Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

McVey calls ‘rape clause’ an ‘opportunity’ for victims.

with 73 comments

Image result for sack esther mcvey

 

It is the opinion of many people, including this Blog, that Esther McVey is unsuited for the post of Work and Pensions Secretary.

That is putting things mildly.

Nicola Sturgeon blasts ‘out of touch’ Esther McVey over Tory rape clause claims.

Speaking after her speech at the STUC annual congress, Nicola Sturgeon said: “To me that just illustrates how out of touch Esther McVey and the Tory government are on these really sensitive issues of social security policy.

“I think most people think the rape clause is just abhorrent – the very notion of asking a woman or expecting a woman to prove she has been raped in order to access benefits for her children, no woman should even have to contemplate that, so to try to justify that by saying that it offers some benefits, I think, adds insult to injury.”

Labour said McVey’s presentation of the rape clause was “skin crawling”, the Lib Dems said it was “deluded” and the Greens said she tried to “defend the indefensible”.

As the latest scandal at her behaviour broke out she has made no public apology, no doubt finding more time for such pressing issues as this:

This is the scandal:

McVey calls ‘rape clause’ an ‘opportunity’ for victims.

Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey has been criticised for describing the so-called “rape clause” as an opportunity for victims to get help.

The minister was giving evidence to the social security committee at Holyrood.

She told MSPs that sexual assault victims having to give DWP staff details of their ordeal was offering “potentially double support”.

The session was disrupted twice by heckling from members of the public.

Ms McVey was invited to the hearing to discuss the universal credit policy and the controversial “rape clause” changes to child tax credits.

Reforms of the welfare system, which came into force last April, mean child tax credits are now capped at two children.

A clause in the new rules means mothers who have a third child as a result of rape can be exempted – but would have to provide evidence to do so.

There has been a political row over the policy, which Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has called “disgusting”.

Tory welfare chief Esther McVey heckled in furious scenes after claiming rape clause ‘supports’ women

One audience member shouted “you can’t get into work if you’re dead” as the Work and Pensions Secretary was grilled in the Scottish Parliament

 

 

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

April 17, 2018 at 10:11 am

73 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on disabledsingleparent.

    mili68

    April 17, 2018 at 10:54 am

  2. McVey is the unacceptable face of modern Conservatism.

    Ironic that she is now MP, for the same constituency, as the loathsome George Osborne.

    Tatton can certainly pick them.

    There’s something very, very wrong with the woman isn’t there?

    Percy S.

    April 17, 2018 at 11:01 am

    • Smoe people like her will say and do anything for the money.

      That’s why she was offered the job.

      whoknew

      April 17, 2018 at 11:10 am

  3. Fester McVile – what she lacks in competence she makes up for in malice.

    trev

    April 17, 2018 at 12:27 pm

  4. Solicitor questions recent fury over so-called ‘rape clause’ in reformed child tax credit legislation

    The author of this article is a solicitor in private practice and due to the nature of this topic has chosen to remain anonymous. Any thoughts, views or opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author.

    The phrase “so-called” is used to describe something that is purported to be something that it is not. One such example is the so-called “rape clause” which relates to the UK government’s reforms to child tax credit legislation. Let us be crystal clear: there is no “rape clause” as such. It’s just a phrase that has been successfully concocted up by some politicians and interest groups to generate some sort of anger, uproar and fury within certain people who are unhappy with the recent changes to the child tax credit system.

    Put simply, what we have is only a clause within legislation – effecting some change to the current system – which has unfortunately been dubbed as the so-called “rape clause” perhaps for reasons mentioned above.

    Just before the Easter weekend, own Scottish parliamentarians were exchanging diatribes with one another about it with our own First Minister Nicola Sturgeon going so far as to call it “disgusting”. Let’s just take a step back from the hyperbolic invectives being thrown around about this so-called “rape clause” and try to have a bit of perspective here.

    The UK government has changed the child tax credit system so that, as a general rule, a claim can only be made for up to two children. That seems like a reasonable enough change.

    Quite understandably, some folk will be less than pleased at losing out on claiming taxpayer money to financially help towards supporting their additional children, but hey ho, that’s just the way it goes sometimes when the government is trying to reduce its benefit burden. Perhaps we should be grateful that we do have a government which extends a financial benefit to eligible families and offers support for up to two children instead of complaining it’s not enough – but that’s a conversation for another day.

    So, as a general rule a claim can be made for up to two children. Reasonable enough. Understandably, the new changes account for exceptions to this general rule – that seems entirely reasonable too. One such exception – of perhaps the many exceptions which might exist – would be for mothers who have a third (or more) child who is conceived as a result of a rape. Ergo, this now results in it being dubbed the “rape clause” and what follows is a bandwagon of some politicians and interest groups up in arms about it – quite literally taking to the streets with rallying cries – and hurling hyperboles and attention-grabbing buzzwords such as “barbaric”, “vile” and “anti-women”.

    Hold on just a second, did we not just establish the very basic and simple fact that a woman can – without any shadow of a doubt – claim taxpayer money for a third (or more) child conceived as a result of a rape? What exactly is so dreadful, barbaric, vile or anti-woman about that? I guess it has become a fashionable trend to jump on the hyperbole train when it comes to anything which might be perceived as infringing on a woman’s gender-specific rights and entitlements. Heaven forbid.

    A child conceived as a result of a rape would certainly be a very exceptional circumstance. After all, rapes aren’t the norm, are they? Children aren’t usually conceived as a result of rapes, are they? Of course not and it would be wrong to try and associate it with anything other than an exceptional circumstance.

    Fundamentally and reassuringly, the child tax credit will be available to claim in that exceptional situation and we ought not to detract from that most basic fact no matter what overly-exaggerated language is used to undermine it.

    So what exactly is all the fuss about?

    Well, it’s because if a woman is going to claim for child tax credit for an additional child which is (in an unlikely event) conceived as a result of rape then she has to disclose that exceptional circumstance in the section of the form which deals with exceptional circumstances and it runs to several pages. That’s what the fuss is really about. Having to disclose that exceptional circumstance under the exceptional circumstances section in the claim form. Doesn’t that seem reasonable enough to you? Nicola Sturgeon calls it “disgusting” and there are many others keen to launch into a barrage of criticism about it – I wonder what exactly they would be proposing in the alternative?

    It would seem that what they want in the alternative is for women to be given an automatic entitlement to child tax credit and taxpayer money – without form filling or having to disclose an exceptional circumstance – when she claims that a child was conceived as a result of a rape. In other words, once a woman mentions and claims rape, she should automatically be entitled and get the taxpayer money without any checks in place at all.

    We should be under no illusions – that is exactly what they seem to be suggesting in the alternative.

    Those who are expressing fervent fury over the so-called “rape clause” would in the alternative, inadvertently be looking to implement a system which would inevitably (and perhaps unintentionally) incentivise claiming rape resulting in a child – because it would secure an automatic entitlement to guaranteed taxpayer money.

    In the absence of being required to declare and disclose an exceptional circumstance – such as having a child as a result of a rape – and providing relevant details in the claim form, there would be absolutely nothing in place to prevent a false or fraudulent claim of rape if all a woman had to do was tick a box to state that she had a child as a result of a rape.

    We’ve all heard that old pastime story about the boy who cried wolf – you know, the one about the boy who cried out “wolf!” in a seemingly real attempt to round up people to come to his aid only for them to hurry to his side and find out there was no wolf and that he had lied – made it up, fooled them and created a falsehood for his own personal gain and gratification. Gender is irrelevant when it comes to telling a lie for personal gain and we should not dismiss the very real fact that the parable of this pastime story could just as easily apply in the context of a woman claiming rape in furtherance of financial gain.

    If the so-called “rape clause” was not firmly in place, any woman could quite literally claim that a child was the result of a rape and then automatically receive a guaranteed entitlement to taxpayer money.

    If the so-called “rape clause” was not firmly in place, it would certainly not be inconceivable for a woman to have a third child (or more) with her husband or partner and then at a later time allege that he raped her – just to secure an automatic and guaranteed entitlement to taxpayer money. That is a very real possibility.

    I should think that Nicola Sturgeon et al would find any of those scenarios “disgusting” but there does not appear to be a single word to be said about those possible scenarios.

    What we seem to have is a case of Nicola Sturgeon and others feeling misplaced disgust and inadvertently calling for alternative measures in which a woman can potentially falsely claim rape and be financially rewarded for it. That is something we ought to be really disgusted about. That is something we ought to stand firmly against and raise appropriate awareness to prevent such a reality from ever becoming a possibility in our society.

    There must be appropriate checks and balances in place which provide robust and adequate protection against false or fraudulent claims. Most importantly, we simply cannot allow for a system which somehow inadvertently ends up financially incentivising a claim of rape – either generally or in respect of claiming taxpayer money.

    Sometimes a bit of perspective is needed instead of fiery and fervent hyperbolic fury over proposed measures which – when we really think about it – are entirely reasonable and necessary.

    On a final point, I would like to mention that if Nicola Sturgeon and others in the Scottish government feel so strongly against the reform to child tax credit, then they have the devolved power and ability to do away with the two children cap altogether (and she has certainly hinted at doing just that), in which case this whole commotion becomes a total non-issue in Scotland.

    https://www.scottishlegal.com/2017/04/19/solicitor-questions-recent-fury-over-so-called-rape-clause-in-reformed-child-tax-credit-legislation/

    Legal Eagle

    April 17, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    • Come off it me old China, no-one had ever told a lie for gain; personal, financial or otherwise, you are ‘avin a laff!

      Fagin

      April 17, 2018 at 6:58 pm

    • Wee Nicola is full o’ shite!

      Jockina Strap

      April 17, 2018 at 7:25 pm

    • Too big a cut ‘n’ paste to wade through. Sorry.

      Percy S.

      April 18, 2018 at 8:57 am

    • Too long and not relevant. The article is about Esther McVey and the infamous “Rape Clause”. I doubt that many will bother with post like this.

      Percy S.

      April 18, 2018 at 8:58 am

    • Not really, Percy, on the contrary the article explains the reasons behind the so-called ‘rape clause’ and why certain safeguards are in place, and where McVey and the Government are coming from. Sometimes you have to make the effort to read more than beyond a ‘sound-bite’ if you want to get to grips with what are serious issues. Serious issues demand serious debate. Nicola Sturgeon is head of a crooked and corrupt political party stacked to the rafters with crooked lawyers and convicted criminals with many of its MPs being brought into disrepute. One of their MPs was even caught lying about what was said in meetings she had with the DWP. Nicola is knowingly being disingenuous on the so-called ‘rape clause’ as she is on so many issues in typical SNP style . Nicola Sturgeon is playing to the public gallery of sound-bites, memes, #hashtags, etc.; which are sadly all symptomatic of our dumbed-down culture.

      Idiocracy

      April 18, 2018 at 9:46 am

    • One of their MPs was even caught lying about what was said in meetings she had with the DWP over the so-called ‘rape clause’.

      Idiocracy

      April 18, 2018 at 9:47 am

    • One of the many lies that Nicola Sturgeon and others trot out about the so-called ‘rape clause is that “rape victims are forced to relive their trauma by filling in an eight-page form”.

      But what they DON’T tell you is that the “eight page” form consists of 6 1/2 pages of ‘explanatory notes’, 1 1/2 pages for the doctor, social worker, other professional to fill in and only half a page which asks the claimant to give basic details.

      You can see for yourself here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621425/ncc1.pdf

      And it is not just the so-called ‘rape clause’; it is an example of how politicians and the media lie to you and pull the wool over your eyes.

      Idiocracy

      April 18, 2018 at 10:00 am

    • A JSA claim form runs to 42 pages like, not including the explanatory notes like.

      Norfolk

      April 18, 2018 at 3:11 pm

  5. Opinion: Victims and justice

    Dr Stuart Waiton

    Dr Stuart Waiton, a senior lecturer in criminology at Abertay University, gives his thoughts on the Goodwillie case.

    The footballer David Goodwillie is no longer simply ‘David Goodwillie’, he is the ‘rape shame footballer David Goodwillie’.

    Goodwillie has signed for Clyde FC resulting in Clyde fans writing letters of outrage to the club and the Scottish National Party MSP, John Mason, announcing that his Christian values means he can no longer attend Clyde games.

    The problem is that Goodwillie has not been found guilty of rape in a criminal court; he has faced no jury. Rather he has been convicted in a civil court, the first case of its kind in Scotland. And so, with the say so of one individual, on the balance of probabilities and with no need for corroborating evidence a man has become a ‘rape shame’, he has been branded a rapist, fined and thrown out onto the streets. No wonder some members of the public have reacted in the way they have.

    Justice has shifted in the last two decades towards a form of ‘victim justice’, where the priority for the criminal justice system has increasingly become one that attempts to engage, empathise with and appease ‘victims’. So one-sided has this process become that we are starting to get senior criminal justice professionals talking about and labelling people as ‘victims’ before anyone has been convicted of an offence. We must not ‘doubly traumatise’ people who have experienced abuse in their life, we are told. But surely, serious abuse, violence or rape must be proven in a criminal court before we start labelling victims and equally, labelling criminals – labelling men, for example, as rapists.

    It is worth bearing in mind that victim justice does not empower ‘victims’, it simply gives more power to the state to criminalise more people.

    A lack of evidence meant that Goodwillie’s case did not go to a criminal court but that didn’t stop the growing victim industry from kicking into gear, with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority awarding the woman in question £11,000 before the civil court case had even taken place. And so the branding of Goodwillie began based on no court appearance: the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority must be held to account over this.

    Self-professed liberals feel morally good when they pronounce about the lack of rape convictions. But as the Goodwillie case demonstrates, all this amounts to is the undermining of justice and due process and the promotion of an emotional form of injustice that is more medieval than modern, more brutal than caring and more reactionary than rational.

    Goodwillie’s metaphorical lynching may destroy his career, which is outrageous in itself but it would come as no surprise if an outraged member of the public took it upon themselves to enact their own form of violent justice against a branded rapist who is walking around free.

    For justice to survive in Scotland the legal profession must take a stand against this use and abuse of civil law.

    http://www.scottishlegal.com/2017/04/18/opinion-victims-and-justice/

    Legal Eagle

    April 17, 2018 at 5:26 pm

  6. It is worth bearing in mind that victim justice does not empower ‘victims’, it simply gives more power to the state to criminalise more people.

    Legal Eagle

    April 17, 2018 at 5:27 pm

  7. superted

    April 17, 2018 at 6:54 pm

    • superted

      April 17, 2018 at 6:55 pm

    • Its like the poll tax back in 1991 when then it said it cost more to collect.Although the amount was the same back then as today people back in 2013 people claimed other benefits which they are entitled but didn’t look into previously all as a result of this tax because it reduced the amount paid.

      Its ended in some cases costing much more as a result of this council tax.It was only the kind DWP employee who explained the situation so its always best check you are claiming 100% of entitlement.

      ken

      April 19, 2018 at 11:20 am

  8. Get a grip ffs sake man. You can basically ignore anything Nicola Sturgeon says. She is a bag of wind and piss!!

    Clannard

    April 17, 2018 at 8:07 pm

    • Aye, her stupid utterances are being quoted on here as if she is the Delphi Oracle lol

      Senga

      April 17, 2018 at 8:10 pm

    • Wee Nicola – the most hated woman is Scotland!

      Senga

      April 17, 2018 at 8:11 pm

    • Wee Nicola – the most hated woman IN Scotland! lol

      Senga

      April 17, 2018 at 8:11 pm

    • Nicola Strugeon is a quisling hell-bent of destroying Scotland. Her policies have crippled social housing; the Scottish NHS is in tatters; there are more homeless living on the streets of Scotland than London or Los Angeles; Scottish roads are strewn with pot-holes, you can’t drive more than 50 yards without a blown suspension and broken steering rack; Scotland has the most dumbed down educational system and the worst academic attainment, worse than the so-called Third World countries. Mouthing out about the so-called ‘rape clause’ is nowt but a distraction. May the Lord have Mercy on the Souls of anyone forced to live in that Police State shit-hole of a country ruled over by Herr Sturgeon.

      Southern Softie

      April 18, 2018 at 10:13 am

    • Nicola Sturgeon isn’t even a woman for crying out loud! S/he is a drag act. ‘Nicola Sturgeon’ is played by one of those guys out of Still Game 😉

      Wee Jimmy Krankie

      April 18, 2018 at 10:16 am

    • And where is wee Nicola’s predecessor, Alex Salmond now? Fronting a show on Putin’s Kremlin propaganda channel RT. Tells you everything you need to know.

      Salmond & Chips

      April 18, 2018 at 3:14 pm

      • Alex Salmond is said to be so vain he drinks his own bathwater.

        Andrew Coates

        April 18, 2018 at 4:00 pm

    • In Scotland you can’t buy anything made from or containing plastic like?

      Sassanach

      April 18, 2018 at 8:08 pm

  9. Too much silly trolling on this thread for me. See you later.

    Percy S.

    April 18, 2018 at 6:44 am

  10. [EXPAND Work Programme Top Tips]

    Fact: Not all ‘work experience’ on the Work Programme is mandatory.

    Fact: The only personal data you need to share with a Work Programme provider (such as A4e) is your referral letter and signing on book.

    Fact: You don’t have to sign any Work Programme provider documents or forms.

    Fact: Your CV is personal data and you don’t have to give them a copy to keep.

    Fact: A written Mandatory Activity Notification must be given if they want to make anything sanctionable or to keep or see personal info they do not already hold.

    Fact: The Job Centre can postpone starting the Work Programme for 90 days if you have a job interview, or are expecting to work soon, or are a survivor of domestic violence. If you are a survivor of domestic violence, you can get this period extended (see point 48 of this guidance).

    Fact: If you are on another Job Centre scheme, more than 6 months pregnant or a survivor of domestic violence you do not have to do the Work Programme (see point 48 of this guidance).

    http://www.boycottworkfare.org/avoid-forced-unpaid-work-know-your-rights/

    Jobseeker Tips

    April 18, 2018 at 9:28 am

  11. Reblogged this on seachranaidhe1.

    seachranaidhe1

    April 18, 2018 at 10:54 am

  12. Our broken benefits system strikes again

    DISABLED people and other vulnerable Highlanders will have to fend for themselves at daunting appeals against benefit cuts after a charity reluctantly decided to step back from providing direct support.

    The Citizens Advice Bureau (Cab) in Inverness and Highland has blamed unprecedented demand for being unable to continue staffing the tribunals.

    https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Our-broken-benefits-system-strikes-again-17042018.htm

    ken

    April 18, 2018 at 12:08 pm

    • Disabled people are just going to have to learn to speak up for themselves then. In any case appeals aren’t daunting. You are supposed to think Tribunals are akin to the Spanish Inquisition. Regular readers of this blog will know that superted defended themselves successfully at Tribunal: “piece of piss pmsl”

      Judge Dredd

      April 18, 2018 at 3:05 pm

      • Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

        Cardinal Ximinez of Spain

        April 18, 2018 at 4:56 pm

    • i was in the tribunal for a total of 9 minutes took longer to wait for the paperwork pmsl 😉

      superted

      April 18, 2018 at 7:22 pm

    • Claimants who ‘defend’ themselves at Tribunal have a 100% success rate. Another thing that greatly increases your chances of success is to appear in person, rather than a ‘paper sift’. If the Tribunal sees a real human being who comes across as credible and reliable you are 100% guaranteed to ‘win’. Superted’s recent Tribunal case illustrates this.

      Novichoc

      April 19, 2018 at 8:44 am

    • And if the DWP doesn’t even bother to turn up it means that they have conceded that they have no case to argue; they have effectively thrown in the towel and conceded defeat.

      Novichoc

      April 19, 2018 at 8:47 am

  13. Andrew Coates

    April 18, 2018 at 4:01 pm

  14. Shock as Child Maintenance included as income

    A DECISION by Cotswold District Council to class child maintenance as income has been criticised by Citizens Advice.

    People who received child maintenance and were not on universal credit had until now been entitled to council tax support, but they will now lose that if they receive child maintenance.

    http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/16167447.Shock_as_Child_Maintenance_included_as_income/

    ken

    April 18, 2018 at 9:37 pm

  15. Universal Credit Delays Forcing Women Back Into Abusive Relationships, Charity Warns

    Delays in Universal Credit payments are forcing some women back into abusive relationships they have fled from, a charity has warned.

    https://leftinsider.uk/2018/04/18/universal-credit-delays-forcing-women-back-into-abusive-relationships-charity-warns/

    ken

    April 18, 2018 at 9:39 pm

  16. Suffolk Banner (held by Ipswich supporter) on the protests yesterday.

    Andrew Coates

    April 19, 2018 at 9:53 am

  17. Anyone know anything about this ???? This message is on my Universal Jobmatch homepage:

    Universal Jobmatch will be replaced by the Find a job service on 14 May 2018.

    Important: If you have an existing Universal Jobmatch account it will not move to the new service.

    Save any information you want to keep, like your CV, cover letters and application history by 17 June 2018.

    jj joop

    April 19, 2018 at 6:38 pm

    • just checked mine and it says nothing about that?

      superted

      April 19, 2018 at 6:51 pm

      • Same here. Perhaps it is going to be rolled out regionally or locally rather than nationally. Easy customise pages if you know a person’s location, which they can work out based on where your Jobcentre is located.

        Percy S.

        April 20, 2018 at 7:02 am

    • Same here. No mention of Find a Job. Must be for the ‘chosen ones’ or summat 😉

      Yorkie Pudding

      April 20, 2018 at 8:32 am

      • You have to sign out to see the message. Doh! 😀

        Yorkie Pudding

        April 20, 2018 at 8:36 am

  18. Yep its here.

    Universal Jobmatch will be replaced by the Find a job service on 14 May 2018.
    important: If you have an existing Universal Jobmatch account it will not move to the new service.
    Save any information you want to keep, like your CV, cover letters and application history by 17 June 2018.

    https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/register.aspx?redirect=http%3a%2f%2fjobsearch.direct.gov.uk%2fhome.aspx

    This is an interesting move after the of turmoil this sites contiues to generate.

    kwn

    April 19, 2018 at 7:16 pm

    • yeah i see it now logged out lol wonder if they will still be able to mandate that you open a account with a job seeker direction.?

      not that you ever had to use it to apply for jobs anyway and just had to check the site according to the claimant commitment.

      does the jcp staff even know yet pmsl 😉

      superted

      April 19, 2018 at 7:25 pm

      • This looks interesting also looks concerning like that kwn.We won’t know until the launch of this service although,will current “ads'” be migrated over and access/monitoring questions need to be asked too.

        ken

        April 19, 2018 at 7:39 pm

      • well on my sars they have been constantly asking for a email address so they could get access to ur account with just this on the new site if there in control of it that is but id always use a different email account to what the dwp has on record to avoid this not that they have mine in the first place.

        and how will this now integrate with uc as ujm was to be used for work search evidence full service ?

        superted

        April 19, 2018 at 8:52 pm

      • Considering the switch is supposed to happen in about a month’s time it’s kind of odd that none of us has had news of this until now. It’ll be nice to see Universal Jobmatch go though. It is the worst job board I have ever seen in my life and only used these days to advertise the worst available vacancies, jobs that pay to little to be worth kicking over to private employment agencies, who charge for their services, to advertises and try to fill, e.g., five hours on the minimum wage doing cleaning work, from 8.00pm to 9.00pm, every weekday.

        Percy S.

        April 20, 2018 at 7:08 am

      • Because a ‘proper’ ‘job-board’ charges a £few hundred to list a vacancy. All the shit movies go straight to DVD, Well, all the shit jobs go straight to universal jobmatch 🙂

        Q Tarantino

        April 20, 2018 at 9:48 pm

    • Summat to do with the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) coming into force? 😉

      Doug's Old Nan

      April 20, 2018 at 7:07 pm

      • i was just thinking that as well lol 😉

        superted

        April 20, 2018 at 7:15 pm

      • Yep. Seems like ujm is NOT compatible with the GDPR e.g. DWP accessing your account.

        Jobpoint (remember us?)

        April 20, 2018 at 7:21 pm

      • Plus it seems like a bit of a rush job. No ‘beta’ testing unlike ujm. How long as ujm in ‘beta’ for? And it still seems to be in ‘beta’.

        Jobpoint (remember us?)

        April 20, 2018 at 7:22 pm

      • Something positive then? Wonder how the GDPR will go down with the ‘providers’ 😉

        Jobpoint (remember us?)

        April 20, 2018 at 7:25 pm

      • Great minds think alike ted 😉

        Doug's Old Nan

        April 20, 2018 at 7:27 pm

      • well they can remove ujm from my claimant commitment as now they got no choice and i doubt they have a job seekers direction to sign up to the new site either because of the new gdpr haha 😉

        superted

        April 20, 2018 at 8:52 pm

    • Change to Universal Jobmatch
      Please see below Notification of Change, providing further details for the new system called ‘Find a Job’, which goes live on 14th May 2018. This will replace the current Universal Jobmatch system, which will be closed down on the 18th June 2018.

      What is the change:

      DWP are Introducing a new service to replace Universal Jobmatch that:

      No longer uses the Government Gateway system to log in
      Is a simpler and more streamlined service for users
      Only has employer and jobseeker access
      The new service will be called Find a job
      Why is the change being introduced:

      The Universal Jobmatch contract with Monster Worldwide Ltd. is expiring. A new provider has been appointed and the new system will be available for use from May 14th 2018.

      Impact on Claimant / Customer Journey:

      The system is simple and more streamlined making it easier for claimants and employers to use. It no longer requires users to use Government Gateway to log in, instead using a simple email and login process.

      The system only has employer and jobseeker access. DWP colleagues will not have access to view jobseeker accounts, CVs or activity/application history or be able to upload adverts for employers. The new system will automatically record a jobseekers activity and application history which jobseekers may show to their work coach.

      https://ways2work.org.uk/2018/04/20/change-to-universal-jobmatch/

      Jobppint (remember us?)

      April 20, 2018 at 7:13 pm

  19. well on my sars they have been constantly asking for a email address so they could get access to ur account with just this on the new site if there in control of it that is but id always use a different email account to what the dwp has on record to avoid this not that they have mine in the first place.

    and how will this now integrate with uc as ujm was to be used for work search evidence full service ?

    superted

    April 19, 2018 at 8:52 pm

  20. I’ve had posting and doesn’t immediatly show on the blog its easy to post twice.Its still on UJ so looks like it is not a disgruntled employee I carn’t think why?

    It needs watching to see what they see.

    ken

    April 19, 2018 at 10:35 pm

    • Try refreshing your browser. Sometimes pages on blogs don’t auto-refresh to show recent posts.

      Percy S.

      April 20, 2018 at 9:49 am

      • Try turning your Internet Access Device (Web Connected Computer) on and off.

        IAD

        April 20, 2018 at 9:40 pm

  21. How the DWP is ridding itself of 40 years of technical debt
    The DWP’s IT estate had become convoluted and complex after four decades of outsourcing, but virtualisation and the public cloud is cutting through the tangle

    The next step was the introduction of Universal Credit: a new service that replaces more than 12 existing benefits payments, including Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support. It is a modern product based on microservices, with no legacy: “Instead of having to re-engineer 40 or 50 million lines of code, we started from scratch,”

    https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/3030538/how-the-dwp-is-ridding-itself-of-40-years-of-technical-debt

    ken

    April 19, 2018 at 10:39 pm

  22. Indeed. A big fucking delay! GET IT FIXED, COATES!!

    WS1

    April 20, 2018 at 8:26 am

  23. Councillor slams Universal Credit cap as 3 in 10 Newcastle children live in poverty

    If we tolerate this, child benefits will be next, a Newcastle City Councillor warned over the Government’s two-child cap on Universal Credit payments.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/councillor-slams-universal-credit-cap-14553015

    ken

    April 20, 2018 at 9:12 am

    • Here is a story doing the rounds. This is the version from our friends oop north. The comments are shall we say… interesting … 😉

      http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16161449.Family_of_14_living_in_four_bed_house_after_single_mum_s_housing_benefit_is_slashed_to_50P_a_week/

      Late Times

      April 20, 2018 at 6:51 pm

      • No sympathy from the hard-hearted Jocks and Jockinas:

        “Another tear jerker from someone whose life style choice is paid for by others i.e. me and thee. What they don’t tell us is how much cash does she actually rake in every week from our largesse? Only giving part of the story is simply bad journalism but then the whole point of the exercise is to demonise the Social and “wicked” policies isn’t it? Everybody has the capacity to make one mistake, after that you learn, she seems not to and has chosen her life path. I don’t want to pay for it.”

        William, this story was widely reported a few days ago in various papers, the weekly capped benefit allowance for someone/couple with children who live outside London is 384.62 pounds per week (no tax or national insurance is levied against this), so when Ms Newman had another child, the benefits associated with this took her over the 384.62 weekly threshold, so the DWP had to reassess her benefit entitlement,, however she will still be getting the maximum which is 384.62 weekly free of tax and national insurance.

        “If she worked a minimum of 16 hours per week, everything would be reinstated. However, the cynic in me thinks that the most telling comment made by Ms Newman, “”I went to a meeting at Cheltenham Borough Council and I was waiting for them to tell me what they could do to help us. I waited weeks and in the end my social worker told me that the council was not going to do anything.” So it’s, “my social worker” and “waiting for the council”, no personal responsibility whatsoever.”

        “Why is this story in the E.T. at all?
        We have our own homeless to show concern for!”

        “I dont think she will get much sympathy – having 6 kids you cant afford and allegedly no fathers for any of the kids apart from the 1st who died. Now if all the kids had been in that situation people would have sympathy for an unfortunate circumstance. But I agree with the other comments . She got pregnant with 5 other kids and she acting like we should all pay for her kids. Wrong attitude and people line her ruin the system for everyone else expecting everything put on a plate with no effort from her.”

        “What a truly worthless individual she is. A lazy waste of space who has spent most of her life pregnant which no doubt has prevented her from ever working. Why should anyone have to massage the rules to suit her? The chickens have come home to roost and she doesn`t like it, too bad. This is the type of case nationalists are usually all over with their share the wealth ideology and always blaming someone else.”

        “Your post doesn`t really make sense however “Spurious, unfounded nationalist claims” Who are you kidding? In Glasgow the nasty parties song of Benefits is what sways many voters and usually sung loudest by the utterly vile Mhairi Black. They oppose the Benefit cap for more than 2 children de blah de blah. If 5 feet of scary had her way, perhaps she would move the family into Bute House temporarily.
        That you condemn this woman` actions, is good for you. A chip off the old block you aint.
        Re “you are both as bad as each other” why, because I am a Unionist who believes we are responsible for our actions? what a bizarre comment and comparison. I don`t have 6 children and bleed the system dry hence I would thank you not to compare me with her in any way.”

        “how more money do they want kid after kid and no one works”

        “Wow , 33 and six children…….bizarre .”

        “Not so bizarre. Back in the day my mother had 6 children by 33. Big difference was, my Faither worked in the shipyards (remember them) and my Maw also did waitressing, cleaning etc. to care for us.”

        “Back in the day, TVs were in short supply and there was probably only 3 channels, but I could hazard a guess that Ms Newman has a 52″ Plasma TV with satellite channels.”

        “I bet your parents both knocked their pans in and still came home with less in their pay packets than these lazy ungrateful ‘entitled’ chancers are given !”

        Late Times

        April 20, 2018 at 6:59 pm

  24. Love this site 🙂 It is always ten steps ahead of the Jobcentre lol

    Tracy

    April 20, 2018 at 7:38 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: