears our PM while working as the minister to the home office at the time sort to use foreign children as a premise to disincentivise people abroad from coming to the UK to look for work.

      Nice post,nice call Jammer.


      December 1, 2016 at 10:30 am

  7. At last, in plain English, THE SANCTIONS REGIME COSTS MORE THAN IT SAVES!!!!!!



    December 1, 2016 at 10:04 am

    • Exactl!

      A brilliant headline in the Daily Record.

      Official report reveals the hated benefit sanctions regime costs taxpayers £153million more a year to run than it saves.

      The brutal cuts which make so many lives a misery save just £132m a year while it costs £285m a year to run.

      Andrew Coates

      December 1, 2016 at 12:22 pm

      • Enforcement and justice always do Andrew, the amount they have spent todate trying to appeal and overturn court verdicts has more than proved that so why should sanctions be any different.

        Yet again here, other sites as far back as 2010 ALL stated sanctioning people and closing claims unduly would do no more than cost the taxpayer more and more money or waste it is probably a better description.


        December 1, 2016 at 12:47 pm

  8. If I read it correctly and excuse me and correct me if I am wrong (advanced apologise). On BBC teletext last night the National Audit Office (NAO) mentioned something about sanctions and how they vary from region to region and also as we know Jobcentre to Jobcentre. I think it also referred to cities with more than one JC, the JC’s would have different regimes. Can somebody check it please. Advanced Thanks

    Mr Middlesex

    December 1, 2016 at 10:17 am

    • Mr Middlesex, help me out here.

      What would that achieve exactly, what is it your thinking about or working on ?


      December 1, 2016 at 10:41 am

  9. Mr Middlesex

    December 1, 2016 at 10:21 am

  10. More than 250,000 are homeless in England – Shelter


    I can only speak about what i witness in middle England but its alarming how many homeless i see everyday. I kid you not, i have to take little to no effort at all to see them. If i only use the area im currently residing in they hang around in large groups, the single charity available to them cant cope and even now, there only option is to queue at predetermined churches in the hope of bedding down for the night.
    The amount of time they are forced to spend out in this cold is around 15 hours as shopping centers refuse them entry, libraries and the council themselves use tactics to keep them out and get this, My local DWP does not even encourage them to come in and use there systems to search for work while simultaneously expecting them to find work knowing no employer will hire them unless they have a home address. Im still investigating another angle to this story so my findings arent final but it appears unless they have a care of address, recruitment agencies wont take them on the books and even then when they do, find there not being offered work dew to struggling to keep clean and be able to wake up on time what with being sleep deprived for various reasons (ie, being attacked and verbal assaulted by the public,mostly the youth public) and not having access to good form of devices as alarm clocks.
    In reference to the local DWP/JCP, they encourage these homeless people to use the local homeless charities address as a care of address which isn’t helping when you consider if they did get an interview,could get clean for it with decent clothes, that employers always check up such data to make sure a applicant is who they say they are so know there homeless but instead of help, dear john the applicant without a real logical reason rather than admit it was this and what they felt it said about a applicant.

    So government putting this money in is simply not enough, not enough at all when i see unoccupied 3/4 bedroom houses (still too few houses) not being used to help easy this very sad issue. Im really impressed though how unemployed claimants try to help them out even though they themselves are struggling and how tirelessly the homeless charity,church and foodbanks have worked against the overwhelming odds and reduced government funding.

    So everyone understands this not having a regular payment scheme and handing out these so called investments like government do with people who need more than one room, is governments way of paying less claiming so called care while being able to hide exactly how big this problem really is had it actually been a permanent scheme.

    DWP,IDS even the public can say its self inflicted, there all junkies and alcoholics but its not going to make the problem go away as for them, those constantly on the street, the inaccurate rhetoric goes no way to keeping them warm, feed,sheltered and equally as important, in work with the chance of building a life so they dont have to ever go back on the streets. And as for those that did have toxic issues, the treatment to kick the habit will have little effect if the moment the sessions over, the only thing they have to look forward to is yet another cold day/night on the streets.

    Weve all and by all i mean all, have to do much more to ensure no UK citizen ends up homeless and in the cold in this day and age no matter a persons problem.


    December 1, 2016 at 11:25 am

  11. Junior doctors’ training under threat, says GMC


    Only the other day the BBC printed an article on how detrimental a lack of sleep can be and how very common it is, the internet is awash with articles yet in this recent BBC one, no where was it said the onus also falls on employers and government attitudes.


    Not just here but in all areas employers and government rely on targets yet still haven’t learn’t despite one after the other not being met, the ultimate cost, is in how there effecting peoples lives


    December 1, 2016 at 11:37 am

    • doug

      this leapt out at me:

      – Should self-employed people be required to enrol in a pension?

      Er, and on low wages how are they to afford this?

      This is going to be “Oh, must have Pension – it won’t be worth the paper its printed on but will drag more money out of people pockets with no guarantees.” Oh, and wil make buckets of money for our Chums in the city – all good. a la Let them Eat Cake.


      December 1, 2016 at 1:32 pm

      • Indeed Gazza as you dont offer up any money till the end of the tax year by which time youve spent all the non taxable money its based upon.


        December 1, 2016 at 4:58 pm

  12. OT; Witch May revealed for what she is

    “Theresa May had plan to ‘deprioritise’ illegal migrant pupils”

    “This shows how the Home Office under Theresa May tried everything it could to forage around in the gutter for a few votes and couple of cheap headlines. Leaving children uneducated would do a lot of harm and is short-sighted.”

    And the reason why its important is look at how poor people are treated and make the connection [this is for the Apologists, Farage supporters who pop up as spokespeople for this type of action]


    December 1, 2016 at 11:58 am

  13. Remember this Gazza


    There’s absolutely no low this government wont go to get what they want.

    Immigrant, unemployed,disabled,ill, over weight, there is no difference in there love and support for us and infact they have and do try pitting these groups against each other.


    December 1, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    • You know that trick gazza where you whip the tablecloth off while leaving whats on it intact,

      Well the cloth is us,the items on the table is the publics tax/NIC payers contributions and the table the country.

      If the government are going to claim its for the benefit of the hard working public, then they should at least have the common decency to give every penny back to them and not offer piffle amounts of raised tax allowance while lining private for profit businesses pockets.


      December 1, 2016 at 1:00 pm

  14. For 2016 In Uk Read As 1936 In Germany


    December 1, 2016 at 1:20 pm

  15. Doug can’t tolerate ANYONE offering a different opinion to him.

    Same with Enigma or whatever name it’s using these days.

    Andrew, why don’t you rein these two plonkers in?

    Others might be encouraged to comment if it weren’t for those two constantly trampling spitefully over anyone else’s comments.


    December 1, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    • You have every opportunity to face me like a man Bard or is it Ken ?

      The rate at which people such as yourself change your tags makes it impossible to say and for the record as a multiple website owner with 2 decades of experience on people on the internet, trends and such, changing these is hardly going to inspire the viewers confidence in anything they are saying.

      At the end of the day 2+2=4 so considering im always offering proof that you can backtrack when i say things then the least others like you who criticize and have hissy fits can do is offer equal evidence to back up there points otherwise its nothing but an opinion and that my friend helps no one.

      If you want me to respect what your saying then say something worth respecting and make sure you back it up by which i mean not some silly script out of a DWP manual.


      December 1, 2016 at 4:48 pm

      • Kens Ken and that’s it.They didn’t ask any permission for being referred onto that Work Programme,yes there was some paperwork the New Deal signed nothing but ended up on it.

        To be fair I couldn’t fault the organisation I was referred on to the Work Programme by the least said about A4e the better. They did put in a lot of work and time in difficult circumstances and eventually pulled out because there was no income.The person dealing with me was open and honest in saying they were sceptical about getting involved but some decided that it would be worthwhile but they did try.

        A4e had to step back in later after just dismissing people they didn’t want two years later they found they did have to accept responsibility but by that time people were leaving the work programme back to the Jobcentre.


        December 1, 2016 at 7:39 pm

      • so as always a complete waste of tax payers money then my wp jhp was the worst performing in the hole country and learn direct had to take over.;)


        December 1, 2016 at 7:53 pm

      • DWP dont need your legal consent Ken, they dont need any claimants to refer them to a provider as the Secretary of state (this includes there public departments) are exempt under section 4 para 30 (Health, education and social work) of the data protection act.
        When i or superted talk, we are referring to the providers themselves. You see you are what known as the first party (data subject), DWP are referred to as second party and the provider a third party. Each party has different rights if say we stick to just DPA, starting with you having the most right down to the third party having the least.
        Now when you made your claim for benefits, DWP through your consent became a second party. Now in that agreement you gave them consent to be able to use your data, one of which was to be able to hand said data to a third party which in this case is A4E. Now A4E can use this data for but with less processing opportunities than DWP have like for instance telling DWP you never showed up for example. Now what a third party cant do is give this data to a fourth party like for instance a business looking to take you on MWA.
        For that they need you to lawfully consent to make them a second party. Now if you do not supply them with your legal consent and they go and pass on your personal data to this fourth party, they have breach the data protection act.

        Now when you first went to the provider you would have sat down with them and one of two things would have happened. Either they would have given you a form to fill in or would have asked you questions and filled it in for you whether you were aware of it or not at the time. In both incidences to achieve second party status, consent as i said would be required in order to comply with the law as they must. Now there’s many tricks to obtaining this that are still illegal but non the less hard to prove if you are not aware of the law which 99% (just meaning large number not actually 99%) of people are not. Sadly for DWP and provider alike, dew to people like me and superted (people aware of the law that is), things became hard for these providers as news began to spread to inform people of there right under the act so they resorted to dirty tactics which as we learnt them further informed the public.

        Now not consenting does not mean your off the WP or should i say sadly for the provider your not off WP as now they cant claim payment for MWA, skills conditioning,etc supplied by a fourth party because they cant send your personal data to the business who needs it for insurance purposes as well as for various regulatory requirements like say HASAWA for instance. Once again it does not mean the provider cant send you there but its pointless as the employer/business cant engage you in any action without said legal consent as they too would require it to become a second party

        As time went on government tried various angle to get round this issue like for instance taking care of the HASAWA bit and thus not requiring the fourth party to try to become the second party. I wont get into this part as this post really would go on for hours but the thrust of it, try as they might, the government in order to succeed either had to draft an inclusion that took away your rights (they failed before they tried) or completely re write the data protection act (again failed dew to cross party anger and fear). so basically that is why superted can do what he did and no matter how many times DWP try to sanction him, he always wins with regards to the DPA.

        The funding part just like the providers deal with DWP or more important the government offices that state which public department get what allocations of public funds for such schemes also required legal consent as proof the said fund is being used as it is agreed. Now as this fund is primarily spent on you it means each candidate must be proved to exist which is done via you personally identifying yourself which is obtained via your signature. Also in the case of education like medicine you must consent to it.

        As i said i could go on for hours about this and all the angles but you will find if you look at DPA, skills funding,DWP,etc regulatory requirements and procedure of action that its all contained within. This is why when over the years i speak of it i have broken it down to bitesizes so people can get to grips with it and you can backtrack all my work todate, gaia’s and others (older members not here anymore) on this very website.

        Now and i say this often, perhaps probably not enough it seems, NOT TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT,TO RESEARCH IT YOURSELF. I do this as you dont know me so you have no idea if im a DWP/provider plant or someone just trying to stick it to claimants and believe me they do come here and other welfare websites because we are not lying and have spoilt a lot of there ill gotten games. I also state that while researching if you have any questions on points you may be stuck on, i am here for you to ask. Its a pledge i make to everyone, i dont care if you work or not as my only concerns are for the protection of your rights as i dont like bullies and people who abuse anything let alone anyone, government or otherwise so if any of my abilties/skills are useful to you, they are yours free of charge but do remember i am just one man and i do this also in the real physical world and not just online. I also cover other legal issues like contract law,health and safety,employment law and various others not restricted to just law.

        I was taught by my parents to give back what i got Ken and this is what i have done my entire life and if you speak to other regulars here who know me well, you can better decide if you wish to trust me or not.


        December 1, 2016 at 10:30 pm

      • Oh Ken

        If you are indeed not Bard then i do apologize but i get trolled alot and its without breaking any laws not to mention disrespecting Andrew Coates, impossible for me to tell who these pop up posters are so i have to look at what i said recently or who i disagreed with which is often the case of where they generate from.

        I work long,unpaid and hard to know the facts so protect them as i seek to protect people. I will equally as hard come out swinging to protect this website (dont care i dont own it, as i support Andrew Coates efforts 110% even though he asks nothing of me and weve never met) and so will defend it to the death and why i never shy away from trolls.

        I dont expect you to except my apology but i mean it none the less.


        December 1, 2016 at 10:47 pm

      • everything doug says is true and an excellent post btw but as ever get all the information for your self and read it, its the law at the end of the day and they have to abide buy it and its all on line if you know where to find it.

        the problem is sheep have no balls and cant stand up for there own rights under law even if i tell them like i did not one would refuse to sign the sfa contract and even had 1 person there to fill in the form for you to then sign it.

        they never met me b4 so as doug says why trust me and my advice no matter what i say to them they just dont listen.

        and next week when i have to sign on ill prove they cant do jack about it as if they sanction me it will be illegal under law and brake the civil service code of conduct and if my adviser does that if there that stupid will get the sack as will brake the law plane and simple.


        December 1, 2016 at 11:28 pm

      • “Now what a third party cant do is give this data to a fourth party like for instance a business looking to take you on MWA.” True, doug but it still didn’t stop the DWP arranging the placement directly which they did.


        December 2, 2016 at 9:21 am

      • That’s why even if you didn’t turn up for a MWA/CWP ‘induction’ i.e. you didn’t even touch the ‘provider’s ‘paperwork’ you still got a placement landing on your doormat.


        December 2, 2016 at 9:24 am

      • Very true DPA,

        BUT, have or are you competently trained in manual handling for instance, does this employer or DWP have proof of that ?

        Even if you attended such a course, how has that course provider ABSOLUTELY proved you have competently learned what they taught irrespective of being awarded ?

        You see if i take a trade that has risks towards the worker and those around them you will find the word COMPETENT in its respective regulation/s. You never see qualified and i will explain.
        A qualification/award/certificate does not imply COMPETENCE. Its a form of but is in no way proof of so NOT ABSOLUTE. Many a person with qualifications where such risks exist or could do have still killed or seriously injured themselves and or others by disregarding safe protocol whether knowing or not. In these incidences one has proved they acted in a INCOMPETENT MANNER. A qualification/award/certificate if the training and teaching was correctly done only absolves the person that supplied it and if a requirement under law prior to employment (ie,sparky,bus driver,warehouse,etc) the employer assuming they are not the one responsible for the incident happening (ie, not using guards on a lathe,etc).

        Now there’s always a chance a student will fail there course, that’s undisputable as people fail every day all over the world. On top of that in order for the provider to fund the course currently,SFA funding is required and that requires legal consent from the candidate seeking the course whether DWP put them on it or not. On top of that if you’ve signed no DWP forms, HOW has DWP proved you agree to follow the HASAWA, understand what it means and can translate that into action. I said the last bit as a claimant is not responsible for the health and safety of other claimants or DWP staff in the event of entering DWP/JCP premises, nor does it form or would a part of requisites regarding qualifying for benefits.

        That’s just one example but there are more.


        December 2, 2016 at 12:47 pm

  16. superted

    December 1, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    • Good Morning. On the NEW STATESMAN webpage http://www.newstatesman.com Go to the search bar and put in UN concerned about UK Austerity / Benefit cuts. I wonder if ALLEGEDLY this could be a precursor to some members of the DWP looking for other work I did say Allegedly

      Allen B'stard

      December 2, 2016 at 10:13 am

  17. Andrew Coates

    December 1, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    • My, God! I hope this is true.

      While Freud remains at the DWP its lies and the misery of the needy will continue indefinitely and increase in severity. This bastard is actually and factually a worse serial killer than Dr Harold Shipman: Freud’s wicked meddling has without a doubt pushed thousands of innocent and helpless individuals into premature graves. Obviously this cruel and incompetent shit wants to try to distance himself from the coming conflagration when all the chickens come home to roost and the perniciousness of what he has done – Universal Credit, conditionality and sanctions – become entirely obvious to all as the number of people tormented becomes too great to ignore any longer. As far as Universal Credit goes I don’t believe that Freud or anybody knows how this cancerous abortion is supposed to work; as far as I can see Universal Credit never had a proper design or feasible plan to implement it. The whole sorry mess seems to have been made up as it went along and cobbled together on the hoof into an unworkable mess.

      My, God! I hope that Freud is going on the lamb to try and evade justice.

      Christmas really does deem to have come early this year!


      December 1, 2016 at 4:39 pm

      • Excellent heads up Andrew Coates and indeed it will be interesting to know how UC will function.


        December 1, 2016 at 4:53 pm

      • Wintour is a serious Guardian journalist.

        In 2006, Freud was asked by Tony Blair to review the UK’s welfare-to-work system.

        The Coalition Government was formed in 2010, Freud was made Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Welfare Reform.

        In 2014, Labour MPs called for Freud’s resignation after he was secretly recorded responding to a question posed at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party conference. The question was whether some people with disabilities should work for a token sum in order to enjoy the non-financial advantages of engaging in the world of work, perhaps with their wages topped up by benefit payments. Freud, thinking out loud, agreed that there was a small group of disabled people who were “not worth the full wage”…”

        “After the Conservatives won the general election in May 2015, Freud was promoted to Minister of State at the DWP, where he was given an enhanced role in overseeing the expansion of the Universal Credit scheme.”

        Andrew Coates

        December 1, 2016 at 4:57 pm

  18. If it wasn’t for benefit sanctions I wouldn’t be where I am today… homeless and hungry 😦

    Homeless & Hungry

    December 1, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    • Benefit sanctions put hair on my chest and made a man out of me. I love them!

      Danielle Blake (Mrs)

      December 3, 2016 at 8:44 am

      • Benefit sanctions made a prostitute out of me.


        December 3, 2016 at 8:48 am

    • We flew all the way to the moon and back on benefit sanctions 😀

      Buzz, Neil and Michael

      December 3, 2016 at 11:21 am

      • Its alright if i get sanctioned as the Russians said there fund me or at least that’s what the Tories say and who are we to doubt them.


        December 3, 2016 at 12:55 pm

  19. How many people, now deceased, would still be alive today if David Freud had never become Minister for Welfare Reform? This bastard should be held to account and made answerable for what he has done. The man behaved like the Forth Horseman of the Apocalypse during his time at the DWP. Freud should not be allowed to scuttle off into the undergrowth and shirk the guilt for the anguish, misery and death he visited upon the helpless, sick and disabled during the course of his hideous and catastrophic political career.

    This bastard should not be allowed to escape scot free.

    What he has done should never be forgotten.


    December 1, 2016 at 5:17 pm

  20. Is Freud’s departure – after IDS – akin to rats leaving a sinking ship?


    December 1, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    • If the DWP get our search history of Suffolk Libraries, how long would it be before those of us that use the library get a sanction just for looking at this site. Will the target the INTERNET CAFE[S] next!


      December 3, 2016 at 12:22 pm

      • Typo..Shol read Will THEY target the internet cafes


        December 3, 2016 at 12:23 pm

      • Decision Maker’s Guide


        On reviewing Philip’s internet activity the DM discovered that Philip had visited a specific website, namely intensiveactivity.wordpress.com. The DM decided that the effect of this was twofold 1) Philip had used limited internet access time to visit a non-work activity related website, time which could have been better spent on visiting work-activity related websites. 2) The website in question is of a nature and contains material which would have a negative and detrimental impact on Philip’s chances of getting work.

        In this case the DM decided to impose two sanctions 1) A higher level sanction for not actively seeking employment 2) A higher level sanction for not satisfying the work related activity requirement of his Claimant Commitment.

        The content of the examples in this document (including use of imagery) is for illustrative
        purposes only

        Sheriff Sanction

        December 3, 2016 at 1:42 pm

      • There’s 168 hours in the week Phillip and how you spread the 35 hours, is entirely up to you so who cares what one looks at or posts to.

        Even if your restricted to using the library,UJM,buses wfi,etc a claimant can easily kick the 35 hours into the long grass.

        Besides they link the history to personal data meaning they can only do it three times and if on all occasions they prove nothing, you can have them done for harassment, invasion of privacy and an abuse of power and position BECAUSE



        December 3, 2016 at 5:25 pm

  21. What do you all think of this clip?

    Ultimate Sanction

    December 1, 2016 at 6:21 pm

  22. It was my job to impose cruel benefit sanctions – that the DWP can’t justify

    Job advisers like me were told withholding benefits would encourage vulnerable people to find a job. It turns out there’s no evidence that sanctions work


    DWP has only “limited evidence” on impact of benefits sanctions, warns spending watchdog

    National Audit Office report suggests DWP’s “use of sanctions is linked as much to management priorities and local staff discretion as it is to claimants’ behaviour”


    Its all descending rapidly now much like brexit.Its not the Welfare state that’s the burden on the UK Its the Tory party.


    December 1, 2016 at 8:05 pm

  23. Illegal sanctions.

    Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

    Under current legislation I have noted that no Work Programme Provider has the legal OR lawful authority to report an individual for sanction. Considering the large numbers of individuals already reported for sanctions, this would mean the DWP have also acted unlawfully and illegally by:

    Accepting reports from WP providers of individuals for sanctions.

    Acting upon these reports for sanctions, irrespective of whether they were upheld or refused, or appealed successfully or not.

    What processes are currently in place to reimburse those now illegally and unlawfully sanctioned?

    What processes are in place to prevent WP providers from reporting individuals for sanction until this situation is resolved?

    What measures do the DWP have in place, should a case be submitted to the Courts, to reimburse/compensate individuals illegally or unlawfully sanctioned.


    news seeker

    December 2, 2016 at 11:25 am

    • If as is said hear that sanctions are unlawful. Would the High Court allow the Sheriff’s of Can’t Pay Won’t pay to go to Caxton House and or regional DWP offices to seize goods to re pay victims ? We can but hope.

      Give it back

      December 2, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    • If you noticed newsreader in superteds recent picture post, they haven’t suggested any such thing. This would suggest both provider and DWP are well aware of this.


      December 2, 2016 at 12:53 pm

  24. Huge reaction as homeless man dies on freezing night in Birmingham.

    Birmingham has been shocked by the tragic death of a homeless man found dead in the city centre on the coldest night of the year.

    There was a huge outpouring of emotion after the man’s body was discovered in John Bright Street late on Tuesday night.

    He was believed to have been aged just 30.

    Hundreds of Mail readers left comments on our Facebook page, with many telling of their ‘heartbreak’ at what appears to be a growing homelessness problem.

    Others asked what could be done to help rough sleepers.


    news seeker

    December 2, 2016 at 11:30 am

    • Well if i just take the amount of comments left after my recent post on this site regarding homelessness, on this very post,

      probably too little, to late.

      We all claimant,worker,government know ourselves and what we can and cannot do within our remit so this is not a time for recrimination, but a time for affirmative action as its going to get colder and it simply isn’t enough to provide a church floored bed every second night as so to speak.

      Its an unacceptable loss and i dont care even if it transpires he was an addict.


      December 2, 2016 at 1:06 pm


    David Clapson – UNLAWFUL KILLING

    The Coroner

    December 2, 2016 at 11:55 am


    David Clapson – MURDER

    The Straight-Talking Coroner

    December 2, 2016 at 12:02 pm

  27. The government doesn’t care about the impact of sanctions: they want them to hurt.

    To anyone with any experience of the welfare system, this will come as no surprise. For years now, campaigners and charities have warned of the hardship caused by sanctions, yet still they continue. It’s hard to see what it would take to make the government stop using them. If the death of David Clapson, who was found dead three weeks after having his benefits stopped, wasn’t enough to make them listen, it’s unlikely this report – or any other – will do so.


    news seeker

    December 2, 2016 at 2:23 pm

  28. Talking to fellow claimants some being transferred to Universal Credit it appears the Jobcentre are becoming macho again.Imposing large jobsearch requirements however people are reluctant not to give them access to their Universal Jobmatch accounts and appear intimidated by the Jobcentre.Its hard explaining to them that simply unchecking a box can reduce the amount of pressure.

    Some Jobcentre staff simply make it up going along where the next person finds it exceptable with G4s adding to the atmosphere vulnerable claimants are being exposed to a racket.


    December 2, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    • The UC regulations state:

      Work search requirement – all reasonable action
      95.—(1) A claimant is to be treated as not having complied with a work search requirement to
      take all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work in any week unless—
      (a) either—
      (i) the time which the claimant spends taking action for the purpose of obtaining paid work is at least the claimant’s expected number of hours per week minus any
      relevant deductions, or (ii) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant has taken all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work despite the number of hours that the claimant spends taking such action being lower than the expected number of hours per week;

      The 35 hours rule is an expectation and not a requirement.

      (b) that action gives the claimant the best prospects of obtaining work.

      This provision provides the same flexibility and scope that is contained within the ‘old style’ JSA Regulations and allows the claimant to take other steps which are not contained in their plan/CC providing the action taken gives the best prospect of obtaining work! However, DWP staff will not be able to recognise this fact and 1000’s of people will continue to be sanctioned unlawfully.

      The Secretary of State (work coach) is not omnipotent as far as determining what is reasonable and what is not.



      December 2, 2016 at 2:48 pm

      • I doubt that anybody who has been unemployed for a few months could possibly spend 35 hours a week actively seeking work. When I was working 35 hours a week I didn’t actively work for 35 hours! It’s a stupid rule which is impossible to obey, police or enforce unless you’re silly and the DWP catches you out.

        The only way a 35-hour jobsearch would be possible would be to wear a set of sandwich boards with “Gissa a job” painted on them and march about for seven hours a day every weekday. I’m surprised that the DWP haven’t thought of making men and women to do it, or something equally demeaning and pointless activity, to be honest.

        Only a matter of time I suppose!


        December 2, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    • If the Jobcentre forces you to visit on any day other than your signing day they have to give you travel expenses I believe. Personally I would rather take the bus to every day to the Jobcentre than give in to them and allow them to track me online on point of principle.


      December 2, 2016 at 6:53 pm

      • they wont do that as tried it with me and the bus fair was 30 quid a week but you will only get the fair paid if you have a letter to attend, they wont pay it if you want to use the computers to job search.

        it is also paid in to ur account so have to wait 3 days for it to clear, i kicked off as was out of pocket and got it paid in the same day and said if you wanted me in the next week i want that paid as well now in advance.

        and that was the end of that 😉


        December 2, 2016 at 7:01 pm

      • The content of the examples in this document (including use of imagery) is for illustrative 
        purposes only 😀

        Sheriff Sanction

        December 3, 2016 at 11:07 am

    • Look at what happened to ‘Sydney’, ken in this ‘example’ taken from the ‘decision maker’s’ sanction guide. This should serve as a cautionary tale for any claimant tempted to give the DWP access to their universal jobmatch account – it could happen to YOU!

      The sanction guide also helpfully 🙂 states: A UC claimant [or any other claimant for that matter] cannot be mandated to give DWP access to their UJ account; this is a voluntary action by the claimant. The Work Coach should encourage the claimant to do so, but the benefits need to be explained fully to the claimant and it needs to be exactly clear what this means and what the access will be used for.

      Note: Access to the claimant’s UJ account will help provide evidence of job search activity and the Work Coach can provide extra support [ 😀 will make it easier for the DWP to apply a sanction ] to the claimant by looking out for and saving jobs for the claimant in the UJ ‘Saved Jobs page’. Work Coaches can set this up as one of the claimants work search activities helping them achieve enough work related activity each week.

      Post – I, Daniel Blake NOTHING has changed in the Jobcentre. It is still the same evil bastards hell-bent on throwing claimants under the bus.

      “Sydney has a generic requirement on her Claimant Commitment “to apply for all jobs in the ‘Saved Jobs’ page of her UJ account” and also a specific job detailed in Section 4 of the Claimant Commitment that the work coach discussed with her and advised her she must apply for before the closing date. Sydney signed and accepted her Claimant Commitment.

      Sydney does not apply for the specified job and cannot provide a good reason for not doing so. She says she forgot when the closing date for applications to be made by was and thought she had more time to consider applying for the vacancy. She stated she had spent her time during that particular week applying for 2 jobs from the ‘Saved Jobs’ page that were nearer to her home address as she thought they were more suitable for her as there would have been no travelling costs to work. As the closing

      date has now passed Sydney has missed all opportunity to apply for the specified vacancy.

      The DM considers the job was a suitable vacancy for Sydney. Sydney is primarily looking for work in retail or warehouse work and the vacancy was for a full time sales assistant in a newsagents in the local town.The travelling involved would have been 25 minutes by bus and there is a bus twice per hour from her village. Sydney was advised on the Claimant Commitment of all the relevant details of the vacancy, when the closing date was and the consequences if she failed to apply and the DM decides that a higher-level sanction is appropriate for the failure. As there has been no previous higher-level sanctions in the preceding 364 days of the current failure a 91 day sanction is applied to the TORP.

      In the same 7 day period Sydney has also failed to meet her work search obligations. There are 20 suitable jobs in the ‘Saved Jobs’ page of her UJ account and the one specified vacancy in Section 4. Sydney applied for only 2 of the vacancies in the ‘Saved Jobs’ page which were the 2 nearest to her home address and would not involve any travel costs. She says she did check and read through the details of the other jobs in the ‘Saved Jobs’ page but did not apply for any of them and has not
      done any other work search.

      She says she wants to work on the local industrial estate where her friend works so she can walk to work and reduce her outgoings. Sydney’s friend has told her some jobs will be available for packers at the warehouse outlet where she works on the local industrial estate very soon.

      The DM considers Sydney has not done everything she reasonably could do to look for work and give her the best prospects of getting work in the relevant 7 day period.The DM imposes a medium level sanction for 91 days as this is the 3rd sanctionable failure where a medium level sanction has previously been imposed within 365 days.

      Therefore in this case 2 sanctions are imposed on Sydney’s UC:

      1) a higher-level sanction for the failure to apply without a good reason for the specified vacancy and 2) a medium-level sanction for the failure to do all reasonable work search in the relevant week”.

      Sheriff Sanction

      December 3, 2016 at 11:02 am

  29. New Richmond LIb dem MP gets torn apart by radio host (really funny, must listen)

    And all in 4 minutes,class.


    December 3, 2016 at 2:48 am

    • Jeez! Even her ‘press officer’ was torn apart. How much inexperience has she not to be able to answer that old chestnut: “But you haven’t got a clear mandate, you haven’t got more then 50% of the vote”. Simple! That’s the way the first-past-the-post system works. Did Cameron have a clear mandate? On 20% of the votes casts? Does Prime Minister -elect Theresa May even have a mandate. Since when did you have to have more than 50% of the votes cast to become elected as an MP, to form a government? We don’t have proportional representation in the UK we have first-past-the-post. Or look across the pond where Clinton had a greater share of the popular vote, but still lost to Clinton who has a ‘clear mandate’. Why couldn’t she just trot that out. Hartley-Brewer of course already knows the answer and was just talking the piss though. She could alternatively have done a George Galloway and said: “What a preposterous first question. What a silly person you are.” How does someone as thick as that get a job as an MP – seriously!

      Talk Shit

      December 3, 2016 at 4:59 pm

      • Prime Minister UNelected Theresa May

        Talk Shit

        December 3, 2016 at 5:01 pm

      • Clinton lost to TRUMP

        Talk Shit

        December 3, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    • Ms Olney needs to take some lessons from the master George Galloway. Galloway owns Anna Botox in this clip:

      Talk Shit

      December 3, 2016 at 5:13 pm

  30. ‘Heartless’ DWP axe blind man’s benefits – because he couldn’t read a letter


    A DWP spokesman defended the move, saying Work Capability Assessments ensure people weren’t “written off”.


    So disengaged is DWP, they dont even seek to choose there words carefully OR DID THEY ?

    Half a head, no legs and now a blind man. Infact if DWP hadn’t already sanctioned a dead person you all know what i would have said next. Putting aside the OFFENSIVE COMMENT THEY MADE IN THIS CASE, everything DWP say they standby just went down the toilet as they have without doubt PROVED, NO CLAIMANT has,

    Individual support for there individual needs,
    considered and fair approach” in the benefits system
    not imposed lightly
    last resort

    ( All comments officially made in the past and still now by DWP spokespersons)




    December 3, 2016 at 10:20 am

  31. 67% of businesses ‘fearful’ of hiring disabled people. hold out for the work and health programme.


    news seeker

    December 3, 2016 at 11:34 am

    • Meanwhile

      UK to make disability a global priority – Priti Patel.

      “I will be working with governments, NGOs, multilaterals, businesses and individuals to ensure that nobody is left behind”.


      news seeker

      December 3, 2016 at 2:40 pm

      • Funny then why Patel voted for and applauded every cut in funding and help to the disabled in her own country then isn’t it?


        December 3, 2016 at 8:50 pm

      • Patel will say anything to get noticed,just look her up

        She should have stayed in her dungeon taking it up the rear by a penis rapped in sandpaper. Sorry but she has a face like she takes something painful from behind.


        December 3, 2016 at 9:40 pm

      • I wouldn’t tough her with yours. Doug. :-;


        December 4, 2016 at 8:52 am

      • Interesting curly how,

        You didn’t say you wouldn’t touch her with yours though. Do you fancy her then curly ?


        December 4, 2016 at 11:30 am

  32. Michigan welfare drug screening program nets zero hits
    (echo, echo, echo)


    Welfare reform based on IDS think tank OR JUST DOING WHAT THE AMERICANS HAD DONE FIRST.

    IDS’s think thank, Centre for Social Justice like his CV are nothing but fraudsters stealing american policies and palming them of as there own.

    (For the record the proposal for drug and alcohol testing prior to benefits, an already established idea in america was later dropped in the UK as a requirement to receiving benefits)

    BUT, pick any of the so called reforms and you will find the exact same thing had already been done in America.


    December 3, 2016 at 11:50 am

    • DNA testing at work: One company’s unusual policy.

      The travel company Momondo Group decided to get its top management team to take DNA tests, as an experiment in improving the company’s workplace culture.

      Deemed a success, they have started offering it to all staff.


      news seeker

      December 3, 2016 at 4:36 pm

      • Reminds me of the film GATTACA in which DNA determines each person’s fate and future blindly, no matter what.


        December 3, 2016 at 8:53 pm

      • Hmmm, anyone thinking of remainers and not leaving the EU here ?

        This is a very expensive way of finding out your of Celtic origins and our species originated from the east. How dumb was the owner of the company to full for this one and his managers no clever at picking up on this.

        Funny as fcuk, great post, dumb company.


        December 3, 2016 at 9:31 pm

  33. Theresa May’s welfare spending policy is historically obsolete, say academics


    BUT its not there created reform is it!



    December 3, 2016 at 12:00 pm

  34. Fake news detector plug-in developed


    So a fake piece of software that is nothing but a site blocker you can just put literally ANY website URL into to stop it showing up on your searches hits the town.

    Welcome to censorship now governments, yes yours seeks to control what you read and what you here.


    December 3, 2016 at 12:12 pm


    Phone encryption: Police ‘mug’ suspect to get data




    December 3, 2016 at 12:15 pm



    Now for all those “if you have nothing to hide PC crowd” it appears you dont have to actually carry out a crime to be punished for it, infact visiting a website or even owning the wrong book can hang you.
    If we take Thomas Mair as a recent example (will make sense as we go along), prosecution and media alike couldn’t stress enough the books and internet history he had.

    WHAT many people dont know is, that history came directly from his local library which if again you didn’t know, uses the local councils server and ISP provider to access the internet.



    Now Hitler most certainly wasn’t the first, even the last to do this BUT THE POINT IS OUR GOVERNMENT, OUR ENFORCEMENT SERVICES, EVEN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM are doing exactly what Hitler did YET WILL THROW STONES at Thomas Mair for example over other practices committed by the very same person.



    December 3, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    • The UK is even worse:

      Two teenagers who used Facebook to try to start a riot in a Scottish city have been locked up for three years each.

      Shawn Divin, 16, and Jordan McGinley, 18, were administrators of a Facebook page called “Riot in the toon” which urged people to “kill some daftys”.



      December 3, 2016 at 2:00 pm

      • “two Englishmen who were given four-year terms for a similar offence.

        Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, and Jordan Blackshaw, 21, were jailed for four years over a Facebook riot page – with appeals against their sentences rejected.”

        Four years in the slammer because of a stupid Facebook post!?


        December 3, 2016 at 2:03 pm

  37. news seeker

    December 3, 2016 at 1:26 pm

  38. DWP issued guidance that made suicides more likely, then ‘lied’ to cover its tracks.

    The government has secretly made major changes to guidance given to “fitness for work” benefits assessors that has put the lives of thousands of disabled claimants at risk… and then “lied” about what it had done.

    The changes appear to show ministers made a calculation last year that it was worth risking the loss of some lives in order to cut benefits spending and force more disabled people into their discredited back-to-work programmes.

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) could now face legal action over its decision to bring in the changes without seeking approval from parliament.

    The changes were exposed after DWP released figures last month showing the proportion of claimants placed in the support group of employment and support allowance (ESA) – and therefore not forced to take part in work-related activity – plummeted by 42 per cent between November 2015 and February 2016.

    DWP has claimed the drop was due to a falling backlog in dealing with new ESA claims through the work capability assessment (WCA) system.

    But an archived copy of the version of DWP’s Work Capability Assessment Handbook that was published in February 2015 – which DWP now appears to have removed from its website – proves that key guidance has been significantly altered at some point in the last 18 months.

    These changes mean that assessors are far less likely to place a claimant with a mental health condition in the ESA support group because of the risk to their health if forced into work-related activity.

    In February 2015, the handbook included six indicators of “substantial risk”, which were marked “D” for “definitive” – including someone who was currently sectioned, who had active thoughts of suicide, or had had a documented episode of self-harm requiring medical attention in the last 12 months – to show that that person should be placed in the support group.

    But the latest edition of the guidance says only that such indicators “might” give rise to a substantial risk in “exceptional circumstances”.

    Although the latest version of the handbook was only produced in draft form in February this year, and its final version published in July, a former assessor has confirmed to Disability News Service (DNS) that assessors receive regular updates to guidance from DWP, so the new guidance on “substantial risk” could have been sent out at any time from early 2015 onwards.

    The latest edition of the handbook also tells assessors that they should consider factors that might “mitigate” the chance that someone could harm themselves or others, including “the benefits of employment weighed against any potential risk”.

    Because the changes were carried out through updated guidance – rather than changes to legislation or regulations – DWP did not seek the approval of parliament for the alterations.

    The guidance in the WCA handbook explains to assessors how they should translate ESA regulations 29 and 35, which concern whether decisions to find someone fit for work or able to carry out work-related activity would cause a substantial risk of harm.

    In April, DNS obtained a DWP document through a freedom of information request which suggested amending or removing regulations 29 and 35, and said that such a move would provide substantial savings.

    But the memo – drawn up before the 2015 election, and to be used if the Conservatives triumphed at the polls – warned that previous attempts to remove the regulations had been defeated in the courts, and that any changes in this area “carry a significant handling and delivery risk” because they would be “perceived as restricting application of the safeguards and may be considered discriminatory”.

    DWP’s press office said in April that these “speculative policy formulations” were drafted by staff before the last election and “have not been raised, do not represent government policy and have never been sent to ministers”.

    But comparing the latest handbook with the version issued before the 2015 election shows the regulations have been amended, although by changing the guidance rather than the rules themselves.

    John McArdle, co-founder of the grassroots campaign network Black Triangle, which has played a significant role in raising awareness of regulations 29 and 35 in order to protect thousands of disabled people whose lives would otherwise be at risk, said: “We are currently consulting with lawyers to look at the legality of the guidance.

    “It would appear to us that the guidance they have issued is in breach of the legislation.”

    He said DWP’s actions showed its “blatant dishonesty” and that it “lied” when it said it had not amended regulations 29 and 35.

    Rick Burgess, of Manchester Disabled People Against Cuts, said the changes made to the guidance would “mean more suicides being completed by disabled people placed under unendurable stress by the assessment regime”.

    He said: “The message to us from the DWP is, ‘We want you dead. If you say you are suicidal we will only believe you once you have killed yourself.’

    “This is democide (the deliberate causing of harm or death to citizens by their government).

    “Iain Duncan Smith was an extreme persecutor of disabled people. If Damian Green [the current work and pensions secretary]continues these measures, he will inherit that title.”

    He added: “[Disabled actor and activist] Liz Carr was right to invoke Nazi comparisons recently.

    “This is now the most concerted attack on disabled people in western Europe since Germany’s Chancellor Hitler signed the executive order Aktion T4 in 1939 to murder disabled people the state judged ‘unworthy of life’.”

    A DWP spokeswoman said the new guidance had been developed in conjunction with Maximus, the discredited US outsourcing giant that took over provision of WCAs in March 2015.

    She refused to confirm that the guidance had now made it harder for claimants to be placed in the ESA support group, but said: “The guidance has consistently made clear that if there is a substantial risk to a claimant’s mental health by being placed in the work-related activity group, they should be placed in the support group.”

    Asked if the changes to guidance were made to put into effect the policy proposal laid out in the document released through the freedom of information request, she said: “The freedom of information response showed speculative policy formulations [that]were drafted by staff before the last election in case they were requested by a new government.

    “They have not been raised, do not represent government policy and have never been sent to ministers.”

    Asked if DWP believed that the changes to the guidance would mean more claimants would suffer harm, including death, and if DWP believed this was a price worth paying for finding more people fit for work and fewer people eligible to be placed in the ESA support group, she said: “No.”

    Asked how DWP justified the changes, she said: “The department keeps its guidance to both healthcare professionals and departmental decision-makers under regular review.

    “We introduced new guidance for healthcare professionals on the use of regulation 35 which explains the support the department gives to claimants placed in the work-related activity group.”

    And asked how DWP justified asking assessors to decide if there were factors that would “mitigate the risk” of someone taking their own life if they were found fit for work, including “the benefits of employment weighed against any potential risks”, she said: “Healthcare professionals who carry out the WCA are trained in all aspects of their role including the application of risk.

    “They are also issued with written guidance on all aspects of the WCA including the application of risk.”



    December 3, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    • De-population

      news seeker

      December 3, 2016 at 3:42 pm


      Is how the health and safety act call it superted which means,


      So government are no strangers to putting cash before safety.


      December 3, 2016 at 5:53 pm

  39. Blind man has benefits axed after not replying to DWP letter that he couldn’t read

    Alan Moody, 60, could not read the letter sent to him by the Department for Work and Pensions summoning him for a ‘work capability assessment’


    Then they state.

    A DWP spokesman said that ‘work capability assessments’ such as the one Mr Moody was summoned to were vital to ensure people weren’t “written off”.


    December 3, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    • Already done that one this morning Ken.

      Did you like what the spokesperson said as i wonder if there pie hole realized it.


      December 3, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    • Did the letter say at the bottom. Available in large print, braille etc?


      December 4, 2016 at 10:59 am

      • It usually says that at the bottom of DWP bumf in really, really small print. Like you are blind how can you read it in the first place. And the reason the DWP use that funny coloured paper that nobody else uses is that so that claimants with some sort of eyesight defect don’t have the excuse of not being able to read it.

        My Opic

        December 4, 2016 at 11:07 am

      • “Available in large print, braille” etc – there is NO excuse!

        My Opic

        December 4, 2016 at 11:08 am

      • The DWP like to cover all bases. Like those IADs (Internet Access Devices) in jobcentre: As a cock roach said: “There will be NO excuse”.

        My Opic

        December 4, 2016 at 11:10 am

      • “When you come back in next time there will be BIG changes. There will be NO excuse.”

        My Opic

        December 4, 2016 at 11:13 am

      • BIG changes: An IAD in the corner 😀

        My Opic

        December 4, 2016 at 11:14 am

      • If they demand that you use a Jobcentre IAD unless you live close by they Jobcentre must pay bus/train/taxi fare – cheapest form of transport to the Jobcentre – if they command you to attend on any day other than your signing day.


        December 4, 2016 at 11:46 am

      • Opic, he was blind so if thats the tact DWP take, i will be gutted to not be in court if there stupid enough to take it that far.

        Its just another case that will be overturned like the man with half a head but will serve non the less to highlight yet more errors of operation by DWP.

        As for IADs, from what i have seen DWP are asking claimants to sign a document prior to use of system and on it, it states they will take no legal responsibility to the lose of your personal data, a requisite under law and thus requiring legal consent. So as long as the claimant states there happy to use the system BUT will as there lawful right abstain from signing the document they have complied with DWP with regards there request for the said claimant to use the computer.

        DWP,government or anybody under law cannot make someone give there legal consent as it cannot be gained by force,threat or deception which is british law.

        So if DWP want said claimant to use said system then they must do so in a legal manner contravening NO LAW and not just welfare law.

        On top Civil service code dictates a civil servant must obey and enforce the law, a provider of DWP just like us public MUST OBEY THE LAW. And by law it means ALL LAWS.


        December 4, 2016 at 12:06 pm

  40. Apparently anybody on Universal Credit working part-time and experiencing the joys of in-work conditionality will not be able to take a holiday – not even a pert-time holiday – and will be expected to do a full work-search even if they take a holiday! So if you work for 17.5 hours a week – half a week – you’re not entitled to a couple of weeks off for vacation but have to keep actively looking for more work without a break throughout the year.

    What a load of wank.


    December 3, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    • Not really applicable as the chances are your find that extra 5 hours or so before then, well, unless you won the holiday.

      Considering you sign on every 2 weeks your only have to declare a day.

      Oops, did i just out smart DWP again, aren’t i terrible.


      December 3, 2016 at 9:44 pm

      • Extra 14.5 hours a week, Doug! So if you have a fortnight break you’ll be expected to job seek for 29 hours, 14.5 hours every week. How are you supposed to manage that if you go abroad? Or even to another country in th UK?


        December 4, 2016 at 8:49 am

      • I already proved the how long is a piece of string in this topic Curly a while back not only here but in the real world in my area.

        For starters storing/retention,inspection and collation is classed as processing under the law (DPA) so a claimant is full within there rights under said law to control the flow of there personal and or sensitive data SO, can stipulate that DWP can only VIEW (eyes only there and then, not at a later point in time) there work search evidence which currently anyway is exactly what DWP do.

        Now if say when i search, im not directly under your EYES, how do you know when i have searched and if applicable applied. You reply on the data being handed in and viewed. Now only in the case of UJM if an individual is not under investigation for possible fraud can DWP legal or illegally know what is what. BUT all the jobs practically on UJM come from either other websites like ADVIEW for instance or a recruitment agency so a claimant can circumnavigate UJM all together as DWP CANNOT INSIST A CLAIMANT APPLY THROUGH UJM VIA A GATEWAY ACCOUNT,ONLY THAT THEY USE THE SERVICE OF UJM AND SHOULD THEY FIND A SPECIFIC VACANCY APPLY.

        So you can quite easily show you applied for a job on UJM, it may not be the way DWP would like it but none the less is still so.

        We are now left with time so for starters if you didn’t tell DWP you were going on holiday, how would they know unless they were spying on you and if they were WHY. This bump presents a problem for DWP as you just cant spy 24/7, even under the snooper charter, you have to have reasonable grounds and in reasonable grounds DWP cannot justify spying on everyone or one person through there entire claim other wise they have just proved the point the snoopers charter was actually instigate so they could do just that which they swear blind it is not.

        So DWP have to take the evidence on faith and considering most claimants search and when apply anyway, the faith is well placed.

        DWP do not ask claimants for time data logs (claimants couldn’t produce such especially if they dont own the system there using). Further more you will find the same job being advertised every day and often mulitple on a single site and often multiple times on multiple sites. So claimant or DWP couldn’t prove when that job existed or when the claimant saw it and if applicable applied for it hence the cheap trick of handing a claimant a job (stopwatch trick).

        Now do you get it Curly.


        December 4, 2016 at 12:44 pm

      • If you read the Jobcentre sanction guide it is apparent that what the Jobcentre are attempting to do is create an evidentiary trail that a claimant cannot back out of. The guidance reminds cock roaches repeatedly to make sure that all actions are recorded, documents are signed for e.g. “It must be recorded on the claimant history that the cookies factsheet has been issued for evidentiary reasons should it be needed in the event of any sanction determination or subsequent appeal. Failure to do this may affect whether or not a sanction can be imposed in the event of any failure to comply by the claimant.”


        December 4, 2016 at 1:17 pm

      • That is what universal jobmatch does – it creates a an “evidentiary trail” – ‘proof’ via the ‘saved jobs’ that we were ‘notified’ of the vacancy, ‘evidence’ that you ‘failed to apply for said notified vacancy’. It is all there in black and white for the cock roach, the mysterious ‘decision maker’, and for an Appeal tribunal.


        December 4, 2016 at 1:22 pm

      • And that is why is is strongly recommended that claimants don’t use universal jobmatch!


        December 4, 2016 at 1:23 pm

  41. i work 2 hrs a month if that as that is when i sign on 😉


    December 3, 2016 at 10:30 pm

  42. Now when you made your claim for benefits, DWP through your consent became a second party. Now in that agreement you gave them consent to be able to use your data,

    Interesting that Doug.It was the post work programme support “coach” that pointed that out too.


    December 3, 2016 at 11:56 pm

  43. Everything you do on the web is now stored for twelve months by the security services. They can hack into your laptop or phone to see what is on there without any conditions at all. Not only do they not need to convince a judge you are suspected of a crime, they do not need to even pretend to actually suspect you of anything at all. They can just decide to target you and go fishing. The UK has now zero right to online privacy and the most vicious security service powers of any democracy. Indeed when you combine powers with capability (and the security service are recruiting tens of thousands more staff to our stasi state) the UK is now the most authoritarian country in the world. The legislation. passed this week, was framed by Theresa May as Home Secretary and received no significant opposition from the UK’s complicit political class.

    This mass gathering of data is nothing to do with fighting terrorism – being lost in a massive ocean of irrelevant data is actually a major hindrance to fighting terrorism. It is about social control.

    Craig Murray

    December 4, 2016 at 12:57 am

    • all the free movie sites still work tho and they have been trying to shut them down for years and they still work as they just change domain name.

      and the kodi boxes are on sale on ebay for like 30 quid so go work that one out. 😉


      December 4, 2016 at 2:08 am

    • And it’s all completely meaningless if they can’t match browsing histories with individual users. The powers that be will know what browsing is being done using IP addresses but if the users are not associated with those IPs they themselves cannot be identified.


      December 4, 2016 at 8:44 am

      • But that is the whole point. It has always been the case they could tell from the server logs of a website that IP address x.x.x.x. visited site x at specific data and time. So say you posted something to say Facebook that the authorities took exception to. They would then go to the ISP who was designated the IP address who would then reveal the account details of the subscriber who the IP address was allocated to at the specific date and time. Gotcha! Having a log of IP addresses assigned and a log of internet activity are not the same thing.


        December 4, 2016 at 9:35 am

      • But if you are not a subscriber to the service, e.g., you get online using unregistered SIMs in dongles or hop onto a free Wi-Fi hotspot in a pub/cafe/unsecured router, the IP address you use will have no direct connection to you as a user. All the audit trail will show is that some unknown person visited such and such a website using a SIM with no associated name or address or by Wi-Fi belonging to somebody else. The means of access will be recorded but the identity of the person taking advantage of that access will remain unknown.


        December 4, 2016 at 9:58 am

      • That’s right. Same as using a payphone to make a call.

        Two Fish

        December 4, 2016 at 10:01 am

      • There is a Philip K. Dick novel in which the death penalty is the punishment for internet ‘piracy’. ISPs will begin sending out ‘warning letters’ to file-sharers from the beginning of 2017. It is indeed a slippery road we are heading down!

        Blade Runner

        December 4, 2016 at 10:17 am

      • But using unregistered SIMs in dongles from internet cafes is not always going to be convenient, internet cafe closed, unable to access specific services, insecure, websites/services blocked etc. In the same way a payphone is not always convenient. And even then you would undoubtedly have been captured on CCTV. Unregistered SIMS in dongles are usually an addendum to internet access. People also get lazy, make mistakes, you only need to ‘slip up’ once within a year of data logging. It is the data that the Government is interested in is the data that is most likely to be captured: You could be looking at kitten pictures in the internet cafe but running your ebay/amazon business from home on a registered connection.


        December 4, 2016 at 10:26 am

      • File sharers should try using a free dynamic DNS service as a work around.

        Two Fish

        December 4, 2016 at 10:31 am

      • And in a lot of countries you can’t buy unregistered SIM/phones, your ID is recorded and put on a database. And even so the data on an unregistered phone is still logged. And who you connect with and who you connect to, and who you give your number to will still lead to your identity. Unless you just you a ‘burner’ phone – one time use and torch it!


        December 4, 2016 at 10:34 am

      • And who you connect with and who connects with you. It is like when you are pulled over by the filth they always ask for a ‘contact number’, so they can add it to their database.


        December 4, 2016 at 10:35 am

      • It’s not always convenient to remain anonymous, true, but it is possible as far as the Snooper’s Charter is concerned. Besides, in reality if loads of ridiculous things started happening based on data logging, e.g., benefit claimants sanctioned for not actively job seeking or whatever, there would be hell to pay for the government in the media and make them look ridiculous since the whole thrust of the legislation is supposed to be about combating terrorism and crime.


        December 4, 2016 at 10:38 am

      • In some countries it is illegal for individuals to use encrypted connections. The punishment is serious jail time – or worse. The UK government could easily do the same thing, May-be it is the next step.


        December 4, 2016 at 10:40 am

      • Besides the ‘authorities’ know who is using encrypted connections, privacy ‘tools’ etc. There is no way you can hide that. And probably all on some sort of ‘list’.


        December 4, 2016 at 10:42 am

      • But internet records don’t have to be revealed as the root cause of an investigation by the DWP or whoever. They could provide a ‘lead’ and a ‘parallel investigation’ began.


        December 4, 2016 at 10:47 am

      • Intrusive Government surveillance on the populace as a whole has got absolutely nothing to do with ‘combating terrorism’, none whatsoever!


        December 4, 2016 at 10:49 am

      • “if loads of ridiculous things started happening based on data logging” – nothing ridiculous has to happen though. Knowledge is power: the more you(the DWP) know about a person (claimant) their vulnerabilities, ‘weak spots’, Achilles heel, fears, secrets, innermost thoughts/desires … the easier it is to target, abuse, manipulate, and control them. Like Room 101 in George Orwell’s 1984


        December 4, 2016 at 10:56 am

      • “hell to pay for the government in the media” nothing would happen *shrugs shoulders*: “Oh, look there is another lazy scrounger being sanctioned because their internet logs revealed they hadn’t logged onto universal jobmatch on Christmas day 😀 , deserve all they get the lazy fuckers 😀 “


        December 4, 2016 at 11:01 am

      • @ Scarlet

        When I mentioned the DWP I meant use a browsing history to sanction somebody based on their claimant commitment. The DWP absolutely will not be cross-checking to see in Universal Credit claimants spent 35 hours a week actively seeking work or similar. (Universal Credit can’t even pay entitlements correctly to recipients once a month let alone monitor what every claimant gets up to every moment they are online.) Scrutiny carried on at that level of intrusion would make the government look as if it was abusing its powers.

        “I’m sorry but you’ve got a four week sanction because you spent 35 minutes shopping on Amazon and three hours looking at news and blogs when you claimed to be work searching.”



        December 4, 2016 at 11:42 am

      • The parts of the DWP specifically mentioned in Schedule 4 of the Snooper’s Charter are ‘Fraud and Error’ and the ‘Child Support Group’. Schedule 4 also states that HMRC/DWP have access to ‘ALL’ data as opposed to ‘entity’ data (relating to an individual). i.e. HMRC/DWP can do ‘data matching’ on everybody’s internet records. If you are working or not they will be trawling for ‘undisclosed’ ebay/amazon trading accounts, undisclosed earning, ‘hidden’ bank accounts etc.

        Theresa M

        December 4, 2016 at 12:32 pm

      • You can’t ban encryption because secure transactions demand it and even Theresa May wouldn’t want all online business to fold overnight. Without encryption there could be no online banking, no online shopping, and Universal Credit would be impossible too… the last possibility being a good thing in my opinion.


        December 4, 2016 at 12:46 pm

      • @ Tolstrup “In some countries it is illegal for individuals to use encrypted connections.” Corporations are still allowed to use encrypted connections. By individuals they mean Joe and Josephine Public and by ‘encrypted’ they mean privacy ‘tools’.


        December 4, 2016 at 1:02 pm

      • Tolstrup “In some countries it is illegal for individuals to use encrypted connections.” Corporations are still allowed to use encrypted connections. By individuals they mean Joe and Josephine Public, and by ‘encrypted’ they mean privacy ‘tools’


        December 4, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    • Internet access will inevitably cost a lot more as well as provider companies have to jack up their prices to pay for equipment and staff to pay for this surveillance.


      December 4, 2016 at 8:57 am

      • Internet subscribers are already paying for their own surveillance. And the reason the UKs internet is so deathly so and basically crap is that the network is weighed down with filters, ‘black-boxes’, logging recorders…. It is like when their is an ‘outage’, it probably means that the IPS has to take the internet ‘offline’ to install yet another ‘black box’ or surveillance measure, and then tell the subscribers that their was a ‘fire at the exchange’.


        December 4, 2016 at 9:43 am

    • Linux is an open source operating system which you can download, for free, from countries which do no allow hacking or tampering. It is extremely secure and very difficult, if not impossible, to hack externally by the security services or others. (Unless users download dodgy software from unofficial repositories.) Android is based on the Linux kernel and it will be interesting to see what Google’s attitude is towards the Snooper’s Charter. I have no doubt given that Windows is used by the British government everywhere, that Microsoft will happily roll over and allow the government access to Windows machines covertly; all they need to do is release an update or two on the quiet to permit this kind of intrusion. As is all the later versions of Windows snoop and gather huge amounts of data which gets relayed back to Microsoft: If you still run Windows install an application like Glasswire and you will be surprised to see how much of you bandwidth is being used my Microsoft services for no obvious purpose. If you need Windows you can install Linux alongside Windows and use a boot-loader to choose between operating systems, so if you need Windows to run certain software you can keep it and use Linux when you go on the internet. My bet would be that once you start using Linux you will use it more and more and Windows less and less.

      Use Linux as an operating system: Thunderbird as an email client: Firefox or Opera as a browser.

      These are least likely to be hacked or tampered with if you get them direct from the open source community and the hardest to modify or fiddle with once installed and being used by individuals. Not 100% watertight but better and safer than Microsoft or Apple.


      December 4, 2016 at 9:16 am

      • Linux and other free operating systems will not install on every computer.

        news seeker

        December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm

      • Well that’s true. Although Linux will install on most computers unless they are very new or have unusual integrated hardware. I couldn’t install Linux on an old Gateway PC for example. New booting methods like UEFI Secure Boot and Intel’s Boot Guard also cause problems but can be disabled. Besides, how much is a cheap second-hand laptop or desktop these days?


        December 4, 2016 at 3:32 pm

      • Oh! And you can always run Linux on pretty much any computer inside a VMWare or Open Box virtual machine.


        December 4, 2016 at 3:37 pm

  44. @Scarlet and Tolstrup. Don’t forget that your Mobile Phone can leave a Signal Trace or upto 10 days. The companies can trace where you have been. They could be required to pass this on


    December 4, 2016 at 12:29 pm

  45. Why would they? Unless you’ve committed a crime or were suspected of planning to commit one. As far as I know that isn’t part of the Snooper’s Charter anyway and so wouldn’t be something that happens automatically and routinely.


    December 4, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    • I was under the impreddion that what was said was that they would be required to give the when and where but not who whonm ?


      December 4, 2016 at 1:10 pm

      • The digital where, when and whom (in the sense of phone numbers and IP addresses) but not the geographic where or personal whom unless specifically needed, which would then require co-operation from ISPs to cross-reference phone number/IP with customer names and addresses. If the same user repeatedly seems to be visiting flagged websites, over and over, he/she will probably attract the attention of the powers that be but most users won’t; nobody really give a shit how many times people look at commercial sites such as Amazon or EBay or Gumtree. What is daft is that, just like p2p file sharing, it will be naive guileless people who get caught out and embarrassed while the real terrorists and/or criminals who have the knowledge and means to circumvent surveillance will carry on regardless.

        Apple have said that they will resist this legislation, as they have done with similar laws in America, and Microsoft have stated that if Live accounts appear to be being hacked by the security forces they will inform their users of this likelihood. I expect ISPs will rail as well. Talk Talk has said that it intend to drag its feet. Other ISPs will too as people transfer their accounts from one provider to another that looks more private, braver and benign.

        There is one awful spin off commercially. British hardware and software companies will find it much harder to export their wares from a country where spy hardware/software is built into devices/applications by order of any national government. Foreign businesses and visitors will not be pleased to have to use networks scrutinised by the security forces. The whole thing will have a profound chilling effect on the potential success of god knows how many companies particularly when the rumour mill starts turning. Already the whisper is that British Telecom intends to build “back doors” into its routers, phones and new equipment and BT has many tentacles to spread infection, e.g., it owns mobile operator EE and budget ISP PlusNet.

        The harm this pile of shit will do to technology businesses in particular in the UK is incalculable.


        December 4, 2016 at 1:57 pm

      • Even library books are ‘flagged’ 😉

        J Edgar Hoover

        December 6, 2016 at 3:39 pm

      • BT (British Telecom) has always been an still is an arm of the State – a State spy. BT will have already been recording their customers data for like ever…

        J Edgar Hoover

        December 6, 2016 at 3:43 pm

      • 😀


        December 6, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    • There’s so much going through peoples minds on this and why we have all the sorts of posts above not just here but everywhere.

      Don’t any of you see the cat and mouse of this issue especially if we consider storing mass surveillance data and using it all in real time currently. As for data sharing its out of fashion as why download when you can just watch it on line. Its like do people use off the shelf data disks (not HDD) anymore.

      Remember you can purchase and or build a system without proof currently. So all data shows unless your nabbing that guy there and then is that something ended up there or came from there, it does not prove you the owner actually did it yourself so at most if we make law crooked means the charge can only be conspire,aid knowing or unknowing. Owning a PC or smart device is not like owning a car and even then second hand wise presents problems even if just in the beginning interim.

      If we say that governments/agencies could do everything, most internet users would be before a judge whether they knew they were doing something or not. Current law dictates your banned from further more using said devices for a period of time. This would screw the internet as business wouldn’t have people to trade to as most rely on the internet as shops close in buckets loads while being replaced with what i term cheap shops. Further more government would lose the ability to track you,profile you and all the government online services would be somewhat redundant as far to many would be off grid as its known.

      So what people imagine and what will happen will be interesting to see as there will be more than enough red faces to go around be they government,business or public as this all unfolds in time.

      The variables are vast so do what ever it is you think and let the other person do what they think is the thing to do as there going to do that anyway as trust online is diminishing out side of subscribed content and even then what with propaganda that too is suffering.


      December 4, 2016 at 1:34 pm

      • Not everyone wants to ‘stream’ films on their laptop or smartphones screen. Besides, it will ruin your eyesight. They want to download the file to a USB stick and plug it into their TV’s media player. Plus it is easier to stop and start if you have the file

        Square Eyes

        December 4, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      • Square eyes

        I didn’t say everyone had stopped, just most people and if you know your sites, there’s plenty of decent online players displaying HD or near HD quality. Before you ask, no i dont name them as you never know whose paying attention so go hunt as the game is very much wackamole.

        HD is just a higher resolution than standard resolution like when it becomes mainstream 4k is to HD. Adding compression that is all it is. Yes there are bad quality videos but videos aren’t what all people are interested in like audio and text.

        Films are pretty crap these days (just my opinion) and like games people are actually turning to the indie market to get away from the stale platform feed to us. There often crowd funded meaning you get to watch them for free often or at leas for the foreseeable future. These indie material are getting better and better content as time goes on and will i suspect deal a serious dent to the commercial market. Also if we are seeing exclusive content and web stories so its all changing. The indie music is already as good as produced mainstream music and indie games are very well received by the public and are either free or a lot cheaper than mainstream game companies.

        So if we take your case for example and examine the traffic of users, online watching content has a much larger count of figures to downloading illegal content so the people who do it will look to cater for the majority as like in the physical world, business is business and so you go where it is.

        Changing times my friend so we change with it or we simply get left behind.


        December 4, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    • If you truly want to defeat internet surveillance and turn the ‘Snooper’s Charter’ to dust you could always do as ‘doug’ suggested and use ‘Incognito’ mode in Google Chrome. According too ‘doug’ this means that nobody, not the the spy agencies can see what you are doing online.


      December 4, 2016 at 4:20 pm

      • Dear surfer or should i say one of my many trolls.

        Show the viewers via a link where i said that so they can also see the context in which it was said and when as the net has not always been a spy hole for governments and corporations. We can also examine the tag as ive only had 2 so will know instantly if you have posted something in my name.

        Oh sorry, if you could be so kind.


        December 4, 2016 at 4:30 pm

      • We use internet explorer in ‘private’ mode – seems to do the trick 🙂 Try getting past that you government spooks 😀

        The Silver Surfers

        December 6, 2016 at 11:40 pm

  46. if you get one of these boxes it has all the free movie site add ons already installed on it as the add ons scan all the film tv sites for the links without the hassle of all the adds and virus pop up screens, even my mom has one 😉



    December 4, 2016 at 4:11 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: